By Charles C. W. Cooke
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Herewith, an under-asked question for our friends on the
progressive left: “Has Donald Trump’s remarkable rise done anything to change
your mind as to the ideal strength of the State?”
I make this inquiry because, for a long while now, I have
been of the view that the only thing that is likely to join conservatives and
progressives in condemnation of government excess is the prospect that that
excess will benefit the Right. Along with their peculiar belief that History
takes “sides” and that improvement is inexorable and foreordained, most
progressives hold as an article of faith that, because it is now a
“consolidated democracy,” the United States is immune from the sort of tyranny
of which conservatives like to warn. As such, progressives tend not to buy the
argument that a government that can give you everything you want is also a government
that can take it all away. For the past four or five years, conservatives have
offered precisely this argument, our central contention being that it is a bad
idea to invest too much power in one place because one never knows who might
enjoy that power next. And, for the past four or five years, these warnings
have fallen on deaf, derisive, overconfident ears.
The case that the Right’s cynics have made is a broad
one: Inter alia, we have argued that
Congress ought to reclaim much of the legal authority that it has willingly
ceded to the executive, lest that executive become unresponsive or worse; that,
once abandoned, constitutional limits are difficult to resuscitate; that
federalism leads not just to better government but to a diminished likelihood
that bad actors will be able to inflict widespread damage; and, perhaps most
important of all, that far from being a vestige of times past, the Second
Amendment remains a vital protection upon which free men may fall should their
government turn to iron. In most cases, the reactions to these submissions have
been identical: That we are skeptical of power only because we dislike Barack
Obama, and that this skepticism will vanish upon the instant when he is
replaced by a leader that we prefer.
This response, I’m afraid to say, is entirely miscast. In
fact, we have taken these positions because, like all cautious people, we worry
what might happen in the days that we cannot yet see. As Edmund Burke memorably
put it, a sensible citizen does not wait for an “actual grievance” to intrude
upon his liberty, but prefers to “augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff
the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.” Barack Obama’s
extra-constitutional transgressions have been many and they have been alarming,
and I do not regret my opposition to them. But their result, thus far at least,
has been the marginal undermining of democracy and not the plain indulgence of
evil. Will our executives’ excesses always take that form? Is it wise to
appraise our current situation and to conclude that it will obtain for the rest
of time?
To listen to the manner in which our friends on the left
now talk about Donald Trump is to suspect that it is not. Time and time again,
Trump has been compared to Hitler, to Mussolini, to George Wallace, and to Bull
Connor. Time and time again, self-described “liberals” have recoiled at the
man’s praise for internment, at his disrespect for minorities and dissenters,
and at his enthusiasm for torture and for war crimes. Time and time again, it has
been predicted — not without merit — that, while Trump would almost certainly
lose a general election, an ill-timed recession or devastating terrorist attack
could throw all bets to the curb. If one were to take literally the chatter
that one hears on MSNBC and the fear that one smells in the pages of the New York Times and of the Washington Post, one would have no
choice but to conclude that the progressives have joined the conservatives in
worrying aloud about the wholesale abuse of power.
Hence my initial question: Have they? And, if they have,
what knock-on effects has that worrying had? Having watched the rise of
Trumpism — and, now, having seen the beginning of violence in its name — who
out there is having second thoughts as to the wisdom of imbuing our central
state with massive power?
That’s a serious, not a rhetorical, question. I would
genuinely love to know how many “liberals” have begun to suspect that there are
some pretty meaningful downsides to the consolidation of state authority. I’d
like to know how many of my ideological opponents saying with a smirk that “it
couldn’t happen here” have begun to wonder if it could. I’d like to know how
many fervent critics of the Second Amendment have caught themselves wondering
whether the right to keep and bear arms isn’t a welcome safety valve after all.
Furthermore, I’d like to know if the everything-is-better-in-Europe brigade is
still yearning for a parliamentary system that would allow the elected leader
to push through his agenda pretty much unchecked; if “gridlock” is still seen
as a devastating flaw in the system; if the Senate is still such an irritant;
and if the considerable power that the states retain is still resented as
before. Certainly, there are many on the left who are mistrustful of government
and many on the right who are happy to indulge its metastasis. But as a rule,
progressives favor harsher intrusion into our civil society than do their
political opposites. Are they still as sure that this is shrewd?
When Peter Beinart warns that Donald Trump is a threat to
“American liberal democracy” —
specifically to “the idea that there are certain rights so fundamental that
even democratic majorities cannot undo them” — he is channeling the
conservative case for the Founders’ settlement, and taking square aim at the
Jacobin mentality that would, if permitted, remove the remaining shackles that
surround and enclose the state. Does he know this? And if he does, is he still
as keen as ever to have the federal government spread its powerful wings and
cast long shadows across the nation? Does an expansive role for Washington hold
the same allure now that there is a possibility that a Trump-like figure could
commandeer it? If the answer to these questions is “yes,” I have a modest
second inquiry to go along with the first: “What is everybody smoking?”
No comments:
Post a Comment