My first involvement in a political campaign came in 1972, a year that ended up teaching me many lessons, including and especially the fact that you can't win them all, even in a clear-cut choice between good and evil (especially when good shoots himself in the foot more than once). Perhaps my most enduring memory from that experience, however, involved my eleventh-grade English teacher, who, on the first day of classes, took exception to my McGovern buttons and announced to the entire class that he was a "Buckley conservative Republican." This led to a year's worth of bantering back-and-forth in class between us about politics, in the middle of what was supposed to be a survey of American literature.
I mention all of this here for one reason only: the day after the election, on which I assumed he would be gloating, he wasn't. Instead, he began the class with some rather somber thoughts about the outcome, concluding with the observation that the politics of the nation were shifting to the point at which, one day, we would no longer have a Democratic and Republican two-party system, but a system with a liberal and a conservative party. Curiously, he did not seem to think that this was a good thing. I say curiously, because I am inclined to agree.
There is a major difference between a politics of ideas and a politics of ideology. Ideas can be debated, even within parties. That's why both parties once had politicians who could be liberal or conservative on a variety of issues. For all of the talk about the disappearance of Scoop Jackson Democrats, there's not very much reflection on the disappearance of Jack Javits Republicans. Both of those men had their virtues. And all of us are losers for not having a political system that makes people like that possible.
In some ways, however, ideology is not the true fault line in our national politics, even though my teacher's prophesy has, to a large degree, proved to be true. As the demographics of our nation have changed, and as we are rapidly approaching the point at which people of color will outnumber white people, the ideological identities of the Democratic and Republican parties seem to be attracting voters along an identity divide. People of color, and women of all colors, are predominantly Democrats, and white people, especially men, are predominantly Republicans.
And, yet, despite this seemingly obvious fact, the Democrats still are obsessed with chasing white votes and, in the process, ignoring the presence of millions of voters of color who would be happy, or at least willing, to help them win elections. This was true last year, incredibly, despite the fact that the Democrats had just elected and re-elected America's first African-American president. And, incredibly, less than one year later, they are on the verge of potentially making the same mistake again and, in the process, perhaps losing what should otherwise be a highly winnable governor's race in Virginia. Take a look.
It begs the question: Why?
As I said before, I'm a big believer in the politics of ideas over the politics of ideology or identity. But, as the difference between Barack Obama and Donald Trump has proved thus far, the Democrats are still the party with better ideas and, as they proved with the ACA, the only one willing to accept any degree of thinking from the other side. And, to borrow a thought from Donald Rumsfeld, you win elections with the party you have, not the party you would like to have. As much as I would like to have a county in which gender and color did not matter in our politics, the fact is that they do. And, given a choice between those who deserve help and those who don't, going with the former is an easy choice for me.
It may very well be the case that the significant divide in our politics is within the Democratic Party itself, between the embedded racism of its establishment/donor class, and the rank-and-file voters who aren't afraid to embrace their rainbow status and who look for candidates who are willing to do the same. It seems, in fact that, as that divide becomes more apparent (as may be the case in Virginia), more members of the establishment/donor class will actively move in the direction of the rank-and-file.
Consider the case of Donna Brazile, a solid member of the triangulating Clinton camp since the early days of Bill Clinton's presidency--so much so, in fact, that she got into a little bit of trouble a year ago for feeding debate questions to Hillary in advance of the debates. Suddenly, she seems to be very concerned about the possibility that Hillary may have somehow undermined Bernie Sanders' chances of winning the Democratic presidential nomination. Her concern, however, doesn't seem to hold up very well under a closer examination of the facts.
Is there another explanation? Is Brazile simply trying to make a bid to break away from the Clinton camp in a major way? Does she see Bernie and the politics he represents as the future of the Democratic Party? Is she positioning herself to be a party of that?
Only she knows. She is a canny political operator, and she would not be the first such person in American political history to sense a change in the wind, and feel a desire to follow it. My advice to all Democrats, especially in advance of Tuesday's election and the one-year anniversary of the Trump disaster, is to do likewise. It may not be the best reflection of democracy for us to have followed a progression (or regression, if you will) in our politics from ideas to ideology to identity. But, if in fact that's happened, I know where the identity of the future lies, and I'm more than happy to be a part of it. Hopefully, more and more people will feel the same way by 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment