By Victor Davis Hanson
Monday, August 15, 2016
Peter Beinart writes angrily in The Atlantic of the supposed Trump intellectuals, apparently on the
premise of not whether one has endorsed formally the Trump candidacy, but
whether one has been critical of the existing administration. He suggests that
I am guilty of suggesting that “America’s current leaders” are “predatory and
decadent” and as one of “Trump’s intellectuals” have wrongly warned that “the
natural arc of Obama-style progressivism is always anti-constitutional
fascism.” (The quote is taken from a June NRO essay entitled “A Long Trump
Summer” that lamented two “unprincipled candidates.”)
I and many others, long ago in the pre-Trump age, cited
the quite dangerous trajectory of Obama’s constitutional overreach. That worry
is now shared apparently by the New York
Times. Suddenly in year eight, its editors fear that someday another
president, perhaps one less sensitive, more uncouth than Obama, might find his
exemplar useful, but for less exalted progressive purposes. Thus the Times has characterized Obama’s
overreach as “bureaucratic bulldozing rather than legislative transparency.”
And more ominously it notes, “But once Mr. Obama got the taste for it, he pursued
his executive power without apology, and in ways that will shape the presidency
for decades to come.”
Long before the arrival of Donald Trump on the current
election scene, many noted with alarm efforts to circumvent the Congress with
Obama’s “pen and phone” executive orders and nullification of existing law —
whether the executive-order amnesties and non-enforcement of the border that he
had warned he could not do before his reelection, given that they would be the
work of an autocrat, or his allowance of sanctuary cities’ Confederate-like
nullification of existing federal law, or his arbitrary reelection-cycle,
non-enforcement of elements of his own Affordable Care Act, or virtual
rewriting of laws in federal bureaucracies such as the EPA, or the quite
dangerous politicization of agencies such as Lois Lerner’s activity at the IRS
or the Eric-Holder/Loretta Lynch Justice Department or his divisive Chavista
braggadocio (“get in their faces,” “punish our enemies,” “bring a gun to a
knife fight,” “you didn’t build that,” etc.).
Obama understandably grew confident that he could nullify
or ignore existing federal law, on the assurance he was doing so on
transformative grounds and thus would be largely exempt from press scrutiny.
And he was largely proven right in his reliance on media collusion.
So Beinart misses entirely what has angered the
proverbial people about the so-called Washington–New York corridor’s
political-media-academia elites. The people are not angry nativists opposing
legal immigration, but they object to massive, illegal immigration that is
neither diverse nor liberal, and whose architects never seem to experience
firsthand the consequences of what they created.
It is not just the Iraq War per se that angered the
people, but the elites who had urged the war and then by 2006 had largely and
conveniently opted out from their preemptive advocacy (my brilliant three-week
removal of Saddam; your messed-up years-long occupation) — while thousands of youth
were still fighting for their lives in the places they had once been ordered
into. And it was not anger at the wealthy per se, but at the well-connected
elites whose lives are graced with cultural and social privileges,
characterized by insider influence and generationally embedded connections that
blind them to how life is lived outside their often ridiculous embryos — given
that so often they never experience the direct results of their own ideological
agendas.
Finally, given the anti-constitutional arc of the last
eight years, it is rich for Beinart to warn the good intellectuals about their
true (anti-Trumpian) duties: to warn Trump supporters about the consequences of
their ignorance, given that “America is a democracy because the people’s voices
count, “ as he writes. “But it is a liberal democracy because freedom of the
press, independence of the judiciary, and the rule of law are not subject to
popular vote.”
Should we laugh or cry at that doublespeak, given the
Obama Justice Department’s somnolence in the matter of the Clinton violations
of national-security protocols, or the president’s own executive order
circumvention of existing laws, or a free press that so often has chosen to become
a Ministry of Truth.
Beinart worries about the corrosive effects of wealth on
democracy; he should offer an extension course on how the Clintons accumulated
a net worth of $150 million since Bill left the presidency, or on the
methodologies by which once-convicted financial speculator and multibillionaire
George Soros warps the democratic process. Or he might collate the political
preferences of a Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or Mark Zuckerberg.
Perhaps he could recall who was the first presidential candidate in a general
election to renounce public campaign funding in order to become the greatest
recipient of Wall Street cash in election history.
Beinart’s second commandment for anti-Trump intellectuals
is to hone “their ability to push the American political system to address the
combustible economic despair of the working-class white men who have powered
Trump’s campaign.”
Note Beinart’s pride in his and other intellectuals’
supposed ability to “push the political system.” But, alas, by his own
admission, they so far have not pushed much of anything concerning the “despair
of the working-class white men” — raising the question of “why not”? Certainly, for the last eight years, white
privileged intellectuals have been keen to cite the apparent “white privilege”
of others — often those who don’t have much of any privileges — in a manner that
seems designed to assuage their conflicted psyches about their own demonstrable
advantages.
Rather than answer in intellectual terms, I suggest that
Beinart simply take a sabbatical: put his children for a year in an inner-city
or rural, public unionized school, or conduct an anthropological field study by
driving out for six months to Dayton or Modesto, or take up some work-study on
a farm outside Delano. All that might be of far more value than searching for
quotes in Czesław Miłosz’s The Captive
Mind (whose warnings, after all, were focused on the allure for left-wing
intellectuals of charismatic, hard-core Stalinism).
In sum, violations of our constitutional freedoms could
arrive in the form of a crude and blustering populist on the 2017 horizon; but
far more worrisome is the fact that the dangers are already here, having
arrived insidiously in the form of a suave constitutional-law lecturer, who
assumed that because he was stamped as progressive, familiar, and one of the
cultural elite, a liberal press would willingly overlook the means he employed
to obtain their shared ends. The press corps need not worry that their freedoms
will be taken away by Trump, given that for some time they have been only too
happy to give them up.
No comments:
Post a Comment