By Kevin D. Williamson
Monday, April 13, 2020
The usual hysterics are engaged in the usual hysteria
over Mona Charen’s syndicated column (which runs here National Review Online,
among other places), in which she argues that Joe Biden could be a “unifying”
element in our politics. There have been calls to have her fired, the usual
dishonest “National Review endorses” tweets, the usual stupidity.
Sohrab Ahmari sneers
that Biden has “won the coveted . . . Mona Charen constituency,” which he
dismisses as representing a “very, very, very narrow slice of American
conservative opinion,” an interesting line of argument coming from the camp
whose agenda is reinventing politics as an authoritarian Catholic domination
fantasy.
Charen’s column is wrong for a couple of reasons: One, we
do not need a president or a presidential candidate to act as an instrument of
national “unity,” and, in fact, it is precisely that mystical and
quasi-monarchical treatment of the presidency (Charen cites Queen Elizabeth
II’s performance) that has transformed the presidency from an administrative
office into a position of sacral kingship. Two, Biden is in reality poorly
suited to the role of unifier, because he is a liar,
a coward, and an opportunist whose own interests are not going to be served
in the near term by blunting tribal differences but by emphasizing them. Biden
in many ways embodies the worst of Donald Trump costumed in respectability
rather than costumed in insurgency.
Mona Charen’s error is looking for a reason to be
optimistic about the 2020 presidential election when there is no such reason.
But imagine, if you will, that the 2020 race were Mitt
Romney vs. Bernie Sanders rather than Trump vs. Biden. In a Romney-Sanders
race, we might reasonably expect that some number of Democratic-affiliated
writers associated with left-leaning outlets would find themselves writing,
“Romney’s agenda is not my agenda, but Sanders is a nut, and I can’t in good
conscience support him, and it probably would be better for the country if
Romney won.” That would not be surprising. That might even be taken as a sign
of democratic good health. The desire of some on the right to burn Mona Charen
at the stake and the hysterical hissy fits with which Republican partisans are
today convulsed at the faintest indication of heterodoxy constitute, in my
view, a much better argument for Mona Charen’s disposition than for that of,
say, Kayleigh McEnany or your average Fox News mouth or the schoolboy fantasists
of right-wing Catholic “integralism.”
No comments:
Post a Comment