By Kevin D. Williamson
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times has a
dream, a dream in which about half of the American people are deprived of an
effective means of political representation, a dream of one-party government in
which the Democrats are the only game in town — “Dare We Dream of the End of
the GOP?” her column is headlined — which also is a dream of visiting vengeance
upon those who dared to vote for their own interests as they understood them
and thereby schemed “to stop the New America from governing.”
That quotation is from a new book by Democratic pollster
Stanley Greenberg bearing the title R.I.P. G.O.P. Greenberg himself has
a new column in the Times on the same theme. “The 2020 election will be
transformative like few in our history,” he writes. “It will end with the death
of the Republican Party as we know it . . . [and] liberate the Democratic Party
from the country’s suffocating polarization and allow it to use government to
address the vast array of problems facing the nation.”
We might understand the Goldberg-Greenberg position as
“the divine right of Democrats,” who apparently have an eternal moral mandate
to rule for reasons that must remain mysterious to those outside the ranks of New
York Times columnists.
Goldberg and Greenberg should at least try to take
seriously their own metaphor: polarization.
The American polity, like a magnet, is polarized because
it has two poles, for which the Republican and Democratic parties are
rough proxies. Why does the United States have two political poles? Because it
has two major political tendencies. Goldberg and Greenberg write of polarization,
but they do not believe in it. They do not understand the United States as
having two legitimate competing political camps but as suffering from a kind of
infection in the form of the Republican party, which inhibits the normal and
healthy — meaning Democrat-dominated — political life of the United States.
They believe that something they call the “New America” has an unquestionable
natural moral right to rule and that the Republican party is not a competing
pole but a blockage. To write as Greenberg does that the Democratic party is to
be liberated by the practical elimination of the Republican party, and
hence able to operate unencumbered, is to embrace not only the end of the GOP
but the end of ordinary political opposition.
It is not beyond imagining that the Republican party
should decline into corporate incoherence and irrelevance: Its leadership is
self-serving and feckless, and many of its subdivisions (including many state
and local Republican-party units) are corrupt to varying degrees, and too often
stupid where they are not corrupt. (This is not a universal condition; some of
them are both corrupt and stupid.) But imagine the GOP being vaporized tomorrow
by the political equivalent of a kind of neutron bomb in reverse, eliminating
the infrastructure and real estate but leaving the people. What would be left
behind? For one thing, there would remain an American electorate that was
almost evenly divided (+/- 2 percent) about whether Donald Trump or Hillary
Rodham Clinton would be a more desirable president — with the pro-Trump side
comprising a majority of the people in a majority of the states. It would
include a country in which there are more Americans who
believe that immigration should be reduced than who believe it should be
increased; in which a large
majority of the population supports restrictions on abortion and more than
80 percent support a ban on late-term abortion; it would include a country in
which work requirements for welfare benefits are overwhelmingly popular; it
would be a country in which about
half of the people still oppose the Affordable Care Act.
Restrictions on immigration and abortion, conditions on
welfare for the able-bodied, lower taxes and lower spending — these are not
positions associated with the Democratic party. But millions of Americans, in
some cases majorities and even large majorities, hold these views. They are
entitled to political representation, irrespective of the future of the
Republican party as an organization. And they will have that representation,
whether it goes by the brand name Republican, Liberal, Whig, or Monster Raving
Loony (RIP Screaming Lord Sutch). Eliminating the Republican party would not
relieve the country of the “polarization” — meaning opposition — that annoys
the Goldberg-Greenberg camp.
The only way to achieve that would be through the
political suppression of those with dissenting political views.
Which, of course, is the Left’s current agenda, from
deputizing Corporate America to act as its political enforcer by making
employment contingent upon the acceptance of progressive political orthodoxies
to attempting to gut the First Amendment in the name of “campaign finance”
regulation — it is the Democratic party, not the moral scolds of the Christian
Coalition, that proposes to lock up Americans for showing movies with
unauthorized political content — to grievously abusing legislative and
prosecutorial powers to harass and persecute those with nonconforming political
views (“Arrest
Climate-Change Deniers”) and declaring political rivals “domestic
terrorists,” as California Democrats have with the National Rifle Association.
Which is to say: It is not only the Republican party as a
political grouping they dream of eliminating: It is Republicans as such and
those who hold roughly Republican ideas about everything from climate change to
gun rights, groups that Democrats in agencies ranging from state prosecutors’
offices to the IRS already — right now, not at some point in some
imaginary dystopian future — are targeting through both legal and extralegal
means.
The Democrats who are doing this believe themselves to be
acting morally, even patriotically, and sometimes heroically. Why? Because they
believe that opposition is fundamentally illegitimate.
Eliminating the ability of those who currently align with
the Republican party to meaningfully participate in national politics is not
only wishful thinking in the pages of the New York Times. It is the
progressive program, from Washington to Palo Alto and beyond.
No comments:
Post a Comment