Before we begin, I
think it’s worth giving a brief summary of how many leftists tend to view the
political history of America. I’ve given some versions of it many columns in
this series, but it’s worthy reviewing it here.
According to the
left, the first Democratic President was FDR.
Taking over from a decade of Republicans indulging big business, he
helped bring the country out of the Great Depression, got the New Deal passed
and helped win World War II. He did so, if you believe the leftist narrative, entirely
on his own with no help from Congress of either party. As I’ve mentioned, acknowledge the massive
Democratic majorities he had in both houses would mean admitting that most of the
critical Democrats were racist demagogues from the South and according to the leftist
narrative, those have never been part of the Democratic coalition.
Ever since then,
every single Democratic President has been a complete saint with no flaws or
vices, neither personal nor political. Whatever failings they might have had at
the time or in hindsight were entirely the fault of the Republican party and
the South. (Neither were major threats to Democratic majorities for much of
this time, but again the left never mentions that.)
Similarly since the
Republican party came into existence, the only good president it has ever had
was Abraham Lincoln. Every other Republican President has been a complete and
utter villain with no redeeming virtues and even the good things that they did
were accidental. If you believe the left, the term progressive has only come to
existence within the last twenty years and no Republican has ever been one. All
of this, of course, comes if you get a Democratic version of this; the more
extreme leftists see that there has never been a good political party of any
kind, that democracy is a sham for a special interest and any improvement that
society has made is either accidental or never did enough for minorities.
This narrative has
been, like so much in the last decade, been supercharged during the Obama
presidency. By now, I don’t have to bother to repeat the talking points: the coming
of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, the rise of Newt Gingrich, and the rise of the
Republican party to embracing pure and other racism since the start of the
Reagan era if not earlier, first with dog whistles, now shouting out loud. It conveniently leaves out the fact that for
much of the Democratic Party’s existence, the racist demagogues were almost entirely
Southern Democrats and that much of the party base was conservative until
the 1960s. It ignores that until fairly
recently the most striking demagogues in history were Democrats from the South,
from Ben Tillman to Huey Long to Harry Byrd and George Wallace. Because this would mean looking at the warts
on our party and extremists tend to ignore anything they don’t like, they
basically have done just that.
Obama’s case is more
complicated because he was African-American and therefore separating how much
of the vitriol that was directed at him from being partisan to racism is nearly
impossible. I have always been of the belief that any Democrat who was elected
President in 2008 would have been the target of the same vitriol from the right
that Obama ended up receiving; we certainly saw that when Hilary Clinton ran in
2016 and we saw a version of when Biden ran in 2020. I think the partisan
divide solidified to such an extent by the 2004 Election that there was no way
any Democrat President would face the same torrent of abuse from every aspect
that existed then. It would have just taken a different form.
The narrative for
everything that the Obama administration went through in 2008 is simple from a
leftist perspective. The right was determined to destroy Obama from day one
because they did not think he was ‘a real American’. The billionaire class destroyed the idea for
free speech with Citizens United and used the Tea Party to take a populist
tones to destroy the Republican establishment. After John Boehner became Speaker
in 2010, the creation of the Freedom Caucus and the rise of men to leadership
like Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor became fundamentally responsible
for overpowering any concept of Republican policy in favor or appearing on Fox
News, destroying legislation and shutting down the government. Eventually Boehner was unable to control this
caucus and was forced out after the 2014 midterms and even though McCarthy was
next in line, he was so repugnant to moderates that Paul Ryan became the choice instead. The Republican party became emboldened by
populist figures and showboats which lead to the rise of Donald Trump in 2015
and the end of the GOP as we know it. All of this was done at the hands of
Roger Ailes who did everything in his power to destroy discourse in society and
helped Trump win the Republican nomination before he had to resign as head of
Fox News. By that point, the powerful billionaire forces could no longer
control the masses they had spent decades brainwashing for their own personal
gain.
I can’t deny the
facts about much of this narrative as far as they happened, except for the last
statement. It’s a nice story as far as it goes because, like so many stories
from the left, it means that all of the millions of people who voted for
Republican candidates over this period, were little more than sock puppets not
representative of ‘Real America’. However, I have certain opinions about the Obama
administration that I think are worth discussing that the left does not want to
acknowledge because it means that one of their ‘idols’ was flawed.
When Obama won
election in 2008, it was in large part not merely because of dissatisfaction
with the Bush White House but because of the financial crisis America was
undergoing. I am inclined to believe
that whatever feelings Americans might have had towards Obama personally – and they
were clear during the campaign – many were willing to let it go because they
believed W’s administration was responsible and in these scenarios the party
that’s in power pays the electoral price.
So after Obama won
election he had the added responsibility of making sure that America did not
completely self-destruct financially. This is where my opinion diverges from
that of what happened next.
The left’s narrative
has been that, rather than do the right thing and come together, Republicans in
both Houses chose not to support the bailout of America that is believed helped
save the economy in order to find an electoral gain going forward. While I’ll
admit that sounds appalling, in the aftermath of the Depression in
October of 1929, Herbert Hoover made a major effort to do everything he could - certainly in a way that many of his own party were
shocked by – to help save the county. However, much of the legislation he tried
to get through Congress after the 1930 midterms was blocked in the House by
Democratic majorities. To be fair, many Democrats were just as conservative as
some of their Republican colleagues and thought what Hoover was doing was dangerous
– but the Democrats also wanted to make Herbert Hoover a one-term President. So
the Republicans decision to barely offer support might be appalling – but it
wasn’t unprecedented.
I’d also argue that
Obama’s approach to the financial crisis was sorely lacking. Assuming that the
bailout was necessary to save the economy, I think his and the Democratic Party
next action should have been to pass sweeping legislation to ensure none of the
factors that led to the collapse of the economy could ever happen again and
make certain that if they did, the people responsible would face prison time.
Not only would have this been the morally right thing to do, it would have been
a brilliant political strategy going forward. Considering how much the crisis
had resulted because of the deregulation that had carried on going back as far
as the Reagan administration, Obama and the Democrats could have argued this
was the Republicans crisis and that if they chose to vote against it, they
would have put themselves on the side of criminals and economic monsters.
As even the left will
admit Obama did not do that. They can make whatever argument they want about
Dodd-Frank and how Republicans gutted it not long after it was passed, but the
fact remains the bill that did get passed was already fundamentally toothless:
it had gone from 400 regulations to just 38. And as we all know, no one went to
jail for what happened in the crisis of 2008. Instead these titans of industry
took these hundreds of billions of dollars and paid themselves huge bonuses.
I find it striking
that while the left loves to hail the movement known as ‘Occupy Wall Street’
and Bernie Sanders’ rise in the 2016 primaries as the sign of real miscontent, in
the same breath they thoroughly dismiss the Tea Party movement as something
that could have possibly been just as much a reaction. Say what you will about
the funding and the candidates, but it leaves out the fact that these
Republican ‘loudmouths’ won their primaries’ and election to the House in massive
numbers. Even if you want to argue about
the deception involved (and hell, The Newsroom and The Daily Show were
fine doing that) it leaves out the fact these people did not just materialize
into office at the mere thought of people like the Kock Brothers. No matter how insane the media thought they
sounded, the Republican voters overwhelmingly in the summer and fall of 2010
into office – by a far bigger margin that the Republican Revolution in 1994. You can argue as much as you want at how low
the turnouts are in primaries or how little seriousness ‘the establishment’ paid
(though according to the left’s narrative, they weren’t any better) but nearly
45 million Republicans voting for in that year. That was the biggest midterm
swing since 1938; that should have meant some people were taking it seriously.
And at the end of the
day, it might have hurt the Democratic party long term. Much as Obama had
managed to built a landslide based on a coalition that relied heavily on
identity politics (to an extent it was a more advanced model of the one George
McGovern had tried and failed with in 1972) the fact remains that the party
still didn’t do well with white-working class voters. Now as much the left and
Democrats want to blame all of this on fundamental racism, it leaves out the
fact the amount of discontent in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Is it not unreasonable that the working-class
permanent defection to the Republicans could be built out of frustration not
merely of lost jobs and a bad economy but that they saw the Obama administration
‘solution’ do nothing to help them? No one got punished, there was no reform.
Are we supposed to be shocked that they would listen to the next loud voice
that offered comfort, even if it was a lie? Indeed, the left’s reaction to this has subsequently
been pretty much the same when it comes to those who live in the South: we’re
better off without them.
And I have to say Obama’s
actions during his first two years were a disappointment. I get that he
campaigned on getting a national health care bill through Congress but
considering the current Democratic concern – which not only should have included
financial reform but passing legislation involving climate change – you would
have thought Obama would have tried to put them first. Instead, his entire
first two years were built on getting this through both Houses of Congress.
Considering how much this weakened him politically even by the fall of
2009, if Obama was the genius the left
thinks he is, he would have been willing to fall back and try to get other
legislation passed. He certainly could have gotten a lot done at least with the
margins he had in the House.
I blame this part on
inexperience: Obama had only been a one-term Senator and he hadn’t built up the
time and energy building up relations in the Senate before he launched his run
for the Presidency and certainly not in the House. And I will admit the partisan
lines had hardened even before he went into office to such a way that any
Democrats would have trouble going forward. But to just de facto blame this on racism
and billionaires does too much to let the Obama administration of the hook for its
flaws.
And to be clear it’s
not like the Republicans offered anything in the range of constructive policy,
and indeed they did focus entirely on performance such as nearly causing
default and starting the era of government shutdowns on a quasi-regular basis.
I also grant that John Boehner, much like Gingrich before him, was not able to
control the forces that had been swept into office.
But again, all of
this leaves out the fact that the voters seemed more inclined to embrace the
performative over the legislative. In the spring of 2014, it looked like there
was about to be bipartisan legislation passed for immigration reform. Then Eric
Cantor, the House Majority leader, was shockingly defeated in a primary by Dave
Brat.
Cantor it’s worth
noting, thought the bailout was a bad idea before Obama won the election. He’d
help steer the STOCK act through Congress, which would force Congressman
disclose their stock investments more regularly and transparently. It passed by a near unanimous vote in the
House. But he lost by ten percent in his
primary in part because he was concerned a ‘moderate’. He was an efficient legislator in Congress –
but his rejection seems to indicate that his district seemed to care more about
performance. (Brat was defeated for reelection in the 2018 midterms.)
I’d also like to make
an argument why, over the last decade, both parties seem to be more inclined to
vote for the performative and loud over those who legislate. It comes back to
an earlier argument I made: politics is boring. This is actually argue as a defense
of democracy: a recent New Yorker article actually said: “when it’s working,
democracy should be dull.” Well dullness doesn’t get national attention and it
certainly doesn’t get good rating or coverage.
I am invested in
politics in a way many Americans aren’t, and even I find much of it dull and
hard to wade through. I watch every
Presidential and Vice-Presidential debate since 2000 and let me tell you
something, they are dull even when they’re substantive. I can’t imagine how dull so many Congressional
and Senator debates are, both in a general and a primary. There are hundreds of things I’d rather than
do than watch one. I can’t imagine Americans who are less involved being any
more invested.
And that’s the thing
about the Freedom Caucus and frankly so many of the Republican politicians who
have risen the power over the last decade – including Donald Trump. You can say
a lot of things about them – the left certainly will, so will the mainstream
media. The one thing you can’t say is they are politics as usual. Politics as
usual is dull. If it was exciting, C-SPAN would be the highest rated cable
network in history.
Demagogues, in both
parties, have come to rise when people become frustrating with politics as
usual. It has been true on a national level since George Wallace began running
for President in 1964 and has been so on so many levels ever since. The mainstream media wants to argue that so
many Republican politicians and candidates speaking is like watching a trainwreck.
Well, we all know how much Americans love to look at any kind of trainwreck or
a national disaster. Lest we forget,
that’s often where the 24 hour news networks have their greatest successes –
when they turn a camera on suffering and despair. That’s driven media since the days of yellow
journalism; we shouldn’t be shocked that the public likes in its politics as
well.
The media wants to
argue that it’s horrible to watch some of the things that have happened with
the Republican Party these days. I’d argue a) not as many people are watching
as you think and b) if it’s so horrible, you’re under no obligation to show
it. You can argue as much as you want
that the media isn’t covering the issues Americans need to know about but
again, they’re very complicated and not as interesting as a trainwreck.
This is the part that
I don’t think so many in the media get about what has been going on with
Republican leadership in the House these days. (I’ll get to what the left thinks
of it in the next article.) They will use terms about ‘the destruction of major
institutions, the GOP and democracy’ with horrified tones. That’s the thing
that no one seems to get. Like so many of the institutions we seem to have
relied on for years, the American people either doesn’t notice them or care
about them particularly. It’s only when they start to disintegrate that they
begin to raise a warning bell. And as
the left has noted for a very long time what’s bad for one major institution
can be beneficial for them from a political or financial standpoint.
If the left really
cared about democracy the way they claim to, then they would recognize the
fundamental principle of its that it has to have two functioning parties. They would look at what is going on with the
GOP in the House over the past ten years with more than just the concern of
people witnessing a traffic accident. They would do things to help the
Republican party deal with the problems of its insurgents. They would find ways
to work with them during even Republican administrations. When Republican
candidates who are ‘establishment’ are facing danger from the extreme right (which
they agree is dangerous) they make an effort to help them.
Instead, just as the
right has, the left and the Democrats have done everything to make the crisis
with the Republican party an opportunity to fundraise and to elect more
Democrats. Every time there is the threat of a shutdown, every time there is a
bill introduced that has no chance of passing but sounds dangerous, every time
a candidate they don’t like – and that net keep getting big enough to the point
it now includes the entire GOP – they see it is an opportunity to build up
their base and get more Democrats elected.
Each time a Republican leader gets pushed out, they don’t even offer
flowers before they argue the replacement will inevitably be worse and that the
next step is to elect more Democrats so that it doesn’t happen. Even before the
election of Donald Trump, the Democrats had made their message as clear as the
Republicans seem to with the parties reversed: the destruction of America is
entirely the fault of Republicans and only by getting more Democrats in power
can we save it. The collapse of institutionalist
like Boehner and Ryan are something to be fundraised on, nothing more. If the
Republicans have increasingly been acting like bickering babies, then the
Democrat appeal is to be the grownup. But being a grownup means you have to
help the babies when they are acting that way, not using the mess they make as
an excuse for more grownups to come around.
In the penultimate
article of this series, I intend to deal with Kevin McCarthy and why his blood
and everything that follows in the aftermath of his destruction is as
much on the Democrats hands as the Republicans.
No comments:
Post a Comment