Most decent folk continue to struggle
with how to make sense of the fact that fellow Americans elected, and some
continue to support, Donald Trump.
I share that struggle. This commentary,
pasted in full below, from the Wall Street Journal is written by a long
time Democratic Party activist and provides some useful clarity as we head into
the important midterm elections. You can find the commentary here.
‘Democrats are determined to remove President
Trump from office in 2020—or before, if that becomes possible. If precedent
holds, he can be unseated in 2020 by a candidate perceived as his opposite:
experienced, serious, knowledgeable about policy. If Democrats attempt to rush
the process, amid current charges that Mr. Trump is a “traitor” and Russian
agent and that his Supreme Court nominee is an extremist, they will further
energize their take-it-to-the-streets wing but alienate all but partisan
Northeast and Pacific Coast voters.’
Smart. If the objective is win an election, rather than score
points in a debate, we need to do all we can to avoid ‘alienating all but our
own partisan extreme wing.’
‘The present political and media rage over Mr. Trump’s
alleged sellout to Vladimir Putin is an overreach. Any damage done at their
recent summit pales compared with the effects, for instance, of the earlier
Yalta Summit at which Stalin got a dying President Franklin D. Roosevelt to
cede him Eastern Europe, or the Khrushchev-Kennedy Vienna Summit, which led to
the Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin Crisis and a huge buildup of U.S. ICBM forces
and budget. Mr. Trump stumbled in Helsinki, but stumbles do not amount to
treason.’
Fair point. Because I am embarrassed to have this man as my
president, part of me is eager to see every stumble as another confirmation of
my deeply held belief that he is the most indecent and dangerous president in
my life time. I did not call the Helsinki summit treason, but I could have.
Some historical perspective rightly tempers any conclusions for now. It might
turn out to be a disaster, even treason, but on the basis of what we know now
it is just more of the same appalling ignorance on display.
‘Democrats and some media are now calling for Mr. Trump’s
impeachment, presuming that a post-November Democratic House majority would
bring such a vote. But it is a risky strategy that would polarize Americans
deeply. The case against him would have to be airtight and based on
indisputable fact. Otherwise Mr. Trump would be strengthened rather than
harmed.’
Also smart. Unless Mueller provides an iron-clad case, even if
we win back the House, impeachment may not work. Note: this is not saying it
would not feel good & right. But if it ends up strengthening Trump—I want
no part of it.
‘Democrats should take a fresh look at why and how Mr.
Trump won the 2016 election. The party’s national leadership claims it was
because of support from white supremacists, religious nuts, nativists,
misogynists and Latino-haters. This is a failure to recognize what actually
happened. President Trump was the consequence—not the cause—of a nationwide
loss of confidence in all of the American establishment: political, media,
cultural, business, financial. Sen. Bernie Sanders played on similar sentiments
on the Democratic side and, had he known his potential sooner, could have won
his party’s nomination.’
This is highly contested territory, but my sense is that Van Dyk
is on point here as well. The weakness of HRC’s candidacy fits into this
analytical frame. The willingness to overlook the ----- grabbing tapes, bankruptcies,
clear ignorance on policy, obvious arrested development also fit into this
frame. Most progressives, if they are honest, would admit that pre-Trump we
were all putting our own lost confidence in our major institutions at the top
of our own list of concerns. In an odd way, Trump’s administration vindicates the
progressive version of this same fear.
‘Most voters knew before the election that Mr. Trump was a
crude, freewheeling, womanizing egotist, a man who very well might finance his
ventures with money from sketchy sources. They discounted all those negative
factors because he was so obviously different from the establishment candidates
in whom they had lost trust. Think about it: In one campaign, Mr. Trump
polished off the Bushes, the Clintons, and even Ted Cruz. Voters did not love
Mr. Trump; they rejected the other guys.’
So obviously different. After years of frustration watching us
cycle from one party to the other with little apparent improvement, being
obviously different has value, as we say in the election. No one can deny that
he was then, and remains today, so obviously different.
‘So where does that leave Democrats? A writer at the
Washington Post recently put together a list of the top Democratic presidential
contenders for 2020. Ranked first, not surprisingly, was Mr. Sanders, given his
strong 2016 showing. Also near the top was former Vice President Joe Biden, who
relates well to middle-American voters. But most of the rest of the contenders
take an angry, accusatory line toward Mr. Trump. Leading the pack were Sens.
Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, from Massachusetts and California,
respectively, where bashing the president earns cheers from the party faithful.
Shrill attacks and identity politics got a strong start
during Bill Clinton’s two presidential terms. Under fire on multiple fronts,
the Clinton White House took an aggressive posture toward critics, asserting
that it was just “fighting back.” Democrats repeated that pattern in President
Obama’s 2012 campaign. They labeled Mitt Romney, a temperate former governor of
Massachusetts, as antiwoman, antigay, antiblack, anti-Latino, anti-immigrant
and a tool of big finance. That theme worked so well that Democrats repeated it
in congressional races two years later. Now the beat goes on, only stronger,
against Mr. Trump.’
Neither identity politics nor shrill attacks started during the
Clinton presidency. At the same time, it is not inaccurate to say both were
deployed by our side.
‘There are some basic misapprehensions here. Most voters
see abortion and gay rights as accepted issues and wonder why Democrats present
them as threatened. They do not see racism as on the rise or the country as
moving back toward Jim Crow. On the contrary, they see several decades in which
the barriers to equal opportunity, legal or otherwise, have been steadily
dismantled. They do worry about the problems of big-city neighborhoods:
violence, drug use, broken families, unemployment, daunting dropout and
incarceration rates. But they see little evidence that “white privilege” is the
cause. They like immigrants and refugees but generally believe everyone should
take a legal path to citizenship.’
This is where it gets tough to stay focused on winning the
midterms. Here Van Dyk is making claims about what ‘most voters’ think and
believe. So, my first reaction (that I do not believe these statements to be
accurate) is not relevant. Then I ask myself: is it accurate to say that many
voters unlike me believe these to be true…and it is difficult for me to deny
that this is possible, perhaps likely. Most Americans are pragmatic and (until
very recently) far less partisan than our party leaders and activists, so these
very moderate positions both overstate our progress on race and poverty while
also capturing the voters we need to reach out to right now.
‘National security and the economy are the two principal
issues in any presidential campaign. The Trump record in both those realms
should be critiqued by Democrats. They should, in turn, offer credible
alternative policies. If they do, and their presidential candidate seems
reasonable, Democrats can reclaim the White House in 2020 not through a
constitutional crisis but through a free election and with a popular mandate.
My own guess: By 2020, Mr. Trump will have fatigued the
public. Voters will be turned off by him, just as they were in turn by the
Johnson, Nixon and Carter presidencies. They will want to see another face on
their TV sets. The danger is that Democrats by then may have fatigued the
public even more.’
Van Dyk
concludes that angry narratives highlighting white privilege (or any type of
identity politics) and casting Trump (and by extension anyone who does not
share a deep existential disgust with Trump) as a traitorous villain will lose.
For voters who are mobilized by these narratives, Van Dyk would advise, let
them be mobilized on the basis of Trump’s daily tweet storm. No need to fan
these flames, Trump is doing just fine on that front all by himself.
Instead,
focus on the harm-causing policies of this administration and offer thoughtful,
family-friendly, alternatives that are easy to understand and make sense to an
average voter who is not a policy wonk. Be the change here means to enact in
our candidates and our platforms the reasonable alternative, the option that
promises to help families and strengthen our democratic institutions.
Summing up…
- We are struggling on many fronts.
- Step one to addressing our struggles is to contain this president before he gets us into a war or gets re-elected to complete his environmental destruction.
- To do this we must avoid ‘alienating all but our own partisan extreme wing.’ This is election 101. We cannot win with just people like us sharing our anger.
- As good and right as it feels to make criticism of Trump our central guidance system…this replicates Trump’s own anti-Obama guidance system…and risks strengthening the forces we need to weaken.
- Because many of us have lost confidence in our major institutions, we should be able to find room in our hearts to believe that some (clearly not all) Trump supporters are also decent folks we want to rejoin our coalition.
- A big tent party cannot purge identity politics or shrill attacks, but to the degree that these alone become our brand we will lose.
- Most Americans are pragmatic and want to hear how leaders plan to solve problems and improve their lives.
- Focus on policy. Speak clearly. Be the reasonable alternative. Our audience is not ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment