By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, March 05, 2020
In 2016, there was a groundswell of conservative and Republican
opposition to Donald Trump, led in no small part by National Review. In
2020, there is not much sign of a comparable movement among Democrats in
opposition to Senator Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont from Brooklyn
who is running for the presidential nomination of a party to which he does not
belong as a confessing socialist calling for revolution.
Why is there no “Never Bernie” movement to speak of?
The New York Post went looking for one in early
February and did not come up with much: some rumors of discontent, but only
vague ones. Democratic activist Jim Kessler of Third Way was exemplary: “I’ll
still put a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on my car,” he told the Post,
“but a lot of people won’t.” Who? Donna Brazile, the former DNC chair, denied
that there was any effort from any high-level Democrats to stop Sanders—only a
few “moody” donors.
There is a purely strategic anti-Sanders effort, to be
sure, typified by the Big Tent Project, which works to promote less radical
candidates (it helped Joe Biden in South Carolina) and warns Democrats that
“nominating Bernie means we reelect Trump.” There is a very large difference
between worrying that a candidate will lose and believing that he does not
deserve to win—that he is, as many conservatives said of Trump in 2016,
fundamentally unfit for the office he seeks. Which Senator Sanders manifestly
is. Democrats may be concerned that his radicalism is likely to be a political
loser, but there is not much intellectual or moral pushback against the radicalism
itself.
To the extent that one exists at all, the supra-strategic
“Never Bernie” tendency consists of 7,844 nobodies on Twitter and David Brooks,
a conservative-leaning New York Times columnist who interned for William
F. Buckley Jr. and who has been an ex-Republican for about as long as Donald
Trump has been a Republican. The Twitter nobodies are mostly disappointed
partisans of the campaigns of other Democratic-primary contenders who cannot
forgive Senator Sanders’s often brutish supporters for their abuses, e.g.,
field director Ben Mora’s mockery of Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren’s looks
(“chunky” and “looks like sh**,” respectively) and Pete Buttigieg’s sexuality,
threatening violence at Joe Biden events, etc. Tom Watson, a Democratic strategist,
reports “a level of pure antipathy I’ve never seen before” among anti-Sanders
Democrats, but other than the desultory social-media stuff, it is not much in
evidence.
If you want to see “pure antipathy,” consider the
Democratic response to Brooks’s column arguing that Sanders, with his socialism
and his calls for revolution, is illiberal, something like a left-wing Donald
Trump. In a hysterically stupid but terribly typical response, Paul Waldman
complained in the Washington Post that Brooks wrote “as though Sanders
has proposed herding us all into collective farms, starving half the population
and establishing a gulag where he’ll send his political enemies” but—get
this!—failed to produce a single quote from Sanders calling for that.
Well.
As it turns out, Lenin did not publicly advocate starving
millions of Ukrainians to death, Castro did not publicly advocate murdering
librarians and imprisoning homosexuals, Chávez did not publicly advocate
turning Venezuela into a basket case . . . Senator Sanders says that what he
has in mind is Denmark, but the policies he proposes are nothing like Danish
policies, which he evidently knows absolutely nothing about, and he has spent
his life as an apologist for the Soviet Union (where he vacationed), Castro’s
brutal regime (literacy programs!), Chávez’s Venezuela (his Senate website
posted an article praising that socialist backwater as the new home of the
American dream), etc. In fact, if you listen to Kim Jong-un talk about his
philosophy of government, it turns out to be—surprise!—rather different from
how things actually work in North Korea. I have yet to find a single quotation
from the Dear Leader in which he argues that his fellow countrymen should be
starved until they are reduced to cannibalism.
Progressives in general rallied to Senator Sanders in
defending him against criticism of the agenda that he himself describes as
“socialism.” Tom Scocca of Slate dismissed Brooks’s column as a
“grotesque pack of lies,” while Jonathan Chait of New York insisted that
“Bernie is an economic socialist but a political liberal.” Senator Sanders
proposes, among other things, to gut the First Amendment in order to put
political speech under direct federal control—that is not liberalism, but its
opposite. Brooks’s characterization of Sanders’s populist demagoguery and the
mode of politics it implies—“majoritarian domination”—not only is apt and
accurate, it is precisely what Senator Sanders himself promises: a revolution
that will leave his political opponents unable to oppose his agenda because
they will be regulated into silence or politically bullied into acquiescence.
Don’t expect to see an anti-Sanders movement comparable
to the anti-Trump movement of 2016, for at least four reasons.
First, there is no principled anti-Sanders movement
because Democrats’ principles are Sanders’s principles. Whereas Republicans in
2016 had good reason to doubt Trump on everything from abortion to the Second
Amendment to taxes, Democrats have no such qualms about Sanders. Sanders calls
himself a socialist, Warren insists that she is a capitalist, but they come
down pretty close together on health care, business regulation, taxes, and much
more. (With capitalists like these, who needs socialists?) Sanders wants a
monopoly health-care system, punitive taxation, a (further) weaponized
regulatory state, and a radical expansion in federal spending and federal
power. Democrats may quibble, but they simply are not in the position of 2016
Republicans who doubted Trump’s reliability on their core issues.
Second, Democrats do not actually believe socialism to be
outside the boundaries of respectable opinion. They may worry about it as a
marketing matter, but Sanders’s enthusiasm for left-wing autocrats from Moscow
to Havana to Caracas is not, from the progressive point of view, morally
comparable to disreputable right-wing enthusiasms—for Pinochet or Franco, once
upon a time, or for Orban or Alternative für Deutschland today. They are
committed to their belief that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were “on the right
side of history,” that those who opposed them were monsters, and that those who
rallied to the flag of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were only humanitarians with
excessive enthusiasm—“liberals in a hurry,” as they used to say.
Third, unlike 2016 Republicans, 2020 Democrats do not believe
that Sanders’s performative outrage, rhetorical incontinence, facile extremism,
defects of judgment, etc., disqualify him from the office. They only worry that
voters might think this and punish his campaign and their party—which, let us
remember, are not the same thing—for these excesses. Trump abominates CNN, and
Democrats see a would-be censor and a threat to the First Amendment. (Never
mind that every single Democrat in the Senate voted to effectively repeal the
First Amendment only a few years ago.) Democrats complain about Fox News—and
Senator Sanders complains more generally about the “corporate media”—and
progressives hear only a call to arms. Both Senator Sanders and Senator Warren
have taken the lead in outlining repressive new measures curbing political
speech in the name of “campaign-finance reform,” but practically every major
Democrat accepts these or similar measures enthusiastically.
Fourth and finally for this discussion, the Democratic
Party’s transformation into the Party of Oberlin is, if not quite complete (see
South Carolina and the resurgence of Joe Biden), then very far along. When
James Carville warns about driving away blue-collar and rural voters, Democrats
in Brooklyn hear that Southern accent and quietly whisper, “Good riddance.” The
Democrats are in the mood for culture war, not for coalition-building and
reconciliation. They do not wish to win with moderation and compromise, because
they do not wish to govern with moderation and compromise. They feel themselves
to have been humiliated by the Trump administration, and they have set upon
Sanders as the instrument of their vengeance. That Senator Sanders has so much
in common with Trump—an outsider to the party who loathes the party leadership,
a demagogue who detests compromise and bipartisanship, who has a funky
outer-boroughs accent and zany hair, who until the day before yesterday voiced
remarkably Trumpian views on immigration and trade, etc.—is no accident, and it
is not something that Democrats are having to hold their collective nose and
swallow. Democrats speak in public as though the Republican Party has been
ruined by Donald Trump, but in truth their detestation is larded with envy.
Trump has given the Republicans something the Democrats want for themselves.
For better and for worse, the Trumpiness of Senator
Sanders is the sizzle and the steak, and not only for the hardline
left-wingers. They could have had a Buttigieg or a Klobuchar, and they may yet
nominate Biden as a kind of placeholder and caretaker. But Senator Sanders, a
man with the freshest ideas from the 1930s and the cultural affect of the
1970s, is the future of the Democratic Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment