One of the last times I wrote about politics in this blog
(having made the futile promise to myself to stay clear of the topic to
preserve my sanity), was after the midterm elections: “I had only one wish for the Midterms: gain
the House, although like most moderate progressives, I was rooting for Beto,
Gillum, et al. Still, I sleepily emailed
ebullient messages to a few friends at 3.00 AM declaring ‘victory’ with the
subject heading ‘bring on the subpoenas.’”
How naïve I was. We
now all know the effectiveness of subpoenas when the Attorney General is a
shill for those under scrutiny. Instead,
investigate the investigators his boss suggests.
For a while I fantasized that maybe indeed Biden might be
the best qualified candidate to “unite” the nation and make nice with the
Republican Party so things can get done. It was a dreadful, misplaced hope I now think.
Remember the Merrick! (Merrick
Garland, that is, the Obama appointee to the Supreme Court who was kneecapped
by Mitch McConnell.)
The critical nature of winning the 2020 election is no
better spelled out than in a recent article in The Nation by Edward Burmila, “Empty Calls for Bipartisanship Could Doom Us All.”
Among his salient points are the following:
*Joe Biden’s
assertion that President Donald Trump is an “aberration” in the Republican
Party is naive at best and revisionist at worst
*Birtherism and Tea
Party rhetoric about taking back “our” country were a product rollout, a test
marketing of Trump’s politics of white identity
*The Democratic
Party seems unable to recognize the seriousness of the moment. It is only luck
that the right has not yet found a skilled autocrat
*Imagine what that
person could accomplish with the support of a pliant Republican Senate and
conservative-packed federal judiciary
*The Democratic
Party has an opportunity to influence what happens next. It will not do so with
empty promises to unite Americans.
*It is imperative
that the eventual Democratic nominee articulate a worldview based on the belief
that public policy, not markets, can address social and economic problems, with
specific proposals to that end. If ever there was a time to be bold rather than
to play it safe, this is it. Without a compelling alternative, ideologues like
Trump will succeed by filling the vacuum with a simple—and vile—worldview.
OK, then, what kind of public policy? We are dealing with a populace who is anti
government everything. Bring on chaos is
their mantra. They have it with their
leader. The conventional extreme left progressive “wisdom” of promising to take
care of everyone from cradle to grave is not going to sweep Trump and sycophant
Republicans out of office. This is where
I disagree with the implication of Burmila’s argument. There must be a place for “markets” or
progressives will merely defeat themselves.
But I agree with the urgency of Burmila’s call to action. Boldness is required.
This is underscored by Bret Stephens’ opinion column in
the New York Times this weekend, “How Trump Wins Next Year”
He argues that around the world recent elections have ushered
in Trumpian populists or have solidified ones already in office, in India,
Australia, the Philippines, Israel, Brazil, and Italy – and what is about to
happen in the UK.
The core of Stephens’ line of reasoning is:
The common thread
here isn’t just right-wing populism. It’s contempt for the ideology of them
before us: of the immigrant before the native-born; of the global or
transnational interest before the national or local one; of racial or ethnic or
sexual minorities before the majority; of the transgressive before the normal.
It’s a revolt against the people who say: Pay an immediate and visible price
for a long-term and invisible good. It’s hatred of those who think they can
define that good, while expecting someone else to pay for it.
When protests
erupted last year in France over Emmanuel Macron’s attempt to raise gas prices
for the sake of the climate, one gilets jaunes slogan captured the core
complaint: “Macron is concerned with the end of the world,” it went, while “we
are concerned with the end of the month.”
Stephens accurately accuses the left of being their own
worst enemy: … it self-consciously
approaches politics as a struggle against selfishness, and partly because it has
invested itself so deeply, and increasingly inflexibly, on issues such as
climate change or immigration. Whatever else might be said about this, it’s a
recipe for nonstop political defeat leavened only by a sensation of moral
superiority.
He makes the point, and here is where my thinking and his
especially conjoin, that moderate liberals of the past, a Tony Blair or a Bill
Clinton -- and while neither could be held up as perfect politicians (in
particular Clinton’s moral failures) -- that neither would ever have been bested by someone like Trump.
So where is that person?
Far be it for me to speculate who that should be. Perhaps as the primaries develop that person
will emerge, but I fear that if it is someone from the far left or a
reach-across-the-aisle placater singing 'Kumbaya', we will have missed our
opportunity to turn back this wave of populist, know-nothing, nihilism.
