American Politics for the 21^st Century

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 19^th 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!

Just because #MeToo not in news lately, don't forget the larger struggle -- against the institutions of patriarchy. It's a continuing political and social struggle!

Making of a Lefty

Populism Isn’t Only for the Right

William Sundwick

Things have changed in American politics over the last hundred years. In 1917, there was a Democratic Party that had embraced the soul of the Progressive Era (started by Republicans), seemingly dedicated to a “Fair Deal” for working men (and some women, mostly in the garment industry). There was a peace between the Democratic Party and capitalism based on capital’s earnest desire for labor. The coming war in Europe would further constrict the supply of labor. Big industrial employers were competing for workers – they were eager to accommodate the Left, at least that part of it that didn’t threaten their survival.

In 2017, however, we are looking at low growth in the short term … greater productivity of workers, for sure, but no labor shortage on the horizon. Both technology and immigration are reducing demand for American workers. And, with these economic changes, the political power of organized labor has dwindled to virtually nil.

Initially, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and its wave effect throughout the industrialized world, struck fear into the hearts of capitalists everywhere. They felt weak and vulnerable, and began to shore up their defenses. In the U.S., they invented an ideology: “The American Way” … it didn’t include any security for most industrial workers, and people of color were still excluded. But, we were “free,” they said. The Frontier, Horatio Alger and self-reliance, were heroic. Generations were indoctrinated accordingly.

The Left took a big hit. The Cold War didn’t help, when it seemed like the world was divided between two giant superpowers facing off – one “Communist” and one “Free.”

Saving Capitalism

There was an interruption to this story in the thirties and forties – capitalism nearly collapsed worldwide. It was saved by two things: rediscovery of that turn-of-the-century “progressivism,” and total mobilization of the state to fight an existential threat from fascism. The Soviet Union beat us at the latter, as their economy had been mobilized by the state since the Revolution.

In the United States, 1945 showed us that “The American Way” had triumphed … but, what really triumphed? Stalin would say the very same thing to people in his half of the world: “socialism” was triumphant. The Cold War seemed to prove both views correct!

The progressivism of FDR’s New Deal became institutionalized in the U.S. throughout the forties, fifties, sixties, even the seventies with Nixon-Ford-Carter. Both American parties subscribed to the same ideology, despite the still unacceptable public association with the Left (progressives became known as “liberals” in the U.S.).

The Socialist International of the nineteenth century became the basis for democratically elected center-left parties throughout western Europe, and Latin America. The term “liberal” was associated with center-right parties. The Soviet Union grew its own economy, along with its new imperial domain in eastern Europe, although at a somewhat slower pace than the West. By the end of the century, that competition finally got the best of the Soviets. They were ultimately outproduced into oblivion, probably due to structural weaknesses of their overly centralized economy.

But, “victory” in the Cold War did NOT come only because of the free market ideology of the Reagan years. Capitalism won because of those many decades of collaboration between industry and the state. It was the progressive left that saved it. Capital remained privately owned (or, publicly, through shareholders), but was subject to regulation by the state, for the common good. Fascism used a similar economic organization, but its “common good” was defined as furtherance of national interests vs. the rest of the world -- hence, World War II.

Post-Cold War, Dems Fail

By the beginning of the 21^st century, it was becoming increasingly clear that most American working- class people saw less hope in the future than their parents had known in the past century. The Russians hadn’t been their enemy, but powerful forces in their own society were. However, propaganda for the “American Way” intentionally made these forces difficult to identify.

Exceptions to this malaise were now people of color (POC), women, and those fortunate enough to find their way into growing economic sectors (tech), rather than retreating sectors (manufacturing). Everybody else tended to look backward rather than forward – they drifted to the right, politically. The Republican Party seized on this opportunity, since they had a similar group of supporters already (rural and small-town folks). Democrats started losing elections when Republicans portrayed them as the “powerful forces” keeping people down. As Dems were the leading proponents of the meritocracy of the professional class, there was some truth to the charge.

Those groups remaining tied to the Democratic Party thought their current favorable status, vis-à-vis the future, was a direct result of Democratic priorities. They won the presidency in 2008 and 2012, but otherwise were localized in the cosmopolitan urban centers of the coasts (and Chicago) … there were many of them, but they WERE the privileged class in America!

I am one of them, but hopefully I can see that I don’t represent the majority.

The Impoverished

The majority in America are not people like me. They are people who couldn’t afford college, and weren’t eligible for sufficiently debt-free financial aid. They are younger. They struggle. They won’t have many resources to pass on to their children, either. Their skills may well be in dying occupations. They need relief, and mostly it’s Republican politicians who promise it … by favoring their employers, and their communities.

