Posts
Making the Old New Again
William Sundwick
Something has happened to the American political order in
the last few years – both before and since the last Presidential election.
Neither major political party is “your father’s” Democratic or Republican
Party. Partisans in both parties are convinced that the nation they were taught
to love and cherish is in grave danger. Yet, no clear signs of a path forward
are visible. Is the reality of party politics so different from past elections?
Or, are differences merely more amplified now, since the political center seems
to have collapsed? How much time do we have to get our house in order? Does it
even matter? And, if it does, what can we do?
I maintain that it does matter, and time is short enough
that we must begin now to cement our legacy. We need to prepare the next
generation of Americans for their ultimate responsibility -- saving the Republic!
What happened?
It’s a fuzzy timeline, but sometime during the Carter
administration (late ‘70s), the Democratic Party started its long, slow
disintegration. At first, it was mostly about Democratic voters disenchanted with
a lot of semi-amateurish pols clumsy at maneuvering the machinery of government
and diplomacy (Hamilton Jordan,
Zbigniew Brzezinksi). Only when Carter lost his re-election bid,
after a primary challenge from Ted Kennedy, did it become clear that bad things
were happening in the Party. Ronald Reagan was given the undeserved gift of an
opposition increasingly embroiled in its own internal dissensions. Those only
increased in intensity through the 1980s. A three-way election in 1992 allowed
the ultimate Democratic assassin, Bill Clinton, to emerge as the unlikely party
leader. His “Third Way” centrist
cabal, touted as the Democratic Party of the “future,” amounted to the Party’s
surrender of principles going back to the New Deal and Great Society.
Meanwhile, a new ideology was growing in America. It was an
ideology from the right. As the Cold War waned, all those John
Birch Society anti-communist hawks needed a new target. They had
money, mostly from oil. Their money was behind Goldwater in the sixties, too,
but wasn’t as well-organized then. The Koch brothers became the new czars of
the movement. They bought influence and politicians. They even bought academic
institutions (like the Libertarian economics department at George
Mason University here in Virginia).
Simultaneously, perhaps due to some of the same money (no
evidence here – just my conspiracy theory), many religious denominations --
including factions of the College of Cardinals -- found success by touting
fundamentalist, very conservative social interpretations of America. Protestants
called themselves “Evangelical” – as in spreading the Gospel – but were, in fact,
spreading a quite different theology than other Christian and Jewish religious
traditions.
Both groups shared a common seething anger at the
established social order. They became obsessed with a radical “burn the house
down” apocalyptic vision. Only true believers would be lifted up in the “shining
city on the hill” that President Reagan referenced. The others be
damned!
Thus, the conservative “revolution” had two legs –
Libertarian-oriented billions from the Koch’s and others, and devoted religious
followers of many denominations, especially in the heartland and the South.
Only the third leg was missing -- an appealing messenger. Reagan was soothing,
George W. Bush was folksy – but, it took Donald Trump to make the message visceral!
Hadn’t Obama’s two terms undone any of this? Nope. He, and
the Democratic Party, were far too devoted to compromise. His “Kumbaya
moments” with Republicans continued to seal the fate of
progressivism in the Democratic Party that began in the Clinton years.
Are We Really in Decline?
Many Americans are in a political funk these days. They feel
separated from the power structure and are resentful of it. Democracy as an
ideology seems to be in decline– not just in the U.S., but around the world.
Much of it has to do with the colossal growth in the power of multinational
corporations. They seem to be a higher sovereignty than the nations that host
them. And, they are not necessarily public, either. They may be closely held, even family owned.
The Trump Organization and Kushner family enterprises are not atypical around
the world. Still, much of the world’s population is now focusing its hopes and
aspirations on these corporate powers, not their own country. It’s called
“globalization.” And, it has its own political ideology – known as “neoliberalism.”
Neoliberals have no national allegiances, but only worship the global market.
True enough, this ideology promotes international peace, but tends to
exacerbate class and race warfare. It may even have created a counter-ideology,
“neo-Marxism,”
While much of the world is now experiencing a great
expansion of their economies, largely because of the new global order, it’s
notable that they are mostly countries with non-white
populations (not Europeans and white Americans). Racial conflict ensues. White
folks don’t generally have rising expectations these days.
But, if we remain objective about the world’s condition, we
must acknowledge that the bulk of the world population improving its lives is a
net plus, right? It’s just that in a zero-sum game some will be losers. Even if
it’s not a zero-sum game, people may be hard to convince. After all, their own
experience hasn’t given them much hope, lately. Also, powerful interests
outside the global power structure want to take advantage of these fears. They
include some members of the military class, who would benefit from armed
conflict, some religious groups who would also benefit from that “us vs. them”
rubric, and political demagogues who win by inflaming the emotions of
self-perceived “losers.”
American politics is now at the point where we need to give
a sober assessment of what we really want to preserve about our society. Is it
participatory democracy? Civil and human rights? Freedom of expression? We may
need some targeted priorities for the next few election cycles.
Whatever happened to third parties in America?
Politics in the United States has been dominated by two
parties since the earliest days of the Republic. When either of the two main
parties loses too often, so that a large portion of their supporters feels they
must leave, third parties emerge. This happened to the Federalists, who died
and were replaced by Whigs, who later cast off their anti-abolitionist
constituencies and emerged as Republicans. Socialists, influenced by Marx and
others, popped up in the late 19th century, then were co-opted by
Democrats in the New Deal era.
In the mid-twentieth century, a traditionally Democratic
constituency of white folks in the South (Democrats since Andrew Jackson) split
off from the New Deal national Democratic Party when it became too concerned
about racial equality. Dixiecrats, and George Wallace’s American Independent
Party, were third parties until co-opted by Nixon’s national Republican Party.
Meanwhile, other Republicans, alienated by this new
direction in their party, bolted to form a Libertarian Party (in 1992,
Pierrot’s Independent presidential bid was Libertarian without the name). Ralph
Nader formed a Green Party for the 2000 election, which never achieved a
coherent ideology, mostly co-opted by the Democrats.
Depending on the
strength of the group bolting from the major party, the third parties either
replace the old party, or are co-opted by a major party. This is American
political history. The 2016 election campaign was another chapter in this saga.
The Republican Party was captured by an outsider, who had no long association
with the Party, and the Democratic Party was once again rent by internal
disaffection. The ultimate losing formula for them was the product of a bitter
primary fight – reminiscent of the 1980
rift between the “Carterites” and “Kennedyites.” In both cases, the
strength of the insurgents was enough to sap the ultimate nominee of the
support needed to win. The Republican Party had the good sense to avoid such
open warfare -- the “NeverTrumpians” voices didn’t rise to the same pitch as
the Democrats’ divisions.
Now, Donald Trump’s Party, despite being only the party of
white people, commands all those who wear the Republican label. It is not too
fringy, nor too racist, nor too extreme by any measure, if you are intent upon
avoiding voting for a Democrat. There are no significant third parties in
America today.
The Wave Theory of Politics
Americans like divided government, checks and balances seem
to have historical appeal. That’s why off-year midterm elections generally
favor the opposition party. Voters don’t have enough trust in either party to
put all their eggs in that one basket. In recent memory, 1986, 1994, 2006, 2010
and 2014 all support this hypothesis.
The idea of a pendulum swinging, always seeking equilibrium
– the middle ground – works in physics but is questionable in politics. The
alternate model of politics is that the pendulum swings proportional to force
applied, not necessarily seeking the middle. It’s not gravity that determines
its motion. This model allows for anger and frustration of voters, and simple
boredom -- what do we have to lose? Let’s burn it down and see what happens!
Which model you choose depends on your assessment of how
much time we have. If we are racing toward the Apocalypse, putting a finger in
the dike may have limited value. But, if we place our faith in social
engineering solutions -- tuning here and tweaking there -- we may avert the total
collapse of civilization, even if forced to choose which features we really
care about saving. Planetary disasters from climate change, mass extinctions,
and nuclear war may be avoidable with the proper attention to engineering,
either technological or social.
Then, there is the position of social resignation, the
apocalyptic vision. Yes, civilization as we know it may come to an end sooner
rather than later, but in the fullness of God’s plan, something will replace it. All empires have finite lifespans– the
Roman Empire lasted only about 400 years, the British Empire barely 200. How
much more time can we reasonably expect for the American Empire? We typically
see American Evangelical Protestants subscribing to this position but insist
THEY will be the ones to prevail in the end.
The youngsters
When I look at the world, and especially American politics,
I see a future populated by people younger than me. I see my kids in charge. I
think they have what it takes to make that old optimism new again. Their idealism
surpasses my own. It comes from knowing what they want, and how things should be, and in part from their
innocence. That’s not a bad thing. Their clarity of vision correctly identifies
obfuscation as an excuse for compromise.
I’ve seen them in action in political campaigns. They are
willing to put in the hours and the shoe leather needed for grassroots support
of candidates they believe in. Of course, all this is subject to change once
they find themselves in power. Compromising their principles will become a
matter of survival, and quid pro quo
arrangements will sap their youthful energy. Getting their candidate into
office may prove to be a lesser challenge than staying there!
But, still, their values appear to be those I’m proudest to
pass on. After all, they have a lot more at stake in the future than I do!
No comments:
Post a Comment