Code Red: How Progressives & Moderates Can Unite to Save Our Country by E.J. Dionne, Jr.

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. 

"Stars" in Politics

Cleaning out to start the New Year, I found this essay that I wrote. I don't recall having posted it before, and when I read through it quickly, it still seems basically sound to me. Anyway, I post it for what it's worth.


The U.S. has grown into a polity marked by equality and universal sufferage. Freedom of expression, growing out of the First Amendment to the Constitution, also serves as a benchmark of U.S. politics. Any limitation on the participation of any group—whether of those with whom we agree with or those with whom we disagree—should not be our policy or goal.
The effect of entertainers on contemporary electoral politics is not new. While MTV’s “Rock the Vote” draws the attention of young people in recent elections, it’s basic tenant, that participation in the electoral process is not only socially acceptable, but a genuine good, is not unique. The use of “stars”, names from Hollywood and the entertainment world, has been ongoing at least since the Second World War, when well known actors participated in films supporting enlistment in the armed forces. Ronald Reagan, who served as president of the Screen Actors Guild, and who later served as host of GE Theatre, moved into politics. Reagan joined George Murphy, an actor later elected senator from California, as an example of entertainers who made the transition from fame as entertainers into elected officials. This trend has continued not only in California—witness Arnold Swartzenegger—but also in other parts of the country and involving politicians of a completely different political persuasion. For example, consider comedian-turned-actor Al Franken, recently elected senator from Minnesota. Given that breadth of the political spectrum represented by these few samples, one cannot argue that any particular political party or political perspective gains more from the use of entertainers as candidates or surrogates for candidates. The development of candidates and points of view seems to have little bearing in the eyes of the voting public. A candidate may gave gained name recognition from a career in sports (e.g., Bill Bradley, Jack Kemp, Tom Osborne) or entertainment, but this only provides an initial gateway past the barrier of name recognition.
The issue of concern in this topic must go the role and responsibility of the media. The media, once exclusively the realm of print, but now led by television and internet sources, must play the key role in discerning whether the fame of a entertainer merits the thoughtful consideration of a voter. Some voters, no doubt, would follow the lead of a famous person just because of the person’s perception of the entertainer’s stage persona, but this kind of limited critical thinking is as old as democracy, and it won’t go away by attempting to ban or downplay the roles of the famous in our electoral system. Instead, we need opinion leaders in all forms of media to foster critical assessments of all those who stand for public office. Much of the media have always enjoyed a strange, symbiotic relationship with the famous, including politicians, at once glorifying them and vilifying them; using them and being used by them. To the extent that members of all facets of the media resist the trap of this strange duet, the more useful the media’s role in democratic societies.
As politics in a democratic society should involve a widespread and varied consideration of all manner of perspective in our complex society, to consider limiting or pre-judging any group is a mistake. Instead, society, led by leaders in the media willing to take up the cause of the public good, should weigh and consider perspectives from all manner of sources. The famous will always flourish in democratic societies, whether military leaders, reformers, entertainers, or sports figures. The question, the challenge, for all becomes our collective ability to discern the merely famous from those who hold the ability to provide leadership and judgment in political office.