A reader's journal sharing the insights of various authors and my take on a variety of topics, most often philosophy, religion & spirituality, politics, history, economics, and works of literature. Come to think of it, diet and health, too!
The following is the text of an email letter that I sent to my congressman today. If you share my opinion and you have a senator or congressman who has not acknowledged the Biden victory (and therefore the lawful legitimacy of his administration), I urge you to join me in writing your representatives. We need to speak out against the big lie. Please feel free to copy and paste to your heart's content!
Dear Congressman Lamborn:
Today marks the inauguration of Joe Biden as the 46th President of the United States of America. If I’ve counted correctly, this marks the 16th inauguration of a President in my lifetime. Some of the presidents were elected in landslides, some in squeakers, and some even after having lost the popular vote. But in each instance, the nation came together under the duly elected president by the time of the inauguration. In each instance, the defeated candidate recognized and affirmed the outcome. On several occasions, defeated incumbent presidents have looked on as their successor was sworn in. This has been an American tradition and a ritual affirmation of our democracy. But this will not happen this year. Our electoral system has been plagued by what we now know definitively as “the big lie,” that somehow, President Trump had actually been the choice of most voters. I know that you are a supporter of President Trump and that you voted to disqualify the votes of some states that Biden carried, even after the attack on Congress. I know that you supported the re-election of President Trump. I know that you voted against impeaching President Trump for his role in promoting the mob’s attack on the Capitol. But now Trump’s run is over, and it’s time for everyone--especially persons in your circumstance--to speak out in defense of our democracy, the rule of law, and the promotion of civil discourse. Given that your website indicates that you’ve not congratulated or even acknowledged the victory of our newly elected president, now is the time to do so. You--and as many of your colleagues as you can persuade--should immediately issue a statement along the following lines:
20 January 2021
Press Release of Congressman Doug Lamborn & Colleagues
Today marks the inauguration of Joe Biden as our 46th president. We congratulate President Biden on his electoral victory, and we want to wish him all the best as he embarks upon his service as president of our great nation. We pledge to take every opportunity to work with our new president and his administration whenever we can to promote the well-being of the American people and our system of government. When we don’t agree, we pledge to act in good faith to pursue alternatives consistent with our form of government.
The result of the recent election has been doubted by some. However, the states, the Electoral College, the Congress, and the Courts (after numerous instances of judicial review) have all affirmed the sanctity and validity of the election results. Let there be no further question that Joe Biden won the election. One of the hallmarks of the success and longevity of the American electoral system arises from the tradition of fair play and good sportsmanship that we teach our sons and daughters each day. The American people have spoken, and even we who supported President Trump must acknowledge the election results according to provisions of our Constitution and laws. Any disagreement that any of us--from congressional representatives to ordinary voters-- have with the new Biden Administration must be expressed in words and not violence. Violence is the antithesis of democracy and the rule of law, and we must all reject it.
God bless the Biden Administration, this Congress, and the United States of America.
Thank you for your consideration. I eagerly await your response.
I posted this blog entry on 4 May 2016, long before Trump became president or even the Republican nominee.
Why do I post this again here and now? To say "I told you so?" Frankly, yes, in part.
But I also want to rub some noses in this in order to drive home a hard lesson. If you act like a child and play with fire, you'll get burnt. While all of these past four years have been shocking they've not been surprising. The utter capitulation of the Republican Party has shocked (and saddened) me. I thought there were more patriots among them. And now, today. I remain hopeful that these events today represent the death throes of a dying regime. But even when Trump is out of the White House, we know that far too many Americans aren't committed to democracy and the rule of law. That is truly frightening. Folks committed to democracy and the rule of law--including former Republicans and anti-Trump Republicans--have gained the upper hand for now. An electoral battle has been won. But we're in a long struggle to win back our American heritage. To bring back our fellow Americans to the value of democracy and the rule of law.
My concluding words from my blog of May 2016:
"I join him [Andrew Sullivan] in urging everyone concerned with the well-being of our Republic to take heed of his warning. This is no longer an issue of party victory or a time to gloat over the collapse of any semblance of respectability in the GOP. It's more serious than that. Much more serious."
These words apply today and for times to come.
SNGTHOUGHTS.BLOGSPOT.COM
Andrew Sullivan Takes on Trump the Demagogue
A reader's journal sharing the insights of various authors and my take on a variety of topics, most often philosophy, religion & spirituality, politics, history, economics, and works of literature. Come to think of it, diet and health, too!
Still good to keep up with Heather Cox Richardson for a while. This one is especially important for my Republican friends and family. Here's a sample:
"After the election, former chair of the Republican National Committee and adviser to the never-Trump Lincoln Project Michael Steele appeared on comedian Larry Wilmore’s new show on NBC’s Peacock streaming service.
Steele emphasized that he was still a Republican, but he was an American first, and that the Republican Party needed to get rid of its allegiance to Trump and rebuild. He pointed out that he has been a Republican since 1976, and that most of the people currently in charge are newcomers. Steele expressed disappointment that so many voters supported Trump in the election, but was more scathing of Republican Party leaders who “sycophantically kowtow to a[n]… egomaniacal henchman who has one… view of the world and that’s himself.”"
I write this on early Sunday morning 1 November (damned switch away from DST!). I write now because on the final day of the election ("Election Day"), as we await the verdict of the American voting public, I'll be too keyed-up to write anything coherent. As a lawyer, I've waited for many a verdict, and it doesn't get any easier even as you've been through it many times. Each case is unique; each time a significant change in the future awaits the outcome. This case, the case of Donald J. Trump, has now reached to point of closing arguments to the American voters (i.e., those who don't shirk their "jury duty"). This election is about whether this "jury" decides to free itself and open its future to better outcomes, or we chose to condemn ourselves to a future marked by fear, anger, and resentment, and the "leadership" of an incompetent, vile, and threatening man.
If, when you read this, you have sound grounds to believe that Joe Biden has been elected president, then by all means (reasonable and legal) celebrate. However, I suspect most, like me, will more likely simply feel a sense of relief. We have not condemned ourselves. We will sigh and say "Thank goodness!" (For it is a sense of goodness that would allow such an outcome.) We will go to bed or if late enough, on to our daily activities, with a sense of ease, at least in the sense of reduced anxiety.
So what can we expect with a President-elect Biden? Will we awaken to a scene of rainbows and unicorns and people joining around the campfire to sing Kumbaya together?
No.
In electing Biden--and even if he gets a Democratic Congress--we should understand as a nation that we have only broken the fever, that Trump is not the underlying cause of this dis-ease in our body politic. Trump is only an opportunistic secondary infection. Voters have acted as the antibodies to this infection, working to drive this infection away. But the body politic isn't cured once and for all of this dis-ease. Underlying Trump is a chronic dis-ease that allowed our nation to succumb to this secondary infection. Although the American voters have vanquished Trump, Trumpism, the syndrome that he embodies, will remain. American has suffered this infection of right-wing extremism for almost its entire 245 years. Sometimes the infection has been acute (the Civil War as the worst outbreak), but there have been other manifestations, such as the Klu Klux Klan uprisings during Reconstruction and the 1920s; Joe McCarthy and witch-hunts of the late 1940s and early 1950s; and the Civil Rights movement backlash and the candidacy of George Wallace, to name just a few examples of outbreaks. This politics of fear, anger, and resentment from the "right" has always been far more important than anything coming from the "left." Radicalism and violence have arisen from the left, but these outbreaks tend to be acute although sometimes intense infections that don't continue too long and that don't usually translate into electoral clout. The violence that we've seen in American cities this year has been the result of acute, intense frustration with police killings and brutality and all of the underlying conditions that allow such wrongdoing to continue. But never in my lifetime has the radical left gained any lasting power, but not so the right, especially to the degree manifest by Trump's administration.
If we're lucky, we'll get something approaching politics as usual, only with a New Deal-like shift. We can hope for a change in policies that will begin some fundamental changes in the American political scene. A "Green New Deal" (of some sort) to address climate change and environmental degradation is a must. Also, we badly need significant reforms of our electoral system to end voter suppression schemes and to allow fair and proportional representation. (The Supreme Court required the states to practice "one person one vote" back in 1962 in Baker v. Carr. We should apply this principle to all elections.) A respect for minority rights is baked into the American Constitution even as they're too often ignored in practice. However, there's no brief for minority rule, which has become increasingly common. Only once have Republicans won the popular vote for president after 1988: Bush in 2004. And yet, in 2000 and 2016 Republicans won the presidency despite having lost the popular vote.
In short, we live in a time of troubles. We know this even as we don't want to acknowledge it or we can't quite understand it. The human herd is spooked. This is a time when dictators and radical movements ferment and often gain power. And by "radical movements" in this instance I mean those who eschew politics, speech, and persuasion in favor of violence. There can be peaceful radical movements, such as the American Civil Rights movement as led by Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to name but one prominent example; and there have been many less well-known but nevertheless potent peaceful movements. We can expect--and no doubt need--some (peaceful) radical movements. Indeed, the change we need isn't generated or pushed by traditional political discourse, but it swells up into political discourse from below. We need to radically (to the root) re-think our relationships with each other, with others around the world, and with Mother Nature herself. The journey of modernity is over, and we need to move on to something better (and I'm not talking about silly "post-modernism). What that "better" consists of we must hash-out continually as we progress. We have to turn to prophets, but not those who scare us with hellfire and brimstone, but the whose who provide us with a vision, a new way of seeing and understanding ourselves and our world. Only when the prophets do their work, and the people convert can this change be channeled into the political sphere. I think (hope) that we have a start on it. If we don't make some very immediate--and yes, drastic--changes very soon, I fear that we'll be in a hell of a fix. (And I mean that in a literal sense as well.)
So, yes, celebrate, and then let's get to work.
Post Script: Monday 9 November 2020
I've decided to post the above. Nothing has changed my mind. The repudiation of Trump was not nearly as overwhelming as I'd hoped, and few Trump enablers--virtually the entire Republican Party--paid an electoral price. But otherwise, the post seems on point. We still have to deal with the problems of Trumpism or perhaps its more lethal (to democracy & our lives) mutations.
A lot has been said and written about the debate already, and I've posted some articles on my Facebook page. That is was a dreadful, destressing 90 minutes of the most appalling behavior by the current president without a doubt. That Biden managed (for the most part) to maintain his composure and speak to the American people about the real challenges before us was indeed heartening, although no one who gets in the ring with a professional-grade mud-wrestler won't come out of the match without a sense of slime upon themselves, an urge to go shower thoroughly. (True for viewers as well.) Yet, for all of it, I suspect most folks saw Biden as a responsible man with a heart.
Okay, now for the fun part. Let me begin this first item that by stating that I oppose the use of violence except in the most extreme conditions that are marked by an immediate threat to our personal or collective well-being that we can effectively counter only by engaging in violence. And--note well--this is just a thought-experiment.
Now, imagine a third-grade Donny Trump. Assume that he's acquired the characteristics that he exhibited last night by this young age. (Not an unfair assumption, I contend.) Donny is big for his age, rich, and more than a bit spoiled, although he lacks any meaningful parental affection. On the playground, young--but "husky" for this age--Donny starts an argument during a ballgame that ruins the game. Others try to reason with Donny, but all to no avail. Then, this scrawny Irish-Catholic, working-class kid--let's call him "Joe"--tells Donny to "Shut up, man, we want to play ball." Donny continues to bloviate and goes on to insult Joe's family. At this point, Joe socks Donny right in the kisser. Donny wipes his bloody lip, voices a threat, and retreats. Donny is not one for an actual physical altercation.
Query: Does history take a different course? Would Donny have turned out differently if someone would have socked him in the kisser when we started his bullying routine? It's a just a thought experiment, a variation of the "if you could have suffocated young Adolf in his crib, would you have prevented World War Two and the Holocaust? Would such an act be morally justified?" (For the record, and for a variety of reasons, I'd argue that such an act would not be justified.) But you get my drift. That so many men [sic] and women bow and scrape before Trump and fail to stand up to his bullying only makes him more brazen. Since we cannot go back in time and attempt to deter him from this practice, we have to do it now, somehow, with the knowledge that this is the only M.O. that this guy knows--verbal bullying.
Well, just a thought.
The second bit of fun out of the debate raised from the fact that watching this president, I thought to myself, "What a boor/boar/bore!" One word in three different senses captures this person (I was going to write "man," but someone might take it as an accolade rather than a description of his sex.) Let's consider the three senses.
1. When I say he's a "boor," I mean, in accord with a simple dictionary definition, "an unrefined, ill-mannered person." When I note that he engages in "boorish" behavior, I mean "rough and bad-mannered; coarse." There are a number of synonyms for "boor," such as "lout, ruffian, hooligan, bully boy, brawler, etc." All applicable, but none with the triple-entendre of "boor."
2. The second sense is "boar," as in a male pig. Being a native Iowan (although not a farm boy), I can't help but think of this guy as a male big: big, grunting, and the "biggest hog at the trough." Bellowing and snorting when he doesn't get his way. His complexion, of course, only serves to reinforce this image.
3. Third, I must say that I find this guy a "bore," to wit, he's really boring. He's a one-trick pony, a circus freak whose novelty wears off quickly when it occurs to you, "Wow, I guess some humans are really like that," and then you saunter on through the carnival to encounter the next freak show. I mean, listening to him is boring, although one can play a drinking game I suppose (I don't do such thing) about the size of the next whopper he's going to offer up, but I'd get quickly get bored with this game. One can only gain so much joy from gazing upon another person's foibles, even if those foibles with that person triggers a certain amount of pleasurable schadenfreude in you.
There you have it: Trump is a bore/boar/bore, the trifecta of imperfection. While so many other terms can describe him, this homonym seems to cover so much more. In fact, my only regret is that I have to write it for you, thus cueing you into my little insight. So much the better if you can work it into a conversation. Try it.
Politics demands a great capacity for self-deception, which rescues the politician from hypocrisy. He can normally manage to believe what he is saying for the time it takes to say it. This gives him a certain sincerity even when he is saying opposite things to opposite people. Since he loves to be pleased, he tries to please people back. He genuinely dislikes disagreements with anyone. It interrupts the reciprocal laving of egos; it puts grit in the butter bath.
Garry Wills, Confessions of a Conservative (1979), p. 178
But in reality the best one can ever do with hypocrisy is take a stand for or against one kind or another, not for or against hypocrisy itself. We might regret the prevalence of hypocrisy, but if we want to do anything about it we have to get beyond generalised regret, and try instead to identify the different ways in which hypocrisy can be a problem.
Runciman, David Political Hypocrisy (2018) Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
. . . .
Hypocrisy turns on questions of character rather than simply coincidence with the truth. Likewise, though hypocrisy will involve some element of inconsistency, it is not true that inconsistency is itself evidence of hypocrisy. People often do, and often should, change their minds about how to act, or vary their principles depending on the situation they find themselves in. It is not hypocrisy to seek special treatment for one’s own children—to arrive, say, in a crowded emergency room with an ailing child and demand immediate attention—though it may be unrealistic or even counter-productive to behave in this way; it is only hypocrisy if one has some prior commitment not to do so. It is the prior commitment not to be inconsistent, rather than the fact of inconsistency, that generates the conditions of hypocrisy. That, of course, is one reason why hypocrisy is such a problem for politicians.
Id.
. . . .
From one perspective the act of concealment makes things worse—it simply piles vice on top of vice, which is why hypocrites are often seen as wickeder than people who are simply, and openly, bad. But from another perspective the concealment turns out to be a form of amelioration—it is, in Rochefoucauld’s timeless phrase, “the tribute that vice pays to virtue.” Hypocrites who pretend to be better than they really are could also be said to be better than they might be, because they are at least pretending to be good.
Id.
. . . . .
Once we acknowledge that some element of hypocrisy is inevitable in our political life, then it becomes self-defeating simply to try to guard against it. Instead, what we need to know is what sorts of hypocrites we want our politicians to be, and in what sorts of combinations. Do we want them to be hypocrites like us, so that they can understand us, or to be hypocrites of a different kind, so that they can manage our hypocrisy? Do we want them to be designing hypocrites, who at least know what they are doing, or do we want them to be more innocent than that? Do we want them to expose each other’s hypocrisy, or to ameliorate it?
Id.
. . . .
Clearly, a line needs to be drawn somewhere between the hypocrisies that are unavoidable in contemporary political life, and the hypocrisies that are intolerable. But it is hard to see where.
Id.
Son, in politics you've got to learn that overnight chicken shit can turn to chicken salad.
Lyndon B. Johnson (perhaps apocryphal)
I share all of the above quotes--and there must be thousands of more like them I could have cited--because I'm perplexed by the issue of hypocrisy and politics. Of course, on a basic level, the politician isn't always enamored of the colleague or voter or donator with whom she or he has to have a photo taken with, big beaming smile and all. They can't really think all of those babies are cute or all those chicken dinners really delicious. Of course not, and even those of us who aren't politicians engage in these venial hypocrisies on a regular basis. So, as David Runciman notes, it's not hypocrisy in general that we can rail against, it has to be certain type or level of hypocrisy--if this is the right word at all--that strongly disapprove of.
And I have to admit that within certain limits or situations, I appreciate a degree of hypocrisy. Runciman cites the well-worn adage of Rouchcufould that hypocrisy is “the tribute that vice pays to virtue.” And I have to admit on the basis of this adage I've praised Richard Nixon as a better type of crook than Donald Trump because Nixon was at least a hypocrite. He at least tried to cover-up his wrong-doing, and his campaign theme and rhetoric (as opposed to his actions in office) were "bring us together" and other nobler sentiments. (N.B. Nixon was also a great deal smarter than Trump as a politician, as a statesman, and as the head of a government, although the bar of comparison has now been set ridiculously low by Trump.) Nixon was at least a hypocrite. One suspects, even with all of the spiders in his mind, that there was some sense of propriety, perhaps even shame, in Nixon, while Trump seems utterly without a sense of shame and immune to the opinion of others. Of course, these dynamics also play out in the actions of those around these two law-breaking, norm-destroying presidents. In 1974, Republican senators led by Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott and former presidential nominee Barry Goldwater went to Nixon and told him that he should resign because he would be removed from office if impeached. (Nixon resigned before he was impeached, as he certainly would have been had he decided not to resign.) It's hard to imagine from those who recall that time, but the public debate and the conduct of politics for the most part were in a better state under the hypocrite (and crook) Nixon than they are under Donald Trump, with his blatant scorn for law, norms, and principles. Chalk one up for hypocrisy.
Also, as Runciman also states, "though hypocrisy will involve some element of inconsistency, it is not true that inconsistency is itself evidence of hypocrisy. People often do, and often should, change their minds about how to act, or vary their principles depending on the situation they find themselves in. "
I don't think that this point can receive enough emphasis. We can and should and do change our minds--and so should politicians. Emerson--"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"--and economist Paul Samuelson--"Well when eve,nts change, I change my mind. What do you do?" (This quote is most often attributed to Keynes, but apparently this isn't correct.) That politicians should and do change their minds makes them better, not worse, if they have sound grounds. That is, if they act on grounds other than deception and sheer expediency. However, the public is not quick to pick-up on such distinctions, and you will find politicians pilloried by a bamboozled electorate over changes of mind that were no more than parliamentary maneuvers. (Remember the ridicule aimed at John Kerry for his supposed "he was for it before he was against it" opinion about the Iraq War?) The public, if wise, would want elected leaders, especially legislators, who change positions as events--such as negotiations and novel incentives--change. But ask any experienced politician if she or he would want to try to finesse this point or educate the public about it, and I don't believe you'd find any takers.
So now to the case in point, the most recent incident that has led to the concept and role of hypocrisy coming so loudly into my mind. I'm referring to the attitude of Republican senators on record stating that a Supreme Court vacancy shouldn't be filled in an election year. We have a large number of senators (all Republican) who've made statements to this effect. (The New York Times has conveniently cataloged their statements here.) And I've addressed this issue concerning my current Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) and two senators from my native state of Iowa, Senators Charles Grassley and Joni Ernst. All of them have (as said of John Kerry) "flip-flopped" on this issue, to put in the kindest term possible. But because of the starkness of his statements, the brazenness of his reversal, and the convenience of Youtube, let's focus on Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Below are two clips of him, one from 2016 (during the refusal of the Republican Senate to consider the nomination Merrick Garland by President Obama) and the second came in 2018, during the Trump administration.
(Staring at about the 21'30" mark for the second clip.)
Despite what he said in 2016 and in 2018, very soon after the death of Justice Ginsberg, Senator Graham announced that he would support Senate action on a replacement nomination by President Trump even though the nomination process is over and voting for president has begun in some jurisdictions. Graham stated:
"After Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I'm concerned," he told reporters, referring to the contentious confirmation for Justice Brett Kavanaugh. "We'll see what the market will bear if that ever happens."
Graham also said in a tweet on Saturday he "fully understands" Mr. Trump's desire to move quickly on filling the vacancy.
"I fully understand where President @realDonaldTrump is coming from," Graham wrote, referring to a tweet where Mr. Trump said Republicans had an "obligation" to fill the seat with "no delay."
N.B. The second Youtube clip posted above from The Atlantic Festival in 2018 occurred after the Kavanaugh nomination and hearings. In fact, if you, Kavanaugh hearing process was discussed at length in the immediately preceding portion of the conversation that I embedded above.
So, is the change in position taken by Senator Graham (and representative of many of his Republican colleagues) hypocrisy or something else? Does anyone contend that this is a fully justified, principled change in position? If it's hypocrisy, is it the venial kind or is it a more deadly sin? If it's something more than hypocrisy, does it constitute a lie? Does it constitute an abuse of power? Or is it--or should it be--"just politics" where power (as control) is the entire game and the devil take the hindmost?
I'm going to adjourn my essay at the enod of the paragraph and ask any reader who would kindly do so to weight in on this topic. I have a tolerant attitude toward most hypocrisy, including that of politicians. (My understanding and appreciation of American politics is greatly influenced by the brilliant early works of Garry Wills, political reporter-classicist par excellence, especially his Confessions of a Conservative (1979) quoted above and Nixon Agonistes: The Crisis of the Self-Made Man (1970). Wills's arguments about elections, bureaucrats, do-gooders, good-doers, and politicians appreciate the political process, including the sometimes maddening foibles of politicians.) Thus, I need to determine how to characterize the actions of the Republican senators. Should I have believed Senators Grassley and Graham and the others? (Their excuses, disclaimers, and "events changed" arguments have all come post facto.) Should I--should all of us--become more cynical? How big a sucker was I to expect some principled consistency (assuming, as I do, that the excuses offered by the Senators are not principled but mere rhetorical figleaves). Do these actions help or hurt the democratic process? To what extent do these actions by these senators represent a degneration of the quality of the democratic process (or not)? Let me know your thoughts. How do we explain, justify, or condemn these positions?
Maybe this book is as important as when I started reading it
Will progressives and moderates feud while America burns?
Or will these natural allies take advantage of a historic opportunity to strengthen American democracy and defeat an increasingly radical form of conservatism?
The choice in our politics is that stark. This book is offered in a spirit of hope, but with a sense of alarm.
E.J. Dionne, Jr., Code Red: How Progressives & Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country
As I write this review on 11 March 2020, it appears that perhaps the battle royal that seemed to be brewing in the Democrat Party will be put on hold, at least until after the defeat of Donald Trump. Perhaps. But things have certainly changed even from when I began to read this book at the beginning of March when Sanders appeared to have a lead in the race for the nomination, and Biden had only a win (albeit big) in South Carolina. Today, after results from yesterday in the five states that voted, including Michigan, where Biden scored a very impressive win, and Washington, where Biden trails by a whisker with about two-thirds of precincts reporting, Biden is now has changed his position. Biden now is on track to receive the nomination (but in this world, trains can come off the track). So can we signal the all-clear sirens? Not quite yet.
Sanders isn't prepared to jump on the Joe bandwagon yet, but I've heard conjecture that he will come on board at a reasonable time and not try to damage Joe in his remaining campaign. Supporters? Well, we hope. But back to Dionne.
Even if the nomination is all but over, the message Dionne preaches is one that all Democrats need to heed through the election and beyond. In short, so-called progressives and so-called moderates need each other. Indeed, all Democrats who seriously contended for the nomination this year were progressives, all of them to the left of even Barack Obama. But Democrats, like almost any group, love to bicker about the smallest differences. When the goal is affordable health care for all, then "Medicare-for-All" versus upgraded Obamacare is a difference in the path, not the goal. Ditto with reducing inequality, climate change, access to education, treatment of immigrants and minorities, and so on. All Democrats stand in stark contrast the Party of Trump (no more "GOP"). We might use the analogy of an athletic team: the coach (voters in the primaries and caucuses) seem to have decided on the starting line-up (Biden), but Sanders and his supporters can still be a part of the team. (Although it would be nice if Sanders became a full-time Democrat, wouldn't it?) One hopes (and I believe) that Bernie won't quit the team out of anger and frustration and that most of his supporters won't either. Bernie, if trends continue, will have been licked fair and square, so any claim of a fix or unfair fight (which seemed to have lingered after Clinton defeated him) will clearly prove to be nothing more than sour grapes.
But there will be--we hope--a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress after the election. And we will need moderates, or as I prefer to say, the "the pragmatists," to work with "the visionaries," those who want to go beyond where the American electorate is prepared to go. Indeed, I agree that great changes in our political and economic systems. And I don't differ much in my diagnosis from those wanting politically-mandated change. But I believe that most of the change will need to come from the bottom up and not imposed from the top down. It will be a combination of both. But pushing too hard from the top (politically) down onto the electorate would likely cause a severe backlash. And Dionne, who's an astute student of American political history, recognizes the necessary synergy needed between the visionaries and the pragmatists to foster change. FDR, for instance, was a political leader who walked this tight-rope successfully. Did FDR accomplish everything he and his visionary supporters would have liked? No. But he did enact change that shaped American life and politics for more than a half-century? Yes. Would the civil rights movement (visionary) have prevailed without the ultimate pragmatic politician, Lyndon Johnson? Likely not, or at least not when they did make great gains in the late 50s through the mid-60s. Like the positive and negative poles of a battery, the visionaries and the pragmatists need each other. Or as great American democratic socialist, Michael Harrington, quoted by Dionne, put it, "the left-wing of the possible" needs to practice "visionary gradualism."
Much of what I've written above channels what Dionne writes about in his book. I've long been a fan of his work: he's a student of high-brow political thought (Francis Fukuyama, Mark Lilla, and Michael Harrington get mentioned and discussed), he pays attention to the insights from contemporary electoral research, and he performs shoe-leather reporting that tries to access what non-elites are thinking, all of which makes for first-rate reporting and analysis. Also--and this should probably be first on my list--Dionne holds a set of values and perspective that I find myself in close agreement with, one that seeks that perfect balance between vision and pragmatism. (Of course, maybe just a little of my high regard for Dionne is based on the fact that he had the tremendous insight to quote our older daughter and her friend in a column he wrote way back in 2000. Our daughter had introduced Bill Bradley at a campaign event. Of course, almost every politically active Iowan should expect some political reporter to quote them at some point during the caucus season.) Anyway, once again I find myself in agreement with Dionne and appreciative of his insights. So while the game isn't over, we should soon expect to have our starting line-up. I hope that everybody who cares about defeating our opponent gets involved and helps us pull together toward a resounding win.
After the suspension of his campaign last night, you might think that Pete Buttigieg will vanish in the rear-view mirror. I don't think so; anyway, I hope not. Of the candidates remaining in the Democrat contest after South Carolina, I thought him the best choice. But in contests of this nature, the "best" (however one may define that) only prevails by something akin to mere chance. What we end up with is normally some version of the acceptable. So it is. But if you want to know why me and a whole lot of others
supported this candidate (with a special shout-out to IOWA DEMOCRATS who saw the future of the party), watch this speech. If you want to cut to the highlights of an inspiring speech, go to the 13:30 mark. In about three & a half minutes you should be moved by someone who stuck to the end of this trail with a hopeful, inclusive vision of what his party and our nation should be about. Really an inspiring guy.
In short, there's a hell of a story here (the play on words intended). We can see the tip of the iceberg quite clearly, clearly enough to turn away, but will we? With deep background from the likes of Snyder & Lachman, and reporting like that of the article below, a true captain would turn away, but we have a crazed Ahab at the helm. Heaven help us.
