Consider "abortion," as just one trigger issue, and imagine for a moment a "national referendum" on abortion. When I say "national referendum," I mean just that -- a national vote on that issue alone, and that issue alone, isolated from the machinations of the pols who ostensibly represent us in national elections -- a national election, binding in its results, where one doesn't need to worry whether the particular pol on the ballot also favors, say, "gun rights," or transgender bathroom rights, or any of another myriad of other compelling issues in the traditional way of party political "platforms." For the moment, assume that Gallup polling represents the vox populi accurately. After the national referendum, we would discover that 29% of the population believe that abortion should be entirely legal while only 19% believe it should be illegal under all circumstances. The people, so to speak, have spoken. That leaves 50% of the population who believe that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. Altogether, however, that makes 79% of the population that believes abortion should be "legal," or "legal" with restrictions. It is not hard to tease out the primary restrictions -- 61% believe that abortion should be legal in the first trimester. After that, however, the percentages shift and 64% of the people believe that abortion should be illegal during the second and 80% believe it should be illegal during the third trimester. Again, the people have spoken. Abortion should be legal through the first trimester, illegal after. We could refine it further by asking "if a physician determines, after consultations with at least two other physicians, that the mother's life is in jeopardy, should abortion be permitted in the second trimester or beyond?" Likewise, we could ask "if a physician determines, after consultation with at least two other physicians, that the fetus has significant untreatable abnormalities that would prevent 'quality of life,' should abortion be allowed in the second trimester? or the third?" I won't go through all of the restrictions outlined on the gallup site linked above, but there is nothing "unreasonable" about banning second and third trimester abortions outright, or placing onerous restrictions on them for "special circumstances."
I say "could" have been decided long ago, if the vox populi really mattered. Increasingly, however, it doesn't. Increasingly what really matters in America is not the vox populi, but the voice of the extremist. For example, as the Times reported, again looking at abortion, "Ohio lawmakers approved a bill that bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, as early as six weeks after conception, clearing the way for one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the United States if it becomes law." The Ohio representatives are in step with the 19% of the American population that favor outright bans on abortions, period, but out of step with the 79% percent who favor abortion under certain circumstances, and the 61% of the population that believe abortion should be legal through the first trimester. Nevertheless, the good people of Ohio have sent representatives to their legislature that are reflective, not of the plurality, but of the minority. "The Republican-led state House of Representatives and Senate passed the so-called "heartbeat" measure late on Tuesday," the Times reports, "sending it to be signed into law by Republican Governor John Kasich." To his credit, "Kasich, an abortion opponent, has in the past questioned whether such legislation would be constitutional," and it will be interesting to see if he vetoes the bill on that basis, but odds are not in favor of a veto. There is likely to be a quick nomination of a "pro-life" judge to the supreme court, and that will tip the balance, which could effectively eliminate the Roe v. Wade decision that makes the Ohio law unconstitutional. The 19% are close to having their way, and imposing it on the 79% of Americans who might feel differently.
How could this be? Here's one way of thinking about it. Forgive me, but it will take a couple of steps to get at my answer. article pointed out that there were basically three types of Trump voters. There are (1) the die hard supporters, the Trump primary voters, who turned out basically to "nominate a person who didn’t have the basic attributes of a traditional presidential nominee" and they did so principally as a vote of no confidence in the existing "rigged" systems. They tend to be extreme, vocal, and committed to their views. They represent, give or take, about 20% of the voting population. Then there are (2) the typical Trump voters, as Ygelsias put it, "basically republicans," who "weren’t especially enthusiastic about Trump, but did what they do every four years and voted for the GOP nominee." They represent, as you might expect, a little less than half of the population, and are numerically the largest group. Finally, there are (3) the marginal Trump voters, or the swing voters. There were enough "independents" who voted for Trump to give him an edge in key rust belt states, and the reasons they did so are no doubt legion. Although they probably didn't believe that Clinton murdered her aides, or ran a child sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor, not unlike Bush, she represented an entrenched power elite that many (including me) found distasteful. I could not bring myself to vote for Trump, but as my wife said, "it's going to be difficult to cast a vote for Clinton." Others, couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton, and said, "what the hell," gritted their teeth, and pushed their last three chips onto the red square for "change." Red won, but we'll see whether the bet on "change" pays off in any meaningful way.
Part of Ygelsias' point, if I understand him correctly, however, resides in difference between "primary" processes, and "general" elections. As it turns out, the die hards, the extremists, seem to be good at primary processes, and have focused a good deal of attention on the selection of candidates. Once the more extreme candidate has been selected, the "mainstream" have a choice of ever greater extremism, or the other party. Most will go with the extreme, because, well, at least they're NOT democrats. As a result, however, we are selecting representatives that are, well, less, and less, and less representative of the vox populi, more and more representative of the extremes. There are a number of reasons why the candidates offered are growing progressively more extreme, but mostly I think it can be leveled at "failed expectations." The republican party has failed on both the social and economic front.
On the social front, the march toward greater "liberalization" seems inexorable. One can blame it on "liberal elites" who control the media, pushing an unsavory agenda on heartland America, but as Thomas Frank points out repeatedly in his What's the Matter with Kansas, the media is merely an expression of less regulated, free market economics. Although it is an affront to many a conservative American's sensibilities, Modern Family is popular, draws an audience, gives exposure to advertisers, et cetera. Although it too is an affront to many a liberal American's sensibilities, Fox News is popular, Bill O'Reilly draws an audience, gives exposure to advertisers, et cetera. So it goes, right on down the list. If a show turns out NOT to be popular, et cetera, the media execs are very quick to pull it off the air for something else that might be popular. If one really wants to return to the innocent pleasures of Father Knows Best and the more affable Walter Cronkite, one would also need to return to a much more heavily regulated media, contrary of course to the other great republican principle, the free market. I suspect that media executives are not interested in fighting the culture wars, but in making the most money possible. If the crock pot of heartland America stews with disgust over the homosexuality in Modern Family, so what? It's what certain people want, and it makes money. When it fails to do so, it will give way for something else that does.
On the economic front, the free market has not done well by heartland America. Main streets across small town America have pretty much closed down because a heavy hitter like Walmart has moved in or "sorry, but I can get it much cheaper on line from Amazon." Coal has faded, not because EPA has regulated it out of business, but because natural gas is suddenly more abundant and cheaper -- but wait, there's more! it's cleaner. Manufacturing has moved over-seas, not because foreign agents are using NAFTA or TPP want to undermine the American worker, but because labor is more abundant and cheaper in the second and third world. Despite the PR hype, United Technologies and its subsidiary Carrier are STILL sending most of its jobs to Mexico, and will continue to do so as long as it's cheaper to produce in Mexico. Plenty of manufacturing money is being made in America, but its not being made by union workers. The invisible hand of God that guides the free market has, apparently, decided to smite hometown retailers and coal miners and other forms of union labor. If one really wants small town retail to rebound, coal mines to crank up production, and manufacturing to keep the factory open, one would need to return to a much more heavily regulated market, with restrictions on "big retail," price supports for coal, and tariffs on "imports," all of which would be paid for by -- you guessed it -- the American people, not once, but thrice -- in taxes for subsidies to industry, in lost services resulting from tax abatements, and the higher prices that inevitably result when markets are no longer competitive.
The republicans are beset with "failed expectations," but the explanations for their dashed expectations are simply unacceptable to the faithful. As a metaphor, think of the preacher who, after years of study and prayer, decides that the world will end on March 14th, 2018, at 4:37 p.m. He is absolutely and unquestionably certain of it. Those who follow his path will be whisked away by the rapture. Others, well, good luck to you. March 14th, 2018, comes, and the "faithful" sit watching the clock as it clicks closer and closer, 4:34, 4:35, 4:36, 4:37, and then 4:38, 4:39, 4:40. Five o'clock comes and goes, the day fades into night, and the night into the next day, and the world goes on. How many times has this happened? How many times have the faithful regrouped and selected another day? How many times have they been disappointed yet again? Two millennia have passed since the promise of rapture. Will we need to wait a third millennia? and then a fourth? Common sense might suggest that the whole premise is bogus. -- that there will be no rapture, ever -- that we should buckle down and make the best of our life on earth, such as it is. But NO! that the whole premise might be bogus is simply unimaginable, unacceptable, and I have staked to much of myself and my identity on it. If the premise is bogus, it would mean a rejection of the faith altogether, and what would that say about me? We have been taught over and over again, we should not abandon faith, especially not in the face of adversity. We have been taught that the true believers, the most faithful will be rewarded -- that we should meet adversity head on with unbending steadfastness to reap those rewards -- that we should double down on "faith" and reject challenges as apostasy, as blasphemy to the true faith.
The republican primary process, I am suggesting, resembles the pattern above. It is a gathering of the "faithful," and they have suggested over and over again that a "liberal" government would mean, quite literally, the end of the world as we know it, an apocalypse now. The Jade Helm conspiracy theory is one rather egregious case in point. A routine (hough large scale) military training exercise was believed to be a coup by the Obama administration to impose martial law on the great state of Texas, confiscate their guns, impose sharia law, et cetera. The conspiracy was taken seriously enough that the governor of Texas ordered his militia to monitor it, and Ted Cruz, a presidential candidate, a Senator from Texas, reached out to the pentagon, with the following statement: "We are assured it is a military training exercise. I have no reason to doubt those assurances, but I understand the reason for concern and uncertainty, because when the federal government has not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy in this administration, the natural consequence is that many citizens don't trust what it is saying." Of course, the military coup didn't occur, nor did social order collapse with integration of gays into the military, nor did the economy collapse under Obamacare, nor any of the other dire predictions made over and over and over again in the conservative media. It was just another, among many "failed expectations." Common sense might suggest that the whole premise has been bogus all along, but NO! that would be unimaginable, unacceptable. When Ted Cruz suggests to the faithful, that the "federal government has not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy" under the Obama administration, he is not making a statement about the "truth" or "falsity" of any Obama claim, he is suggesting rather that he has engaged in blasphemy to the true faith.
So here we are. Although the republican elite -- those most concerned with the accumulation, consolidation, and heritability of capital -- might have wanted another candidate, the republican "faithful" doubled down and chose Trump. The republican moderates held their nose and went along with it, because, well, what choice did they have? And besides, he at least calls himself a republican and gives appropriate lip service to the "trigger" issues. And finally, enough "independents" were disgusted enough with the whole process, and disenchanted enough with the democratic candidate, that they were willing to blow it up. They did. Some, like Andrew Sullivan, have suggested that we suffer from an excess of democratization, and Trump could have been avoided if the conservative elite has simply held sway in a way similar to the democratic elite. We would likely be talking about a third Bush presidency were that the case. I would suggest, however, that we are not suffering a failure of too much direct democracy, but rather a failure of our "representative democracy." Neither of the political parties is representative of the vox populi and it is getting worse, not better. Although my predilection is to blame conservatism, and its ever deepening cycle of extremism, there is plenty of blame to go around. As my wife would say, "people need to own their own shit," and the democrats have plenty of shit to own, and in many respects, they too are the party of failed expectations.
On the social front, fewer failed expectations. The democrats do appear to represent more fully the emerging vox populi. The abortion issue outlined above is a case in point. If that were not enough, one might think about "gay marriage" as another trigger issue. Again, if a popular referendum were held today, and for the sake of argument assuming the ballot results would match up with Gallup polling, gay marriage would be legal. A whopping 60% of Americans support it, with just 37% opposing it. This represents a change from as recently as 2012, but the trend line is unmistakably in the direction of greater tolerance and has been since the mid 90s.
On the economic front, however, there have been significant failed expectations, particularly among those who seek some measure of economic justice, particularly among those who have witnessed the grinding decline of rust belt and rural America. There is an air of vichy concession surrounding the democratic party, a sort of "know better" but "do nothing" response to oligarchic dominance. Take NAFTA, for example. One might say, for example, that "the impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on a North American common market," and Congress went along, passing the Trade and Tariff Act in 1984. That act "gave the President 'fast-track' authority to negotiate free trade agreements more freely" by restricting "Congressional input to the ability to approve or disapprove. Congress lost the ability to change negotiating points." The treaty was negotiated through the Reagan and Bush administration, but finally signed into law by the Clinton administration, for whom "it was a priority" and its passage "considered one of his first successes." Although NAFTA became an issue during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Obama "blamed it for growing unemployment," saying "it helped businesses at the expense of workers in the U.S." and "didn't provide enough protection against exploitation of workers." Although Obama "knew better," what has he done? The answer should be obvious, and in the 2016 presidential campaign, we have Trump campaigning, saying it was a "bad deal" for the common man. If that isn't enough, how about the banking industry? Obama inherited one of the worst economies since the great depression, and there was little doubt that it was brought on by the banking industry exercising its new found unregulated freedom, but the banks are as big as ever, as un-regulated as before, and the bankers as "well compensated" as never before. Again, an air of vichy concession to the "know better," but "do nothing." The gallows humor of The Big Short more or less sums it up, making it perhaps one of the most depressing comedies of the new millennia.
Trump might actually do something, but one suspects that it will, ostensibly, be done on behalf of the people, but it will, in reality, serve the interests of the oligarchs as they have always been served. The Carrier deal, ostensibly, saved jobs, though not nearly as many as the hype might suggest. Union leadership has called it out, and the response of the president elect was an attack not on the leadership of Carrier, not on the leadership of its parent United Technologies, not on the oligarchs, but on leadership of the union, those representing the workers he so supports. One doesn't need to cross a paddock to recognize horse shit for what it is, so I have been asking myself where "strong liberalism," of the sort that could engage the people and raise the vox populi in its support, went astray. One possible answer might be the moment when the conservative wing of the democratic party pushed aside Henry Wallace for the more "amenable" Harry Truman. There is a separate longer post for this subject, but the name of Henry Wallace bobs to the surface as one of the great "what if's" of American history. Had he ascended to the presidency on the passing of Roosevelt, would we have had the "Century of the Common Man?" Instead of what we ended up getting -- cold war, a nuclear arms race, increasing civil strife. Of course, one can't really say, but one could deliver his seminal 1942 speech today, and it still resonates, with perhaps one exception. We are no longer engaged in a great struggle against totalitarianism abroad, but against our own worst impulses as a country. Wallace would, one suspects, have found our current state inconceivable, certainly unacceptable, but his speech, linked above, is worth a listen, if only to renew faith in a liberalism that speaks to and for the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment