By David Harsanyi
Friday, January 22, 2016
As many conservatives grapple with the growing prospect
of a Donald Trump presidential nomination, I’ve started to hear them asking one
another the once unthinkable: “Would you vote for Trump?” Mostly, the answer is
“of course not.” He’s a fascistic clown. He’s a clandestine liberal (not really
that cagey about it, to be honest) who’d be a disaster for the country, not to
mention destroy the Republican party for generations, perhaps forever.
Which is exactly the point, right?
The Washington Post’s
Michael Gerson writes that Trump is “proposing a massive ideological and moral
revision of the Republican party.” He might have added: Like the one Democrats
have already gone through.
Since there’s so much concern-trolling and hand-wringing
about the future of the Right, it should not escape our attention that
Republicans aren’t the only ones dealing with the corrosive effects of populist
anger and a cult of personality.
Yes, Trump is going to be a spectacular disaster — maybe
even worse than most — but why would anyone believe the contrived progressivism
and incompetence of Hillary Clinton or (the incredibly expensive) radicalism of
Bernie Sanders would be any less of a catastrophe? The Democrat front-runners
aren’t less inclined to embrace authoritarianism or destructive economic
theories than Trump — even if some of those ideas were mainstreamed over the
past few years.
Democrats aren’t ripping themselves apart as their
leadership continually surrenders to the most strident voices in the party.
Clinton, once the target of grassroots derision and frustration, now sounds
like a random blogger at Daily Kos —
which once upon a time wanted to burn it all down, as well. The Democrats’
debate was a celebration of “free” stuff and gargantuan reforms that would have
been unthinkable positions for a mainstream Democrat candidate in 1992, or even
2008.
And, contra the finger-wagging wisdom of moderates,
Democrats are just as likely to embrace a hateful tone aimed at those they hold
liable for the ills of the nation. They just happen to direct that anger at
clingy gun-owners, reactionary Christians, or those who believe in the
superiority of Western ideals. Thought pieces fret over the end of civility
only when the “anger” chafes against sensibilities of the media. President
Obama and Trump fans have more in common than they’d like to imagine.
If Trump can be accused of fascism (and there’s something
to this charge), surely Bernie Sanders, now making huge strides in the polls,
can easily be accused of being a Marxist. More so. Yet, how apprehensive are
Democrats about this turn towards leftism? Could the hundreds of seats lost to
Republicans over the past few years have anything to do with this turn? Is
anyone worried that Sanders’s success will exacerbate the cultural rifts
already destroying the party’s appeal? How many Democrats ask themselves: Hey,
would I vote for Bernie Sanders over Marco Rubio?
The corrupted centrist and one-time backer of the Iraq
war (once the litmus test for liberals) holds every conceivable fiscal and
political advantage over an obscure senator peddling failed ideas from the
early 20th century. Yet, imagine, if you will, what Clinton’s prospects would
look like if a more competent and charismatic socialist were running instead of
Sanders, who is now ahead of Clinton by 27 percentage points among Democratic
primary voters in New Hampshire, according to a new CNN/WMUR poll. Or imagine
if there were four or five other competent and well-funded candidates running
in the Democrat primaries splitting the votes as they do on the other side?
Would Sanders be where Trump is? What happens if the bottom falls out? What
happens if Hillary’s candidacy becomes untenable because of her legal problems?
Democrats will have a socialist candidate, who probably would more
appropriately reflect their views.
This should not surprise anyone. After a number of
populist revolts against their establishment during the Bush years — including
the tossing aside of Clinton in 2008 — liberals reinvented their party. And
still Obama could not realize most of his agenda with the party behind him. The
fear (and the promise) of a Trump candidacy comes from vastly overestimating
executive power.
I’m not sold on the inevitability of a Trump victory in
the primaries, but you don’t get to build the ideal candidate, you get what the
era gives you. This is an era of anger and populism. It was in 2008 — when the
recession shook free the anger and frustrations of many nervous voters — and it
still is.
No comments:
Post a Comment