The release this week of the formal texts of both the whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump and one of the White House's own memoranda outlining the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy necessitate a Bill of Impeachment against the president of the United States. Those who have or might criticize Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as being too precipitate in launching an impeachment inquiry are clearly in the wrong. If only the whistleblower's complaint (or the rumor of it) were public there might be some substance to the charge that the Democratic caucus is moving too fast or in biased fashion, but in the combination of the two documents we have both a list of very serious allegations against Donald Trump and evidence that he himself has provided to substantiate these charges. There is no doubt that Congress is bound by its Article I constitutional duties to review the president's fitness for office.
The fact that we must even pause to question whether this last statement is true underscores two of the most salient and potently corrosive aspects of the political movement that may be called "Trumpism." Much of Trumpism is deeply contingent and potentially ephemeral, rooted in the cult of personality around Trump himself or in cultural trends such as racism, both of which may wane naturally over time as conditions change. But two aspects of Trumpism are firmly systemic, and are being progressively more ingrained into the culture and structure of our politics the longer Trump remains in office. Through his capture of the Republican party machinery and his ability to force elected Republican officials to align themselves with him on a day-by-day basis, he is institutionalizing new norms of political engagement that will be difficult to correct even if and when he should leave office, and which in and of themselves argue for the urgency of an impeachment process. Enumerated, these two principles of Trumpism are:
1) All politics are binary, and are zero sum
This principle flows from the foundation of Trumpism in racism and the cult of personality surrounding Trump himself. Trump's message that Latin@s, blacks, "uppity" women, and Muslims were the perpetrators of "American carnage" was appealing to millions of voters who were struggling economically, fearful of "others," and increasingly aware of demographic change. His willingness to give full voice to those fears in defiance of current standards of decency and common courtesy made him appear courageous and resolute in the eyes of his followers.
A trend toward polarization in American society was already well underway before Trump took office, but the particular rhetoric ("build that wall!"; "send her back!") and policy pursuits (separation of migrant families, crowding of migrants into concentration camps along the southern border) of Trumpism has created a newly radical politics of bifurcation and animosity. The decision to take a child away from her parents, for example, admits to no gray areas: either one "understands" the righteousness of such an action or is taking a stand alongside an enemy so dangerous that they must be contained even in childhood. A person taking such a stand, even if they are a fellow US citizen, must be dangerously deluded. Anyone who cannot see Donald Trump's wisdom and virtue in pursuing his policy is likewise crippled by bias. There can be no "loyal opposition" under such circumstances. Opposition is necessarily treason.We can see this principle at work in the Republican response to the imminent impeachment of Donald Trump.
By contrast to this article of Trumpist faith, the existence of and the necessity to operate with some degree of deference to the perceptions and expectations of the loyal opposition is foundational to any functional democracy. If one proceeds from the assumption that 1)power will be given to the people; and 2)the people will not always agree; then the maintenance of at least some trust between factions in and out of power is essential. What President Trump has admitted to doing in the case of Ukraine is an impeachable offense because it flies in the face of this basic requirement of democratic governance. He has shattered any chance for trust between his administration and the political opposition.
Why is this so? Firstly, one must understand that in any democracy suspicion of one's political opponents, especially those that hold power, is entirely natural and expected. Every president in US history, from George Washington on, has been subject to intense scrutiny and (sometimes paranoid) suspicion. It is incumbent upon all presidents to operate in a way that constrains suspicion and fosters trust.
This makes foreign policy an especially sensitive area. Foreign governments and citizens come under none of the obligations of elected officials here in the US, their probity and judgment will never be held directly accountable to the voters of the US. Foreign affairs thus provides all US officials, but especially the president (whose special purview is setting foreign policy) with an opportunity to "end run" the restraints of normal domestic politics. Foreign governments are free to attack US citizens (if given permission and the right incentives) with none of the consequences that might be suffered by an official here in the US (or that they might suffer if they aimed the same attack at one of their own citizens).
Enlisting a foreign government to attack one's own political opponents is thus a total abrogation of the duties of the presidency, as it is a complete abandonment of any pretense that the suspicions of the loyal opposition must be respected. It is analogous to bringing a revolver into a boxing ring. No one who saw their opponent waving a pistol at them could possibly expect that the rules of boxing would be respected. By the same logic, no one who sees what Donald Trump himself has admitted to can doubt that the rules of democracy have been abandoned.
If Donald Trump had used domestic channels to press this case against Biden (spreading the story through the press, referring it to his AG for investigation) he would no doubt have come under criticism, but virtually no one would have contemplated impeachment on that account. Outsourcing the smearing of Joe Biden to the government of the Ukraine (irrespective of the truth of any allegations against Biden) is the politics of autocracy. By displacing the scrutiny of Biden into an arena in which he has massive influence (through his control of aid money to Ukraine) and US voters have none, Trump is exercising the prerogatives of a dictator and abandoning the duties of a president.
In the response of Republican politicians to the charges against Trump we can see just how perilously Trumpism eats away at the basic tenets of democracy. Dismissals of the case for impeachment take two basic various forms. Some arguments focus on the substance of the allegations against Joe Biden, or the asserted equivalency between what Trump did and what Biden and/or other Democrats have done. Other arguments seize upon technicalities, such as whether Trump ever offered his Ukrainian president an explicit quid pro quo. None of these arguments acknowledge the fact that from the standpoint of our constitutional order, what Trump did was acutely wrong in absolute and essential terms. The Democrats having done similar things is a case of many wrongs not creating a right. A search for technical excuses is analogous to arguing that a car thief should be excused because they behaved traffic laws very scrupulously.
In the final analysis, all of the Republican defenses of Trump boil down to an embrace of this central tenet of Trumpism: the president does not have to respect and maintain the trust of the loyal opposition because there is no such animal. The government does not contain two parties that disagree vehemently on many key issues but that are united in the service of a common national interest. Rather, it contains two factions, the one aligned with Trump being right, the other being wrong, only one of which may win. Under those circumstances opposition is necessarily treason, thus the aspect of democratic governance that compels Trump's impeachment is negated, and those calling for impeachment become doubly treasonous.
2)Institutions are to be weaponized, and are disposable.
Our constitutional order rests on the principle that the functioning and survival of governing institutions is an end and a good unto itself. The institutions exist in a state of dynamic tension with the principles that they are intended to serve. The courts, for example, exist to pursue justice. But since the courts are staffed by fallible human beings, giving them unlimited power would subvert justice and ultimately destroy the courts themselves. They must thus be constrained by rules and protocols that limit their power and occasionally even inhibit their efficiency in the cause of justice, but which are essential to sustaining their viability in the long term.
The presidency is designed along the same lines, and Trump's actions regarding Ukraine violated this stricture and breached the basic parameters of his office. His solicitation of Ukraine's assistance in smearing Joe Biden was illegitimate on its face, but his determination to use Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to carry out this policy compounded the illegitimacy of his scheme. If Trump had used the State Department and the ambassadorial channel to make these overtures, he would still have been acting like a petty despot, but he would at least have been submitting his actions to official and public scrutiny. His choice to use his Attorney General (a radical subversion of the independence of the Justice Department) and personal lawyer expressed a determination to keep his actions out of the public eye and ensure that his powers could be used in the unimpeded pursuit of his own political interests.
Republicans' refusal to even acknowledge these breaches of constitutional regulation evince the high degree to which they have been corrupted by Trumpism's radical debasement of the value and austerity of our institutions. No institution is worth preserving for its own sake in Trump's world. Everything is about the zero sum contest in which Trump himself is constantly engaged, thus the organs of government are never simply working, they are either "winning" or "losing" on his behalf. Since "winning" is the only acceptable option (the stakes being "winner take all"), any and all means necessary to that end must be employed, even if they entail the subversion or even the destruction of the institution being employed.
This can be seen in the frequency with which Trump is willing to impeach the integrity and the basic governing competence of key institutions: the Federal Reserve, the Attorney General's Office, FBI, the CIA, the Directorate of National Intelligence, etc. Any office that, in the current moment, is working against Trump's perceived interests is condemned as irredeemably corrupt, ineffective, or illegitimate. Republican officials who are determined to remain aligned with the White House are compelled to assent to his views, and throw offices and officials under the bus without regard to any factor but their degree of loyalty to Trump.
This orientation, of course, flows from the same dimensions of Trumpism that negate the legitimacy of any loyal political opposition. Since Trump is "our" champion against an ultimately menacing enemy, the value of any institution at any given moment can only and ever be assessed by reference to the ongoing battle. If "we" lose, the continued existence of the CIA or the Justice Department will not matter in the slightest, thus the rules by which these institutions operate may be bent to any degree, up to and beyond the point that the institutions themselves are destroyed, so long as the final victory is secured.
In the final analysis, the need to impeach Trump flows from the inevitable consequences of Trumpism's influence. The logic of Trumpism can only lead to one of two ends, both of which entail the end of democracy. The first is autocracy and single-party rule. One can only maintain the pretense of a "winner takes all" contest so long before the winner must, finally, take all. Thus constitutional government will eventually be discarded (through mechanisms such as voter suppression and abuse of presidential power) as the GOP is forced to bring the practical operation of government into line with the logic of its ideology. Failing that, even if the Democrats do take the White House once more, unless the hold of Trumpism on the GOP is broken, governance will be impossible. A political field in which the behavior and rhetoric of Donald Trump and those assisting him has been normalized will preclude the pursuit of any policy goals by constitutional means. None of the basic negotiations of democracy can be carried out in a world where total victory is the only legitimate goal and the assumption of good faith on the part of one's opponent is treason. One way or another, as Trumpism thrives the Republic as it was originally designed must fall.
Impeaching Trump is thus not a matter of principle, but an existential imperative. Passing a Bill of Impeachment will almost certainly fail to result in the president's removal from office. Once impeachment is initiated, Trump will be tried in the Senate, and can only be removed by a 2/3 vote of that body. For that threshold to be reached, 20 Republican senators would have to cross party lines. Given the hold that Trump has on the Republican electorate, it is very unlikely that so many senators will exhibit such a high degree of political courage.
But even if an impeachment effort is destined to fail, it is a first indispensable step to countering the toxic influence of Trumpism on our national politics. Trump and his supporters must be held to account institutionally. Let Republican senators vote in defiance of the constitution, and then let them explain to the voters the "logic" behind their actions. If the GOP can be made to pay a political cost for its ideological errors, there is a chance that our national discourse can be steered away from the cliff over which it is poised to tumble.
Even if there is a chance that the GOP will retain congressional control in the wake (or as a result) of an impeachment fight, that does not argue against the wisdom of impeachment. Any election that the Democrats win because, in this moment and under the current conditions, they refrain from impeaching the president, would be a resounding victory for Trumpism. Such an outcome would be a defeat for democracy, and thus ultimately a defeat for all Americans, whatever their party affiliation. If our Republic is to have a chance, someone must fight for the principle that everything is not reducible to politics, that some dimensions of our constitutional order transcend partisan concerns. If no one will defend this proposition then, even if Trump himself is defeated, Trumpism wins.
Friday, September 27, 2019
Saturday, September 14, 2019
The Biden Problem
Because I tuned in late and initially caught only the last half of Thursday night's Democratic debate, I was very surprised hear pundits in its immediate aftermath describe Joe Biden's performance as "strong." I had been shocked at how disastrously Biden answered questions toward the end of the evening, particularly this question posed by Linsey Davis:
Mr. Vice President, I want to talk to you about inequality in schools and race. In a conversation about how to deal with segregation in schools back in 1975, you told a reporter, “I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation, and I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.” You said that some 40 years ago, but as you stand here tonight, what responsibility do you think that Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country?
To call Biden's answer to this question "incoherent" would be charitable. He rambled out some suggestions about early childhood intervention that were vague to the point of being cryptic, managing finally only to imply that African-American parents do not know how to raise their own children (readers may examine the full transcript under the link above and judge for themselves). At the very least the moment was an alarming indication of Biden's campaign stamina- if he folds that completely at the end of several hours on stage with fellow Democrats, what will happen over weeks and months exchanging body-blows with Donald Trump? But apart from the question of endurance, the exchange between Biden and Davis pointed to a more fundamental problem that will weaken any prospective Biden bid to defeat Trump.
I am not trying to imply here that Biden is a "racist." The problem is not that simple. Democrats are attracted to Joe Biden because, whatever subconscious biases or prejudices he (like the rest of us) may have, he is manifestly a man of depth, integrity, and humanity. His obvious dedication and loyalty to friends, family, community and nation is remarkable. His capacity to form profound and enduring friendships with political opponents and his courageous endurance in the face of personal tragedy are nothing short of inspirational. But his more than forty years of public life has left a record of policies and pronouncements (like the one quoted by Davis) that are out of step with current perceptions and values.
To be sure, statements like the one quoted by Davis say as much or more about the history of American society and politics as they do about the current state of Joe Biden's character. But the problem is not that Biden's past remarks reveal flaws or prejudices. The problem is with the way they will be used by the Trump campaign.
To understand why this is so one has to be clear about the political dynamics of a national election. Democrats who favor a Biden candidacy assume that presidential contests are driven largely by identity politics. Biden is, in this view, a strong candidate to face Trump because Biden neutralizes Trump's chief advantages: those who chose Trump over Hillary because he is a white man will no longer be so motivated.
But this assessment radically overestimates the importance of raw identity politics in a national contest. Such forces are powerful, yes, but identity is not destiny. Barack Obama, for example, did not win the presidency because he is African-American. His identity no doubt attracted many voters and increased turnout in many communities. But his victories (especially his re-election in the campaign against Mitt Romney) were as much a product of what he had to say about race as the mere fact of his racial identity.
Obama was the first candidate in more than twenty-five years to win the presidency with a clear majority of the popular vote, in part, because he talked about the problems of race in a way that was more candid and incisive than virtually any candidate before him. Many examples could be cited, but the most obvious was his speech about his one-time pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright. By acknowledging his debt to Wright even as he repudiated many of Wright's prejudices, Obama cast the problem and tragedy of race and racism in terms that most Americans could understand.
It is a measure of just how fraught the issue is that Obama never perfectly satisfied pundits on any side of the political spectrum in this regard. The outraged Republican response was perhaps predictable, but even from the left he was persistently criticized for being overly moderate and conciliatory. From the perspective of the public at large, however, Obama could be seen by most voters as someone who was earnestly grappling with the legacy of racism, even if only imperfectly. Right or wrong, Obama had put himself forward on this issue and taken political risks. His implicit message was widely appealing: "Racism is wrong, we most oppose it, but it is complicated." A vote for Obama could thus be cast as one to do something about racial injustice, even if it was never entirely clear what that something should be. The urgency of this issue in the minds of a large portion of the electorate helped deliver Obama a majority.
Unfortunately for Democrats, not all of the dynamics entailed in the issue of race cut in their favor. Strident opposition to Obama was partly rooted in simple racism, but some of the forces that Obama unleashed in the development of his own political brand contributed to the rise of Donald Trump. Obama's candor on the issue of race engendered a strongly negative reaction in some white voters. They did not see a man grappling earnestly with the complex legacy of racism, but a hypocrite dealing in double-standards (this reaction is perhaps itself a product of bias, but one less overtly and consciously malicious than outright racism). Much of Donald Trump's hardest core of support derives from Trump's skill in giving voice to and channeling this resentment.
This is where Joe Biden is most vulnerable in any attempt to unseat Donald Trump. Trump, if matched against Biden, will no doubt pursue the same strategy that succeeded in securing him a narrowly technical electoral college victory against Hillary Clinton. A perfect storm of factors helped Trump in this feat, most of which (Russian interference, the Comey letter, the Clinton camp's own missteps) were not the product of his campaign's devising. But one proactive message that Trump's people broadcast with real effect was that of Hillary's supposed equivalency to Trump. Yes, so this story went, Trump is venal and corrupt, but so is Hillary. Yes, Trump lies. But so does Hillary. Since morally they are the same in all the ways that matter, voters should feel free in choosing the candidate that they prefer politically.
Surely many (if not most) voters did not buy this yarn. It is difficult to know how many believed it, because their numbers are almost certainly not to be found in the tally of those who voted. Anyone who cared enough about the race to cast a vote in favor of either candidate probably would not have had their opinion changed by this kind of transparent ploy. But enough Democratic voters were demoralized by the idea that "a vote against Trump doesn't really matter that much" to give Trump a 77,000 vote margin of victory in three states.
This exact message will not work in a campaign against Joe Biden- no one will ever believe that Biden is the moral equivalent of Trump (Why Biden is not vulnerable in this way when Hillary was is a question that is too complicated to address here. Suffice it to say that some of it had to do with empirical facts, some of it had to do with larger forces such as gender). But Trump will be able to run an "equivalency con" on Biden with regard to race. "However bad Trump's statements on race may be (so this line of attack will go), Joe Biden has said things almost as bad. Democratic support of Biden over Trump is thus hypocrisy of a kind with Barack Obama's friendship with Jeremiah Wright. Democrats will forgive racism in those who agree with them, but use it to bludgeon those with whom they disagree."
It is precisely because race and racism remain such a highly charged and urgent issue in the minds of voters across the political spectrum that this tactic will have broad and deep effect, even more than the equivalency campaign waged against Hillary Clinton. Anyone who doubts this can take warning from the commentary of Anand Giridharadas, which helped inspire me to write this post. During the debate, for example, he tweeted:
Joe Biden's answer on how to address the legacy of slavery was appalling -- and disqualifying. It ended in a sermon implying that black parents don't know how to raise their own children. This cannot go on.
Democrats may disagree about whether Biden's answer was "disqualifying" (or whether, as Giridharadas asserted later in that thread, "this...[is]...one of the most explicitly racist moments of all time in a Democratic primary debate"). But they must all realize and should take note, that if Joe Biden is the nominee, this type of angry commentary is likely to follow him through the entire general election campaign.
This will not be because Democrats lack unity in their opposition to Donald Trump. Indeed, if forced to bet good money on such a contingency, I would wager virtually any sum that Anand Giridharadas had voted "Biden" in a Biden-Trump contest. Why then, can we count on pundits like Giridharadas to continue to comment in this vein? Do they not understand how much this will help Trump wage an "equivalency campaign"? Do they really think that Biden is as racist as Trump?
Those asking such questions do not understand that what really matters is not what is going on privately in the spaces of a politician's mind, but what he or she can be taken to stand for in the public square. Barack Obama was determined and able, through moments like the Jeremiah Wright speech, to skillfully establish himself as a politician willing to publicly tackle the complex issues of race with nuance and candor. Though this did attract much heated opposition, on balance it garnered him enough support to carry him to two outstanding electoral victories.
Trump, by contrast, squeaked into the Oval Office by making himself the unreconstructed icon of white resentment. This is the key to his most diehard support and the fuel of his most vehement opposition. Anyone who hopes to defeat Trump will have to maximize the liabilities that Trump's stance on race saddles him with and minimize the positive assets that he derives from his racist rhetoric.
In this regard, Joe Biden starts from a position of real disadvantage, and seems inclined to make his position worse. Whatever one believes about the contents of Biden's heart and mind, there can be little doubt that commentators like Giridharadas are right about the catastrophic inadequacy of his answer during Thursday's debate. The very incoherence of his response suggests that he does not understand or will not give sufficient credence to the particular urgency of this issue to his campaign. If he knew how important it was to get this kind of answer right, he could never get caught so flat-footed. But beyond the flaws of style and clarity, what actual content can be gleaned from Biden's answer is at best out of touch, at worst outright offensive.
However correct Democrats at large may be in their belief that Donald Trump must be defeated at all costs, it is not fair or realistic to expect public intellectuals like Anand Giridharadas that have dedicated their lives to struggling with questions of race to carry water for Joe Biden. The issue is much too complicated in its practical dimensions and much too important in essential terms. Some pundits may "pull their punches" in deference to practical realities, but if Biden performs through the general election campaign as he did on Thursday night, he will attract great volumes of scathing criticism, much of it from commentators who would otherwise be Democratic supporters. This will lend credence to a campaign to smear Biden as "almost as racist as Trump."
Will enough voters be swayed by such a campaign to give Trump another "hail Mary" win? It is difficult to say. Ironically, the rank-and-file voters least likely to be convinced by such tactics will most probably be African-Americans. Biden earned a great fund of affection and support among many African-American voters for being such a loyal and obviously supportive member of Barack Obama's administration. But politics is won at the margins, and Biden's vulnerability on race is bound to demoralize some Democratic voters, especially if he continues to perform as badly in this regard as he did Thursday night. Democratic primary voters attracted to Joe Biden for his purported "electability" should give some thought to this problem.
Mr. Vice President, I want to talk to you about inequality in schools and race. In a conversation about how to deal with segregation in schools back in 1975, you told a reporter, “I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation, and I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.” You said that some 40 years ago, but as you stand here tonight, what responsibility do you think that Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country?
To call Biden's answer to this question "incoherent" would be charitable. He rambled out some suggestions about early childhood intervention that were vague to the point of being cryptic, managing finally only to imply that African-American parents do not know how to raise their own children (readers may examine the full transcript under the link above and judge for themselves). At the very least the moment was an alarming indication of Biden's campaign stamina- if he folds that completely at the end of several hours on stage with fellow Democrats, what will happen over weeks and months exchanging body-blows with Donald Trump? But apart from the question of endurance, the exchange between Biden and Davis pointed to a more fundamental problem that will weaken any prospective Biden bid to defeat Trump.
I am not trying to imply here that Biden is a "racist." The problem is not that simple. Democrats are attracted to Joe Biden because, whatever subconscious biases or prejudices he (like the rest of us) may have, he is manifestly a man of depth, integrity, and humanity. His obvious dedication and loyalty to friends, family, community and nation is remarkable. His capacity to form profound and enduring friendships with political opponents and his courageous endurance in the face of personal tragedy are nothing short of inspirational. But his more than forty years of public life has left a record of policies and pronouncements (like the one quoted by Davis) that are out of step with current perceptions and values.
To be sure, statements like the one quoted by Davis say as much or more about the history of American society and politics as they do about the current state of Joe Biden's character. But the problem is not that Biden's past remarks reveal flaws or prejudices. The problem is with the way they will be used by the Trump campaign.
To understand why this is so one has to be clear about the political dynamics of a national election. Democrats who favor a Biden candidacy assume that presidential contests are driven largely by identity politics. Biden is, in this view, a strong candidate to face Trump because Biden neutralizes Trump's chief advantages: those who chose Trump over Hillary because he is a white man will no longer be so motivated.
But this assessment radically overestimates the importance of raw identity politics in a national contest. Such forces are powerful, yes, but identity is not destiny. Barack Obama, for example, did not win the presidency because he is African-American. His identity no doubt attracted many voters and increased turnout in many communities. But his victories (especially his re-election in the campaign against Mitt Romney) were as much a product of what he had to say about race as the mere fact of his racial identity.
Obama was the first candidate in more than twenty-five years to win the presidency with a clear majority of the popular vote, in part, because he talked about the problems of race in a way that was more candid and incisive than virtually any candidate before him. Many examples could be cited, but the most obvious was his speech about his one-time pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright. By acknowledging his debt to Wright even as he repudiated many of Wright's prejudices, Obama cast the problem and tragedy of race and racism in terms that most Americans could understand.
It is a measure of just how fraught the issue is that Obama never perfectly satisfied pundits on any side of the political spectrum in this regard. The outraged Republican response was perhaps predictable, but even from the left he was persistently criticized for being overly moderate and conciliatory. From the perspective of the public at large, however, Obama could be seen by most voters as someone who was earnestly grappling with the legacy of racism, even if only imperfectly. Right or wrong, Obama had put himself forward on this issue and taken political risks. His implicit message was widely appealing: "Racism is wrong, we most oppose it, but it is complicated." A vote for Obama could thus be cast as one to do something about racial injustice, even if it was never entirely clear what that something should be. The urgency of this issue in the minds of a large portion of the electorate helped deliver Obama a majority.
Unfortunately for Democrats, not all of the dynamics entailed in the issue of race cut in their favor. Strident opposition to Obama was partly rooted in simple racism, but some of the forces that Obama unleashed in the development of his own political brand contributed to the rise of Donald Trump. Obama's candor on the issue of race engendered a strongly negative reaction in some white voters. They did not see a man grappling earnestly with the complex legacy of racism, but a hypocrite dealing in double-standards (this reaction is perhaps itself a product of bias, but one less overtly and consciously malicious than outright racism). Much of Donald Trump's hardest core of support derives from Trump's skill in giving voice to and channeling this resentment.
This is where Joe Biden is most vulnerable in any attempt to unseat Donald Trump. Trump, if matched against Biden, will no doubt pursue the same strategy that succeeded in securing him a narrowly technical electoral college victory against Hillary Clinton. A perfect storm of factors helped Trump in this feat, most of which (Russian interference, the Comey letter, the Clinton camp's own missteps) were not the product of his campaign's devising. But one proactive message that Trump's people broadcast with real effect was that of Hillary's supposed equivalency to Trump. Yes, so this story went, Trump is venal and corrupt, but so is Hillary. Yes, Trump lies. But so does Hillary. Since morally they are the same in all the ways that matter, voters should feel free in choosing the candidate that they prefer politically.
Surely many (if not most) voters did not buy this yarn. It is difficult to know how many believed it, because their numbers are almost certainly not to be found in the tally of those who voted. Anyone who cared enough about the race to cast a vote in favor of either candidate probably would not have had their opinion changed by this kind of transparent ploy. But enough Democratic voters were demoralized by the idea that "a vote against Trump doesn't really matter that much" to give Trump a 77,000 vote margin of victory in three states.
This exact message will not work in a campaign against Joe Biden- no one will ever believe that Biden is the moral equivalent of Trump (Why Biden is not vulnerable in this way when Hillary was is a question that is too complicated to address here. Suffice it to say that some of it had to do with empirical facts, some of it had to do with larger forces such as gender). But Trump will be able to run an "equivalency con" on Biden with regard to race. "However bad Trump's statements on race may be (so this line of attack will go), Joe Biden has said things almost as bad. Democratic support of Biden over Trump is thus hypocrisy of a kind with Barack Obama's friendship with Jeremiah Wright. Democrats will forgive racism in those who agree with them, but use it to bludgeon those with whom they disagree."
It is precisely because race and racism remain such a highly charged and urgent issue in the minds of voters across the political spectrum that this tactic will have broad and deep effect, even more than the equivalency campaign waged against Hillary Clinton. Anyone who doubts this can take warning from the commentary of Anand Giridharadas, which helped inspire me to write this post. During the debate, for example, he tweeted:
Joe Biden's answer on how to address the legacy of slavery was appalling -- and disqualifying. It ended in a sermon implying that black parents don't know how to raise their own children. This cannot go on.
Democrats may disagree about whether Biden's answer was "disqualifying" (or whether, as Giridharadas asserted later in that thread, "this...[is]...one of the most explicitly racist moments of all time in a Democratic primary debate"). But they must all realize and should take note, that if Joe Biden is the nominee, this type of angry commentary is likely to follow him through the entire general election campaign.
This will not be because Democrats lack unity in their opposition to Donald Trump. Indeed, if forced to bet good money on such a contingency, I would wager virtually any sum that Anand Giridharadas had voted "Biden" in a Biden-Trump contest. Why then, can we count on pundits like Giridharadas to continue to comment in this vein? Do they not understand how much this will help Trump wage an "equivalency campaign"? Do they really think that Biden is as racist as Trump?
Those asking such questions do not understand that what really matters is not what is going on privately in the spaces of a politician's mind, but what he or she can be taken to stand for in the public square. Barack Obama was determined and able, through moments like the Jeremiah Wright speech, to skillfully establish himself as a politician willing to publicly tackle the complex issues of race with nuance and candor. Though this did attract much heated opposition, on balance it garnered him enough support to carry him to two outstanding electoral victories.
Trump, by contrast, squeaked into the Oval Office by making himself the unreconstructed icon of white resentment. This is the key to his most diehard support and the fuel of his most vehement opposition. Anyone who hopes to defeat Trump will have to maximize the liabilities that Trump's stance on race saddles him with and minimize the positive assets that he derives from his racist rhetoric.
In this regard, Joe Biden starts from a position of real disadvantage, and seems inclined to make his position worse. Whatever one believes about the contents of Biden's heart and mind, there can be little doubt that commentators like Giridharadas are right about the catastrophic inadequacy of his answer during Thursday's debate. The very incoherence of his response suggests that he does not understand or will not give sufficient credence to the particular urgency of this issue to his campaign. If he knew how important it was to get this kind of answer right, he could never get caught so flat-footed. But beyond the flaws of style and clarity, what actual content can be gleaned from Biden's answer is at best out of touch, at worst outright offensive.
However correct Democrats at large may be in their belief that Donald Trump must be defeated at all costs, it is not fair or realistic to expect public intellectuals like Anand Giridharadas that have dedicated their lives to struggling with questions of race to carry water for Joe Biden. The issue is much too complicated in its practical dimensions and much too important in essential terms. Some pundits may "pull their punches" in deference to practical realities, but if Biden performs through the general election campaign as he did on Thursday night, he will attract great volumes of scathing criticism, much of it from commentators who would otherwise be Democratic supporters. This will lend credence to a campaign to smear Biden as "almost as racist as Trump."
Will enough voters be swayed by such a campaign to give Trump another "hail Mary" win? It is difficult to say. Ironically, the rank-and-file voters least likely to be convinced by such tactics will most probably be African-Americans. Biden earned a great fund of affection and support among many African-American voters for being such a loyal and obviously supportive member of Barack Obama's administration. But politics is won at the margins, and Biden's vulnerability on race is bound to demoralize some Democratic voters, especially if he continues to perform as badly in this regard as he did Thursday night. Democratic primary voters attracted to Joe Biden for his purported "electability" should give some thought to this problem.
Thursday, September 12, 2019
The Right Voted Wolf
In the wake of the 2016 election there was a great deal of writing from the conservative commentariat about the the blame that the political left bore for the rise and election of Donald Trump. According to this story line, the left had "cried wolf" too many times. Liberal activists and pundits had exaggerated the prevalence of racism, elitism, and sexism in American politics and society. They had gratuitously overestimated the power of corporate money and the hold of the military-industrial complex, and made a caricature of the supposed "anti-democratic" forces in the Republican Party. All of this stridency, smugness, and outright fabrication had produced a reaction, which took the form of Trumpism.
Whatever the merit of such a narrative in the days leading up to and just after January 20, 2017, it swiftly began to lose coherence in the aftermath of Donald Trump's inauguration and has long since deteriorated to farce. However strident the warnings from the left before November 2016 may have been, they did not nearly approximate the utter freak show that has unfolded under the aegis of the Trump White House. I defy anyone to find a pundit as far left as Bernie Sanders who issued a warning during the 2016 campaign that seems irrationally alarmist in light of our current political moment.
The President of the United States spends his time tweeting about Chrissy Teigen and week-old weather maps. He uses the Oval Office as a platform to advertise his country clubs. He cites the hurt feelings of the North Korean dictator as a reason for firing his third National Security Advisor. This is a partial list of absurdities from the last 72 hours or so, and it makes no mention of the outright racism, sexism, and gratuitous cruelty that has been the hallmark of both politics and policy under this president for more than two years. Calling the current situation an "embarrassment" or a "disgrace" is an understatement to make someone crying "wolf" at the sight of a chihuahua look honest. Anyone who looks at the White House and continues to tell pollsters that they approve of the president simply does not understand what the executive branch is or the role it plays in our government.
The latest story line from conservative pundits concerns the state of the Democratic primary race. The nation is endangered, so we are to believe, because Democrats are flirting with policies that are far too left wing. All one can say to such musings is, "Now who is crying wolf?" The idea that any of the current field of Democratic candidates would be more dangerous to the welfare of the nation than Donald Trump is ludicrous.
Moreover, the notion that overly "left wing" candidates will drive people to vote for Donald Trump is likewise absurd. Someone who would vote for Donald Trump after seeing him in action as POTUS all this time cannot possibly be trusted to make any kind of coherent or objective assessment of any candidate, left or right; bed, broomstick or candle. A voter who can be made to believe that Donald Trump is fit for office can be made to believe anything about anyone. Once the professional spinsters hired by the president and his billionaire cronies have done their work, Trump voters will understand that, but for having less facial hair, Joe Biden is basically indistinguishable from Che Guevara.
If pundits and activists on the left cried wolf before 2016, they can only be chided for minimizing the dangers that lay ahead. We would be considerably better off if the Republican Party had let a wolf loose in the Oval Office rather than Donald Trump. As Democratic voters watch the debates tonight, they may thus forget any and all rhetoric about the relative "electability" of one candidate or another. The simple truth is that any voter for whom Donald Trump is remotely "electable" is irredeemably lost to any and all Democratic candidates. Democrats may therefore ignore those crying wolf from the right as they assess the relative merits of the candidates seeking the nomination of the Party of FDR.
Whatever the merit of such a narrative in the days leading up to and just after January 20, 2017, it swiftly began to lose coherence in the aftermath of Donald Trump's inauguration and has long since deteriorated to farce. However strident the warnings from the left before November 2016 may have been, they did not nearly approximate the utter freak show that has unfolded under the aegis of the Trump White House. I defy anyone to find a pundit as far left as Bernie Sanders who issued a warning during the 2016 campaign that seems irrationally alarmist in light of our current political moment.
The President of the United States spends his time tweeting about Chrissy Teigen and week-old weather maps. He uses the Oval Office as a platform to advertise his country clubs. He cites the hurt feelings of the North Korean dictator as a reason for firing his third National Security Advisor. This is a partial list of absurdities from the last 72 hours or so, and it makes no mention of the outright racism, sexism, and gratuitous cruelty that has been the hallmark of both politics and policy under this president for more than two years. Calling the current situation an "embarrassment" or a "disgrace" is an understatement to make someone crying "wolf" at the sight of a chihuahua look honest. Anyone who looks at the White House and continues to tell pollsters that they approve of the president simply does not understand what the executive branch is or the role it plays in our government.
The latest story line from conservative pundits concerns the state of the Democratic primary race. The nation is endangered, so we are to believe, because Democrats are flirting with policies that are far too left wing. All one can say to such musings is, "Now who is crying wolf?" The idea that any of the current field of Democratic candidates would be more dangerous to the welfare of the nation than Donald Trump is ludicrous.
Moreover, the notion that overly "left wing" candidates will drive people to vote for Donald Trump is likewise absurd. Someone who would vote for Donald Trump after seeing him in action as POTUS all this time cannot possibly be trusted to make any kind of coherent or objective assessment of any candidate, left or right; bed, broomstick or candle. A voter who can be made to believe that Donald Trump is fit for office can be made to believe anything about anyone. Once the professional spinsters hired by the president and his billionaire cronies have done their work, Trump voters will understand that, but for having less facial hair, Joe Biden is basically indistinguishable from Che Guevara.
If pundits and activists on the left cried wolf before 2016, they can only be chided for minimizing the dangers that lay ahead. We would be considerably better off if the Republican Party had let a wolf loose in the Oval Office rather than Donald Trump. As Democratic voters watch the debates tonight, they may thus forget any and all rhetoric about the relative "electability" of one candidate or another. The simple truth is that any voter for whom Donald Trump is remotely "electable" is irredeemably lost to any and all Democratic candidates. Democrats may therefore ignore those crying wolf from the right as they assess the relative merits of the candidates seeking the nomination of the Party of FDR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)