Like water to a wilted flower in the desert, so was this Slate article to me. And yet, almost as quickly, this New York Times article almost stomped the flower deep into the sand.
The Slate article first.
In "It's Time to Fight Dirty," David Faris makes the case that Democrats should, at long last, play hardball not only in fighting the Republicans on issues and policy, but also do so in order to make structural changes in the system that would undo much of what the GOP has done over the past decade to give themselves a perpetual advantage in national elections. He goes so far as to advocate expanding the number of Supreme Court seats, and adding additional states in various ways, such as breaking up California, and admitting Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
Some of these latter ideas seem, at the moment, to be beyond the boundaries of political possibility, and may not even be necessary, in the short run. After all, if there is a Democratic wave this fall big enough, the party may have sufficient clout to deal with a President hobbled with crises and scandals of his own making. But Faris' larger point is well worth making over and over again. I know, because I've made it many times myself, here and elsewhere.
And that larger point is this: over the past thirty years, the Republicans have shown an expanding willingness, sometimes brazenly, to destroy many of the political norms that ensure a level playing field in both elections and in the process of governing. During the Obama administration, this willingness reached epic proportions, as the Supreme Court's destruction of campaign finance reform combined with Mitch McCONnell's abuse of the filibuster rule, and state governments' unprecedented use of gerrymandering, to shred any sense of fairness in our political process. As noted by Faris himself in the Slate interview, this culminated in the abuse of the advise-and-consent process with respect to Merrick Garland's nomination to replace Antonin Scalia on the High Court, as well as the penetration of the 2016 presidential election process by Russian political/business interests.
On this, I agree with Faris 100%. The Republicans have shown beyond any doubt a complete willingness to shred any and all political norms for the sake of maintaining and expanding its power. In such an environment, there is no justification or requirement for their opponents to play according to Hoyle. When one's opponents have shredded the rule book, they forfeit the right to object to any violations. If there is one principle that is absolutely fundamental to a truly free society, it has to be this: either the rules apply to everyone, or they apply to no one. And, since the Republicans have decided that the rules do not apply to everyone, the Democrats need not worry about violating them.
This does not mean, however, that Democrats should behave as badly as Republicans. Far from it. It simply means, as Faris suggests both in his book and in the Slate interview, that they should stop approaching the GOP on their knees ready to make major political and policy suggestions for the practical equivalent of crumbs. They should act, in the first instance, with confidence in what they believe, in part because history has time and time again shown that confidence to be justified. Then they should set goals that go beyond what they think they can practically achieve, in order to bend the public perception of what is possible. Finally, they should not be afraid to not give in. The people who voted them into power, including me, did not give them a mandate to unilaterally surrender. We gave them a mandate to win. They should act like it, and stop being afraid of their own ideas as well as their opponents.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean that the Democrats should be afraid to be edgy. Let's take the Garland case for example. You know what I would have done if I had been in President Obama's shoes? I would have, as the leader of a common-law nation, invoked an ancient common-law maxim: qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit. Put simply, silence equals consent and, since the Senate never took an official position on Garland--in fact, they refused to do so--they were deemed to have consented to his nomination, and I would have wasted no time in having Garland sworn in. Would the Court object? Unlikely; the Court's jurisprudence in disputes of this nature is to allow the executive and legislative branches to sort out their differences.
So, in the end, it's not a question of who has the angriest voice, but who has the sharper mind. The Democrats should not be afraid to use their advantage in this regard. They should not be, above all, afraid to win, for the sake of their supporters and, ultimately, the sake of the nation.
Now, sadly, to the Times piece.
Being mindful of another Latin maxim, de mortuis nihil nisi bonum, I grieve with the family, colleagues, and friends of David Buckel in morning his death. His legacy of fighting on behalf of LGBT rights is a noble one, and deserves to be honored and remembered.
But that is what make his choice of political suicide all the more puzzling and, ultimately, upsetting in light of my view of the need to fight.
Our opponents are not inspired by noble examples of good behavior, no matter how honorable and sincere those examples are. I certainly do not question Mr. Buckel's honor or sincerity. But I am forced to question his judgment, and question whether or not it was clouded by the despair that our current political situation naturally inspires.
Simply put, we cannot afford to lose people like him. We don't need them to sacrifice themselves; we need them alive, well, and able and willing to fight the fight that must be fought against opponents who sacrifice nothing and demand everything.
If you out there are reading this, and feel the level of despair that Mr. Buckel obviously felt then, by all means, get whatever help you can. And stay with us. And band with us together. And fight like hell for the sake of a nation built on the sacrifices of far better people than our opponents.
It's time to leave sorrow and politeness in the past. There's a future to be won for the sake of the greatest nation in the history of the human race. Let's go win it.
No comments:
Post a Comment