When Democrats attempt the same, they are generally bargaining with capitalism from weakness. In high growth sectors (like tech), they’ve sometimes managed to work with entrepreneurs. But, entrepreneurship tends to breed reaction … from the established money, their competitors in the market. Entrepreneurship is so twenty-five years ago, not so much now. The Citizens United decision of 2010 sealed the fate of any attempts to influence elections with “grass roots” support alone.

Democrats are now left competing for the same big donors that Republicans use. This requires them to cater to capitalist-centric interests, and remain silent on opposing interests – like things that benefit workers. Only the most cynical (or courageous) donors would take a chance on a politician who travels around campaigning on any kind of restrictions, much less any outright attack, on them. Instead, Dems will usually be content to emphasize positions which support their established base, and have no economic consequences for their big donors. They are never allowed to grow that base, they are always on the defensive.

Those “Deplorables”

The 2016 election did something profound. It etched in clear relief who was on which side. That traditional blue-collar workforce (both male and female, but white) voted overwhelmingly for the candidate of the right: Donald Trump. Other parts of the Democratic coalition held, but turnout was lower than for Obama’s two elections. In the end, the “band of deplorables,” as Clinton memorably named them, won.

The Left needs to get them back. As “deplorable” as they seem, it seems to me that an economic message about capitalism may be just the ticket to get their attention in the 21^st century. If enough people can be convinced that they have something in common with the other cultural groups that remain in the Democratic coalition, Dems can start winning again. Since they are in no danger of losing any more of their base, the time is ripe to think about expansion. And, the most promising avenue for this strategy is to “go left.” Here’s why …

1.    Only old people who remember the Cold War have any negative association with socialism (maybe some “Gen X” libertarians, too … but, they can either vote for a third party, or Republicans, they’re not needed for a left coalition).

2.       Given a few more election cycles, the old folks will die out.

3.       White racism, sexism, social conservatism are all expressions of frustration about not knowing how to deal with “the other” … social engineering (via advertising, social media, and entertainment) can easily remedy that, helping people cope with others. Millennials already have this covered. People in large urban areas are better equipped than those in rural areas and small towns – and, they’re more numerous!

4.       The main thing that keeps people from participating in the democratic process is lack of trust in candidates for elected office – there’s a stench of corruption around the whole thing that keeps many from even voting. Openness about financing would go a long way to help this.

The formula for a winning “lefty” candidate, then, would be one who could marshal the hearts and minds of young people struggling economically, but who have never learned to hate any groups competing with them for the crumbs at the bottom of the food chain. The final ingredient would be willingness of the candidate to fully disclose where their money comes from, and why they’re proud to represent those interests! Yes, some big money IS from socially responsible organizations, or individuals. It should not be a handicap to get large donations from George Soros or Donald Sussman.

Barack Obama managed to marshal those young hearts and minds, but faltered on the openness requirement – even though it dogged his party more than him.

So, what’s stopping the Democratic Party from fielding candidates like this? They sometimes do, but a primary challenge of incumbents, or their designated successors, may be required (as in Virginia this month). Primaries can be just as brutal as general elections against Republicans, if not handled adroitly. The incumbents have lots of resources, and loyal networks of people they have helped (or, who think they’ve been helped).

What Is To Be Done?

Message to idealistic young people who want to push “lefty” candidates for office: keep trying, always resist attempts to divide voters along cultural lines (don’t talk about “deplorables”), your political foe is a competitor, not an enemy. And, think about the larger community your candidate seeks to serve – it may be an opportunity to build a new network. Remember, you’re probably luckier than most people in the community – don’t forget that privilege. Share your talents, don’t use them as weapons.

Be like Vera Pavlovna, the main character in the 1863 Chernyshevsky novel, Chto delat’.

Once you’ve committed yourself to social justice (to “the revolution”), and become a genuine “lefty” like me, you need to appreciate that change is a big job … indeed, it will likely take many election cycles, uninterrupted by reaction, with many people working toward the same goals.

Your goals are to reduce wealth inequality, and to be sensitive to various emotional and cultural predispositions in your community. Your tools are organizing, contributing, and steadfastness in your dedication to justice.

Whatever you do, it won’t be enough – even if your candidate prevails, they need to be re-elected to complete their mission. If they fail, another candidate will need to take their place. The candidates themselves are only means to an end.

And, others will be needed to take your place, as well – they will be there when you lose your resolve. 

New party comin' round in USA? I could join ... maybe takeover of Dems is a bit much, tho'!