By Kevin D. Williamson
Saturday, November 26, 2016
A very nice liberal broadcaster asked me earlier this
week whether I am worried about the future of the Republican party.
Funny question.
There are 25 states in which the state legislatures and
governorships are controlled by Republicans, and two states with
executive/legislative divides in which there are Republican legislative
majorities large enough to override a veto from the Democratic governor.
Sixty-eight of the country’s 98 partisan state legislative chambers are
Republican-run. There are only four states with Democratic governors and
legislatures; it is true that these include one of our most populous states
(California), but the majority of Americans live in states in which there are
Republican trifectas or veto-proof legislative majorities. Two-thirds of the
nation’s governors are Republicans; more than two-thirds of our state
legislative houses are under Republican control. Republicans control both
houses of Congress and have just won the presidency.
Democrats control the dean of students’ office at
Oberlin.
And Democrats have responded to their recent electoral
defeat with riots, arson, and Alex Jones–level conspiracy theories.
Progressives have just raised $5 million to press for a recount in several
states. Clinton sycophant Paul Krugman, sounding exactly like every
well-mannered conspiracy nut you’ve ever known, says the election “probably
wasn’t hacked,” but “conspiracies do happen” and “now that it’s out there” —
(who put it out there?) — “an independent investigation is called for.”
Maybe it isn’t the Republican party whose future needs
worrying about.
In one sense, what is happening in American politics is a
convergence of partisan styles.
Beginning with the nomination of Barry Goldwater, and
thanks in no small part to the efforts of many men associated with National Review, the Republican party
spent half a century as a highly ideological enterprise. But highly ideological
political parties are not the norm in the English-speaking world, especially
not in the United States, and the conservative fusion of American
libertarianism, social traditionalism, and national-security assertiveness
probably is not stable enough to cohere, having now long outlived the Cold War,
in which it was forged. Trump’s lack of conservative principle is unwelcome,
but it points to an ideological looseness that is arguably more normal, a
return to the model of party as loose coalition of interest groups.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are becoming more
ideological, or at least more openly and self-consciously ideological, as the
party’s progressivism becomes more and more a catechism. This has the effect of
making the Democratic party less democratic. American progressives have a long
and genuine commitment to mass democracy, having supported not only various expansions
of the franchise but also many instruments of direct democracy such as the
ballot initiative, but they also have a long and genuine commitment to
frustrating democracy when it gets in the way of the progressive agenda, which
is why they have spent the better part of a century working to politicize the
courts, the bureaucracies, and the non-governmental institutions they control
in order to ensure they get their way even when they lose at the ballot box.
Democrats did not pay much attention when they started suffering losses at the
state level, because they were working against federalism and toward a unitary
national government controlled from Washington. And they did not fight as hard
as they might to recover from their losses in Congress while Barack Obama sat
in the White House, obstructing Republican legislative initiatives and
attempting to govern through executive fiat — an innovation that the Democrats
surely are about to regret in the direst way.
For the moment, the stylistic convergence — the
Republicans becoming a little more like the selfish-coalition Democratic party,
and the Democrats becoming a little more like the ideological Republican party
— works to the Republicans’ advantage, though there is no reason to believe
that always will be the case. The GOP had a very good run of it as a highly
ideological enterprise.
The longer-term problem for the Democrats is that they
are finding out that they have to play by their own rules, which are the rules
of identity politics. This is a larger problem for the Democratic party than is
generally appreciated. The Democratic party is an odd apparatus in which most
of the power is held by sanctimonious little old liberal white ladies with
graduate degrees and very high incomes — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Elizabeth
Warren, Randi Weingarten — while the manpower, the vote-power, and the
money-power (often in the form of union dues) comes from a disproportionately
young and non-white base made up of people who, if they are doing well, might
earn one-tenth of the half-million dollars a year Weingarten was paid as the
boss of the teachers’ union. They are more likely to be cutting the grass in
front of Elizabeth Warren’s multi-million-dollar mansion than moving into one
of their own. They roll their eyes at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s risible “abuela” act, having actual abuelas of their own.
As in the Republican party, the Democrats have a restive
base that is more radical than its leadership, more aggressive, and in search
of signs of tribal affiliation. The Democratic base is not made up of little
old liberal white ladies with seven-, eight-, and nine-figure bank balances,
but the party’s leadership is. It is worth noting that in a year in which the
Republican candidate painted Mexican immigrants with a rather broad and ugly
brush, Mrs. Clinton got a smaller share of the Hispanic vote than Barack Obama
did in 2012. She got a significantly smaller share of the black vote, too.
Interestingly, Mrs. Clinton’s drop in the black vote came exclusively from
black men. Many black Americans had very high hopes that an Obama
administration would mean significant changes in their lives and in the state
of their communities. but that has not come to pass. There is nothing about
Mrs. Clinton that inspired similar hopes. “She’s not right, and we all know
it,” the comedian Dave Chappelle said.
It is far from obvious that Senator Cherokee Cheekbones
or anyone standing alongside Debbie Wasserman Schultz will feel more “right” to
Democratic voters who have almost nothing in common with them. A coalition in
which elderly rich white faculty-lounge liberals have all the power and enjoy
all the perks while the work and money come from younger and browner people is
not going to be very stable.
Especially when it has been stripped of the one thing
that has held that coalition together so far: power.
No comments:
Post a Comment