By David French
Thursday, March 14, 2019
Earlier this morning, Robert “Beto” O’Rourke announced
that he’s running for president, and there are two things I believe with equal
intensity. First, I don’t want Beto to be president. He’s a culturally left
economic progressive who may be the serious candidate closest to an actual
open-borders position on immigration. Second, I don’t want to see the
Democratic party become so radical — and so obsessed with matters of race and
privilege — that even Beto is too “moderate” to win.
So, in the woke war against Beto, I’m rooting for Beto to
win.
And make no mistake, the woke war is on. Just read the
critiques that have been rolling in from the online Left. At CNN, Nia-Malika
Henderson argues that Beto’s “adventures” after his Senate loss to Ted Cruz
“drip with white male privilege.” “His political identity,” she claims, “is
predicated on being white and male.” It’s this “privilege” that “allows him to
turn a loss to the most despised candidate of the cycle into a launching pad
for a White House run.”
At the New York
Times, Lisa Lerer analyzed the alleged “privilege of being Beto” and
reported on simmering resentment in Democratic ranks:
In quiet and not-so-quiet
complaints, Democratic strategists argue that the relatively positive reception
to Mr. O’Rourke’s untraditional approach is evidence, yet again, of the deep
double standard female candidates face. While his defenders argue that Mr.
O’Rourke can’t be blamed for gender dynamics he didn’t create, his critics say
he is being given a benefit of the doubt that wouldn’t be extended to a woman
or a candidate of color.
And if we want to talk about pure policy, the Washington Post’s Elizabeth Bruenig
makes the socialist case against Beto. Bruenig only calls him
“progressive-ish.” He didn’t join the House Progressive Caucus. He didn’t
sponsor House single-payer or free-college bills. He calls the “decision
between oil and gas and renewable energy sources ‘a false choice.’”
To conservative ears, the idea of Beto as a progressive
squish sounds odd. After all, this is the same guy who told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes
that he’d take down the wall between El Paso and Mexico. He’s resolute on
abortion rights. He’s fluent in intersectionality. He wants to ban so-called
assault weapons.
But he’s an Obama-style progressive when millions of
members of the Democratic-party base have moved on. They’re frustrated with
Obama-style politics. They’ve given up on unifying messages. They’re sick of white
men, unless the white man is an avowed socialist — and even then he’s still
suspect.
I know there are Republicans who chortle at all this.
There’s a long bipartisan history of rooting for the opposing party to go nuts
— to nominate someone either so extreme or so bizarre that they guarantee an
electoral loss. Remember this famous National
Review cover?
But never forget that in 2016 the Democrats did their
share of chortling when Donald Trump dominated the primaries. They thought it
was hilarious that Republicans had actually nominated the least-liked
politician in the history of favorability polling. They kept laughing until
about 11:00 p.m. on Election Night — when Florida was lost, Ohio was lost, and
it looked quite clear that the Philadelphia precincts weren’t going to save
Hillary from disaster.
Right now, the Democratic front-runner is a man who used
to gush with praise for the Soviet Union and even defended bread lines. Another
leading contender has proudly promised to eliminate every private health-insurance
program in America. Virtually every important Democratic candidate (including
Beto) has endorsed or spoken glowingly about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green
New Deal — a progressive program of staggering expense and scope.
So now it’s the Republicans’ turn to laugh. That’s a
curious position for a party that just lost the House and got crushed by
suburban Americans who were once loyal GOP voters. It’s an especially curious
position for a party whose standard-bearer is sitting on a 41.7 percent
approval rating — just as it was curious for Democrats to feel so confident
when Hillary was at their helm.
In a time of extreme polarization, ideology matters far
less than party identification, and it’s now entirely possible that even Bernie
Sanders could win the White House. It’s possible that the ideas that were once
on the fringe even of Democratic politics in, say, 2012 could become the
signature legislative initiatives of a new Democratic president. Against this
backdrop — and for the health of the republic — it’s time for Americans to root
for both parties to pick the least-bad option. Consequently, if Beto stands
between the Democrats and the full embrace of both socialism and identity
politics, then I’ll take Beto every time.
No comments:
Post a Comment