By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, December 11, 2016
The Washington Post
is beside itself: “Nearly a third of Republicans don’t know that Trump lost the
popular vote.”
How about that?
There are all sorts of irrelevant things that Republicans
— and voters in general — do not know. About 80 percent of voters do not know
how many senators there are, which also means that they do not quite know what
the Senate does. I’ll wager that large majorities of them do not know what
political party Narendra Modi belongs to or which country’s capital is Bishkek.
Most people don’t know how to field dress a javelina or identify poison oak,
what the corpus callosum does, or how Infinite
Jest ends.
They do not know these things because — pay attention
here — they do not matter.
Not to the people who don’t know about them, anyway. In
economics and political theory, this is called “rational ignorance.” Most
people don’t know anything about most subjects, which is exactly how it should
be: The world is far too complicated for most of us to have anything more than
a superficial familiarity with most subjects. And many people, such as Joe
Biden, never develop expertise in any of them. Biden always gives me the feeling
that his real aim in life is acquiring the world’s coolest model-railroad set —
he is famous for his love of trains.
Who lost (“lost”) the popular vote (“popular vote”) is
irrelevant for all sorts of reasons. For one thing, it doesn’t have anything to
do with the outcome of the election. For another, it doesn’t, strictly
speaking, exist. We don’t have a popular presidential vote, or a campaign for
that vote. There are all sorts of good reasons for that, most of them
anticipated by men such as Alexander Hamilton and other people wiser and more
prudent than Joe Biden and Jill Stein and you.
Donald Trump, who won the election, is annoying the heck
out of Democrats by having the audacity to act like he won the election. Which
he did. “Oh, sure, he won the phony-baloney Electoral College election,” the
Democrats say, “but our girl Hillary Placeholder Clinton won . . . this
other imaginary election . . . which is now super-important!”
To call this rhetoric “transparent” would be a disservice
to Shrinky Dinks and Cold War–era Buhl Industries overhead projectors and other
things associated with transparency.
Allow me to translate this language from the original
Democratic: “Please, please, don’t go acting like you won the election you won
and wielding that power the way we would and will and did last time around.
Pretty please. If we believed in God, we’d be praying to God right now that you
don’t act like us.”
The question, our Democratic friends insist, is one of
“mandate,” one of the most popular and stupid words in the American political
lexicon.
According to this line of thinking, the fact that Trump
won but did not win lots and lots of votes in highly populous Democratic states
such as California where he did not campaign very much means that he should
give Democrats what they want instead of trying to get what he wants. This is,
of course, a one-way street: American voters have entrusted Republicans with
the management of 68 of the nation’s 99 legislative chambers, 34 of its 50
governorships, a majority in the House, a majority in the Senate, and the
mayoralty of Miami, but Democrats still believe that their elected officials,
hated and despised and spurned as they may be in that vast sea of electoral-map
red dividing Oakland from Trenton, should keep trying to get what they want,
secondary considerations be damned. There is something to be said for the
argument that if you won your election you should fight like hell to do what
you told the voters you were going to do; Democrats just can’t quite see extending
this thinking to Trump, who won the biggest and most hotly contested and
most-talked-about election.
This is all part of what I call the non-negotiability of
progressive victories. You see this all the time: When it comes to Supreme
Court precedents, the Democrats demand 100 percent deference to standing
decisions in, e.g., Roe v. Wade, and
are 100 percent powerless to act against the tide of capital-H History when it
comes to overturning decisions they don’t like or discovering new constitutional
rights that enshrine progressive political preferences. There’s no principle in
question: They just want the Court to give them what they want.
The non-negotiability of progressive victories is going
to be a large factor in Senator Chuck Schumer’s resistance to various Trump
cabinet picks. The sophistry already has begun, with Democrats arguing that no
one can lead the Department of Education or the EPA or Department of Labor
unless he signs off on the progressive
version of what that agency should do. So if you think that the present federal
role in education is excessive and ought to be reduced, or that the EPA’s boot
is a little too heavy on the neck of American industry, or that a federal court
was right to put the brakes on the Obama administration’s daffy overtime rules,
then you cannot lead the Department of Education, the EPA, or the Department of
Labor. Which is to say, these departments exist, in the progressive view, only
to pursue progressive policies.
The Democrats, especially Barack Obama with his
pen-and-phone shtick, always forget that they will not hold power forever.
Funny thing, though: In 1984, Ronald Reagan won 49 states
in the Electoral College (recount Minnesota!) and damn near 60 percent of the
(imaginary) popular vote. Congressional Democrats did not roll over in the face
of that mandate. They doubled down on the crazy and went absolutely nuts on
Robert Bork in 1987, establishing another political precedent they’d eventually
come to regret. If Reagan’s “mandate” in 1984 meant that he got to have his way
with appointments, somebody forget to tell Teddy Kennedy. There was a pretty
good “mandate” for repealing the so-called Affordable Care Act after the 2010
elections, but Democrats weren’t interested in that.
This “mandate” business is shoddy, dishonest, boring,
juvenile politics of the sort that would embarrass an abject minion like Paul
Begala, if he had the capacity for being embarrassed. The only interesting bit
is that in a political milieu that includes Donald J. Trump, the most
ridiculous and shallow bulls**t in circulation isn’t coming from Donald J.
Trump, who would be entirely justified in quoting Barack Obama — “I won” — and
proceeding accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment