By David French
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
In my lifetime, I’ve never seen more presidential
candidates advocate breaking more American constitutional, economic, and policy
norms than I’ve seen from the Democratic field so far in 2019. When you
assemble their proposals, it’s breathtaking.
End the Electoral College? Elizabeth Warren is for it,
and Beto O’Rourke says there’s “a lot of wisdom” in her proposal.
Pack the Supreme Court?
Warren, Beto, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand are open to the
idea.
End the legislative filibuster? Harris and Warren are
thinking about it.
Remake the American economy with the Green New Deal?
Virtually every significant Democratic presidential candidate is an
enthusiastic yes.
Sweep away the private health-insurance policies of 150
million Americans? This is the emerging Democratic consensus.
This is only a partial list of Democratic power moves to
the left, including calls to fundamentally transform longstanding
constitutional structures and institutions. What is going on? Are these all
conviction moves by progressive politicians telling the American people what
they really believe? Are these
politicians merely reflecting and amplifying the deeply held views of the
Democratic rank-and-file?
Certainly the Democratic mainstream has moved the left,
and the left-most cohorts are white, female, college-educated, and young. In
other words, I just described many of the key demographics of American Twitter
— the platform that exercises a wildly disproportionate influence on
politicians, journalists, and political activists. The dominant feedback loop
in the early primary isn’t just from the motivated base (which would be
entirely normal), but a motivated base amplified by a specific social-media
platform.
Yes, radical Democratic pronouncements will earn them a
wave of negative media attention on Fox News and in conservative media, but not
a single Democratic candidate is trying to win that demographic. Indeed, a wave of Fox News hate is good for the
brand. But if a Democratic candidate breaks even in small ways from the
emerging online orthodoxy, watch them trend on Twitter. Watch them get
viciously dragged in real-time in front of every single leading progressive
politician, activist, and journalist in the United States. It takes a brave
person to withstand the attack, especially when there is precious little
short-term advantage in confronting the online left.
This immediate, public, toxic, and often vicious or
scornful feedback amplifies existing primary-season pressures to move leftward
— just as the same kind of immediate toxic reaction can cow conservatives who
oppose Trump. These attacks aren’t just read by campaign staffers. They also
provide fodder for journalists, and they can quickly create narratives that dog
candidates for days or weeks.
I’m not arguing that primary-season purity tests are
anything new. Republicans have been through those wars, and now the GOP purity
test is centered around loyalty to Trump. But these days Twitter — which has
developed into a hysterical platform prone to mobbing and shaming — amplifies
and intensifies pre-existing primary pressures. Now, a strategy to prevent poor
optics on Twitter will push Democratic candidates further and further to the
left, as they express “openness” to ideas they’d never otherwise entertain, all
to avoid the backlash.
As I’ve argued before, Twitter is so influential in part
because that’s where the people who care the most spend their time. The people
who care the most about anything —
from politics to sports to pop culture — set the tone. And in American
politics, the people who care the most tend not to be moderate, either in
temperament or ideology.
By the time progressive Twitter has done its work on the
Democratic field, the American people may no longer have the ability to choose
true American norms in 2020. They may well encounter a choice between an
extremist personality with a relatively center-right or populist agenda and a
more normal personality who seeks to enact extremist policies. If suburban
voters long not for radical change but rather for a more reasonable politics,
where will they turn?
But Democrats — indeed, both parties — need to remember
that while Twitter has disproportionate influence on activists and elites,
there’s little evidence its outrages and controversies penetrate the wider
world. A data point from this last week speaks volumes. If you’d only watched
Twitter, you’d think that Beto’s presidential announcement was a bust. The
Bernie Brigades — which punch well above their weight online — gang-tackled
Beto on social media. He wasn’t taking on Ted Cruz, he was taking on the heroes
of the progressive movement, and the honeymoon was most definitely over.
Twitter pronounced its verdict. His announcement was a
bust. His campaign was days old, but he was already struggling. And then we
learned Beto had outraised every other Democratic candidate — including Bernie
— in the first 24 hours of his campaign.
That doesn’t mean Beto is a favorite. Nor does it mean
that he’s immune to Twitter’s progressive temptations. Just yesterday he backed
abortion-on-demand even into the third trimester. He has backed the Green New
Deal. He’s even advocated tearing down parts of the existing border wall. But it does mean that sensible politicians
and sensible members of their staffs would do well to remember that the praise
they earn online may well spell their doom at the ballot box. Twitter politics
is extremist politics, and fighting one norm-breaker by creating another is an
excellent way for the Democrats to fail again.
No comments:
Post a Comment