It isn't just the virus that is wrong.
Our institutions are broken, the GOP is broken, and the Democrats have nobody.
A Guest Post writer shares his perspective on the current state of damage. The author is about my age --70, a Boomer-- who has for decades held sensitive jobs at the intersection of technology, publishing, and government, and therefore says he must remain anonymous.
He writes that Trump's election and style of government were possible because we let our institutions become damaged, because the GOP's central purpose is to resist Democrats, and because Democrats lack a leader with the charisma to be a game changer. He wrote this comment earlier this week. This is an edited and re-purposed version of his thoughts.
Guest Post
Damaged government. The Trump regime seriously damaged our governmental institutions. It would probably take two terms with a Democratic President and Congress to heal the legislative and executive branches. Congress abandoned standing up for its war power or the power of the purse. The president is center stage, and if he is highhanded and lawless, the American people are OK with it. So is Congress. Without packing the court, I think the judiciary will take longer than eight years, and the consequences are equally bad. A cowardly gridlocked Congress pushed the hard issues to the courts: when human life begins; rights for homosexuals; gun regulation; gerrymandering; voting procedures. Unelected judges with lifetime appointments make sensitive policy decisions. Without packing the court or impeaching Kavenaugh, I don't think there's much hope of serious reform.
Damaged Republican Party. It is possible that the hijacked Republican brand will be remain damaged a long time. The Trump core will continue its sway over more than one-third of the country and much more than a third of the Senate for quite a while. They are not policy driven. They are as much a collection of identity groups as are Democrats, with our women, blacks, Latinix, progressives. Republicans are an association of the ostensibly religious, the gun people, the tax cutters, the climate change skeptics, the anti-immigrant people, the flag wavers, the race bigots and the people who were OK with dog whistles and who think that Democrats are too quick to cry "racist." They are held together by the common belief that we -- Democrats, progressives, the MSM, blue state residents and RINOs -- are the enemy, a palpable threat to what they hold dear. We seem judgmental and smug to them--and they hate it.
The Republican brand will stay damaged because the culture war isn't over and people have sorted themselves geographically by neighborhood, housing density, and region. Tulsa isn't Berkeley. Trumpism is good politics and good business, too. There is a conservative ecosystem of publishing, think tanks, TV, radio, websites, mega churches. It is maintained by an array of institutions and individuals, of which Trump is only one. Trump is in it for the glory of being in the spotlight, but there are strong economic incentives to keeping the base riled up. That group will endure unless Democrats can find some way to weaken its ecosystem.
Or maybe Trump will do it for us. In a post-Trump presidency, he and his children may start a rival news network, one even more slavishly pro-Trump than Fox.
Damaged Democrats. I don't think Biden will accomplish much, but nor would Bernie, Elizabeth, or Andrew. Any of them would be surrounded by competent and motivated people doing their best in an insane country. However, unless the president is exceptionally charismatic, like Trump, nothing much will change. Republican opposition is real and the courts are against us now. I had hoped Obama had that charisma, but he didn't have the votes or the stamina. Bernie's charismatic light glows the brightest of this group, but I think we've seen its limits and, to my regret, Elizabeth's glow is smaller, partially obscured by misogyny. Andrew's charisma is situational, like Giuliani's, and I don't think it is sustainable at current levels over the long haul.
We have Biden, and his critics on the left are correct. Not much will change. Not much can change.
Damaged Republican Party. It is possible that the hijacked Republican brand will be remain damaged a long time. The Trump core will continue its sway over more than one-third of the country and much more than a third of the Senate for quite a while. They are not policy driven. They are as much a collection of identity groups as are Democrats, with our women, blacks, Latinix, progressives. Republicans are an association of the ostensibly religious, the gun people, the tax cutters, the climate change skeptics, the anti-immigrant people, the flag wavers, the race bigots and the people who were OK with dog whistles and who think that Democrats are too quick to cry "racist." They are held together by the common belief that we -- Democrats, progressives, the MSM, blue state residents and RINOs -- are the enemy, a palpable threat to what they hold dear. We seem judgmental and smug to them--and they hate it.
The Republican brand will stay damaged because the culture war isn't over and people have sorted themselves geographically by neighborhood, housing density, and region. Tulsa isn't Berkeley. Trumpism is good politics and good business, too. There is a conservative ecosystem of publishing, think tanks, TV, radio, websites, mega churches. It is maintained by an array of institutions and individuals, of which Trump is only one. Trump is in it for the glory of being in the spotlight, but there are strong economic incentives to keeping the base riled up. That group will endure unless Democrats can find some way to weaken its ecosystem.
Or maybe Trump will do it for us. In a post-Trump presidency, he and his children may start a rival news network, one even more slavishly pro-Trump than Fox.
Damaged Democrats. I don't think Biden will accomplish much, but nor would Bernie, Elizabeth, or Andrew. Any of them would be surrounded by competent and motivated people doing their best in an insane country. However, unless the president is exceptionally charismatic, like Trump, nothing much will change. Republican opposition is real and the courts are against us now. I had hoped Obama had that charisma, but he didn't have the votes or the stamina. Bernie's charismatic light glows the brightest of this group, but I think we've seen its limits and, to my regret, Elizabeth's glow is smaller, partially obscured by misogyny. Andrew's charisma is situational, like Giuliani's, and I don't think it is sustainable at current levels over the long haul.
We have Biden, and his critics on the left are correct. Not much will change. Not much can change.
6 comments:
"Biden is winning the Democratic nomination on the basis of not being Bernie Sanders and wants to get elected president on the basis of not being Donald Trump. He’s as purely a negative candidate as we’ve seen in a very long time, running largely on who he isn’t and what he won’t do."--Liz Eliott on FB
The Duopoly has led us to this moment; both political machines embracing Thatcherism, Reaganism, Ayn Randism, neoliberalism...whatever you want to call the abandonment of the working class, the middle class.
American citizens just can't seem to get enough of...what...they...don't...need.
History knows where all of this will inevitably lead and, I believe, each of us probably knows deep down inside, if we listen to that "still small voice" that this current course is socially, economically, racially and environmentally unsustainable.
Andy Seles
Part 1
I'm going to focus on one quote from today's post:
The race bigots and the people who were OK with dog whistles and who think that Democrats are too quick to cry "racist."
This is a huge part of how people on your side helped elect Donald Trump. You have no idea how fed up people in this country are with the left's incessant accusations of racism.
The left talks about "disparities." Any "disparity," according to them, is conclusive proof of "racism," regardless of what actually might be going on. This tactic has a long history. In New York City in the early 1970s (or maybe the late 1960s), there was a civil service exam for police sergeant. "Not enough" blacks passed that test, and the Black Police Sergeant's organization sued the city over it. They said the test was racially biased. So the city said to them, "OK, you design the test. That way we can all be sure it isn't racist." So the black police sergeants hired some experts and put a test together. The test was given. "Not enough" Blacks passed the new test, and the black police sergeants sued the city again. In other words, nothing that produced a "disparity" was acceptable, regardless of who put it together or whether it was actually "racist."
When affirmative action was instituted, there was a promise that it would not become quotas. But that's exactly what happened, and that's exactly what the left is pushing when they talk about "diversity," even though they won't come right out and say it.
The word "racism" has powerful emotional images built into it: peaceful black civil rights marchers being attacked with police dogs and fire hoses. Burning crosses. Lynchings. When you accuse someone of "racism," you're painting them with that brush.
Part 2
The left has figured out a powerful tactic: redefine the word "racism" to mean something completely different (produces "disparities"), but keep the powerful emotions from the earlier definition (dogs, fire hoses, lynchings) to use as a rhetorical club on people who oppose left-wing policies.
When you accuse me of "racism," you're painting me with that brush. I refuse to allow you to get away with it. You talk about "dog whistles." That's way too easy for you. That's a free pass for you to pull the pin out of that rhetorical grenade and toss it at me anytime I disagree with you.
Damned right the Democrats are too quick to cry "racist." They lob that grenade at all sorts of people who are not anything like the Southern segregationists. They redefine the word and talk about abstractions like "structural racism," that are so vague they could be applied to just about anything. But the r-word still has residual power, and when they use it, they're basically accusing their target of being a member of the Klan.
The targets do not appreciate it. During the Tea Party movement, I remember seeing a sign that said, "It doesn't matter what this sign says, because you'll call it racist anyway."
I grew up in the 1950s. I was totally signed up with the civil rights movement of that era. I remember a cute commercial on TV from then which had a peach pit and an apple core singing, "As the peach pit said to the apple core, the color of our skin doesn't matter anymore." I believed in that. Still do.
In college in the 1960s, I was a member of the college chapter of CORE. But then 1967 came, SNCC kicked out all the white people, and the message of the movement morphed from, "Black and white together, we shall not be moved" to "Hate Whitey." I wasn't about to be part of the movement that hated me. It's incompatible with self-respect. I wasn't ever going to be with the Southern segregationists, but I was no longer with the movement either.
Your post accurately represents one side of our political polarization. You express scorn and contempt for the other side. Your post does not contain a shred of empathy or compassion for that other side. It’s a declaration of political war.
I didn't vote for Donald Trump. I don't particularly like Donald Trump. But I love the way he shreds political correctness.
This country needs to overcome the polarization and come together somehow. That's not going to happen by your side rolling over and crushing the other side. You might actually want to consider that people on the other side of the polarization are also decent human beings who have valid concerns.
Hillary called us "deplorables." Your post was right in that same vein. It's likely that neither side is going to definitively win this war. Maybe it's time to try for some sort of peace instead.
Michael - re: racism - love your passion. I'm 10 years behind you - grew up in the 60's and 70's and worked construction in Boston (Roxbury actually) during 70's school desegregation and busing. It was scary to be white working in a black neighborhood then. I wasn't very politically engaged so all I knew is I felt very threatened going to the job site each day.
Fast forward 20 years as a construction consultant, working pro bono for a group of black churches in Tacoma Washington; to rebuild one of their church buildings that had been destroyed by arson.
I thought I was this progressive-thinking bridge-builder. Whoooeee was I in for a surprise. After working for months with the "black community" (there was no "white community" by the way, although there may be kind of one now); I came to this stark realization that I was by some measure "a racist". And I when I mentioned it to the group of Pastors and Black community leaders with whom I was working - they laughed and said "of course you are". That was a watershed moment for me. My personal history and experiences had shaped my impulses and biases and there was no denying it. It wasn't seen as a character flaw, but just a practical reality of which we all had to be mindful.
It was remarkably freeing for everyone actually, but it took a dose of humility and grace by all parties. It meant recognition that we all have built-in responses about cultural norms, expectations, biases and the like. We agreed to deal with missed expectations quickly and with grace. Granted, we had a contained mission of limited duration but I learned that honest self-reflection and admission is the fastest way to building good will and trust. I don't think a flourishing society can be possible without some level of trust.
How this could play out in our society writ large is beyond my ability to figure out. But as long as we get defensive and point blame - we'll never heal the wounds of 350 years of embedded racism.
A BUNCH A WHITE GUYS...
Correct me if I’m wrong ... a bunch a middle class white guys sittin’ around talking shit about racism. I too am a coverted bigot and as a ma fa white honkie I got no business callin’ who is black enough or white enough to call what is even racism. As the master race we define the discussion, we weep tears and sing while snapping our fingers. Then go home to our zip codes and schools with hot water. Truthfully, in all the Democratic debates did I hear about “the po’ people”, the inner city “ghettos”, the rural non existent clinics for the white opioid users, the plan for the homeless? Dose people don’t vote. So the Democrats talked about...gee, forgot what they talked about...oh yeah medical help for all and something about 15 dollars an hour. What was that all about? The Republicans were out there building walls and giving out tax breaks and destroying institutions. Democrats are trapped in their own bodies and talking shit...feeble, fractured, huffing and puffing, and trying to recreate the old status quo. It’s all gone, dude.
No one is afraid of you. Silenced by the media show. Everybody has resorted to their own hustle, “got mine, so sorry about yours”
There are acts of kindness, thank god. This pandemic might flip a switch, but don’t count on it. Thinning out the ghetto and crowded jails. Who really cares? The Pope in his golden robes?
Y
To John C:
I understand your point. But you're talking about a different aspect of race relations.
There used to be a black guy, a fellow instructor at the college where I teach. We were friendly and casual in awork-related way. We used to banter back and forth in the office kitchen.
One day he came in looking really upset. I asked him what happened he said a cop pulled him over on the freeway because he was speeding, and then the cop yelled at him for pulling over in an unsafe place. But he said he felt he had to pull over immediately because, you know, "White cop, black driver." Apparently he trusted me enough to express how scared he was that the cop would shoot him.
A couple of years before this, there was a huge online debate/discussion/argument at the college over what happened in Ferguson. Almost everyone in the college (folks that were almost uniformly to the left) took the position that the cop shot Michael Brown while Brown's hands were up. I went with the facts (based on the report produced by Eric Holder's Justice Department), which were that Michael Brown had attacked the officer and tried to grab his gun after robbing a convenience store and threatening the clerk.
The majority of the college was very displeased with me for disagreeing with the dominant paradigm. But I stuck to what I knew was true. And I started hearing from a number of people at the college (including someone who was married to a cop) that they agreed with me, they were too scared of the politically correct mob to speak up (at the risk of their jobs), and that they were glad that I was expressing what they felt and knew to be the case.
As part of participating in this debate, I looked into FBI statistics, and discovered that cops pulling over a black driver were 8 times as likely to be killed than they were when they pulled over a white driver.
So my black colleague was scared of the cop. The cop was probably scared of him. Given the level of fear on both sides, you can see how these situations would be prone to go badly.
Personal relationships like what you're mentioning or like I had with my colleague are one thing. The politically correct mob is something else again. The level of hostility I ran into in that debate was amazing. The level of ideological intimidation that apparently exists at my college is an entirely different thing.
The people pushing race ideology and identity politics often say they want to have "courageous conversations." In my experience, what they seem to mean is that they want black people to have the "courage" to hand out what can amount to abuse directed at white people, and they want white people to have the "courage" to take that abuse.
I have a different kind of courage. I don't take abuse.
Post a Comment