Tag: socialist

Whither the Democrats? The Answer Doesn’t Matter

By Stephen Macaulay

The question of what does the Democratic Party do now is a rather premature one, I think, as Trump has yet (as of this writing) to admit that he didn’t win another landslide.

But let’s face it: Pundits have to write about something political because we like to think that nature abhors a vacuum of pithy observations.

The question is one that breaks down this way: Who runs the show? It would seem that the obvious answer to that is Joe Biden, based on his proclamation during the first debate with Trump: “I am the Democratic Party right now.” A centrist. An institutionalist. A regular Joe.

But then there is the counter to that, one that has it that the more progressive wing of the Party ought to take flight and lead efforts to create what they presume is a more equitable society, not one that gives, as the slogan has it with surprising accuracy, “tax breaks to the rich.”

This would include the likes of Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, and the members of The Squad—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) —who aren’t going to take any guff from anyone. Biden, presumably, included.

That there was no “Blue Wave” is generally attributed to the idea that “Defund the Police” and the word socialism played so broadly in the campaign runup.

What I find to be rather remarkable is that for presumably being the party of smart, pointy-headed people (or so it is widely presumed in many places across the country, both rural and otherwise), a party where there are top-notch marketers and professorial linguists, the Democrats surely do a—dare I say?—crappy job when it comes to language. (Trump has used more extreme language, so I am hopeful this passes muster at The Hustings.)

Consider “Defund the Police.” That is a scary thought for many urbanites and suburbanites, especially the latter, who are afraid that there are going to be marauders coming into their cul de sacs. 

The term is the audible version of “bad optics.”

Why isn’t there some clever Democrat who comes up with an explanation that people might be able to understand? Like the Nathan Fillion TV show “Castle”, where a mystery writer partners with an NYPD detective and manages to solve cases. In the case of “Defund the Police,” it could be on calls where there are undoubtedly mental health issues, joining the police might be a mental health professional. The funding is shifted.

Seem like a stupid example? Maybe. But it is something that regular people can understand. Regardless of party affiliation. (“Hey, Dot, did you hear they’re pulling a ‘Castle’ at the police department? Now they’re getting somewhere.”)

As for the socialist* charge: Let’s face it, there are a whole lot of Boomers who might fondly remember their days in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s when they knew of people in the SDS but who have now 401Ks that they’re concerned with and the notion of wealth distribution is something that is now anathema to them. Given that there are Democrats who openly self-define as socialist, this is going to be a tough one to shift.

But here’s the thing: none of this may matter. If McConnell maintains control of the Senate, there is going to be very little happening that isn’t caused by executive order.

After all, as Biden might say (though in English): l'état c'est moi.

*One of the missed opportunities that the Democrats had was to brand Trump a “Stalinist.” Seriously. Stalin created a cult of personality. Check. Stalin wanted to concentrate power within the state, including the separation from other countries. Check.Stalin called those who weren’t with him “enemies of the people.” Check. Stalin purged high-ranking officials who didn’t hew to his line. Check. And there are several more examples. This is not to say that the real Donald Trump is a murderous thug who was responsible for the deaths of millions as Stalin was (although when history is written, there are going to be numbers of deaths from COVID-19 that will be ascribed to Trump’s behavior). It is to say that in a world that seems to be defined by unreality (“The election was rigged!”), simple labels can have consequences.

—–

Trump is the Most Conservative Republican President of Our Time

By Andrew Boyd

The question at hand, is Trump a conservative, is an interesting one for sure. Stephen argues first and foremost that it’s family values and fiscal conservatism. It’s certainly arguable that the conservative movement put a lot of its eggs in these two baskets over the past several decades and has largely failed to deliver on either. But I think there are greater fundamental issues at play. More on that later. Let’s first unpack the stuff in Stephen’s argument.

In character, I'd agree that Trump is not a conservative. In his deeds, he most certainly is.

On the fiscal front, Trump is a mixed bag. He’s not taken on the systemic issues of government bloat and out-of-control federal spending (yes, it’s a spending issue), but he has installed pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that led to a booming post-Obama, pre-COVID economy the likes we’ve never seen. Sadly, I’m not sure there’s a serious political player on the national stage who’s willing to go to bat for a balanced federal budget or the reeling in of the welfare state. These are cans virtually everyone seems happy just to kick down the road. I’d say that, systemically, our body politic is in something akin to a persistent vegetative state on the debt and deficit thingy, which is certainly not ideal from this conservative’s point of view, but not something particularly attributable to Trump.

But what about free and fair trade? asks Stephen. Yes, it could be argued that Trump stepped over the line on the Canadian aluminum tariffs, but I don’t think there’s anything inconsistent in a conservative’s appreciation for the free exchange of goods at home and nationalistic international economic policy. Trump was elected to represent the people of Peoria, nor Paris, after all, and I’m mostly down with that. Tariffs are lousy, long-term structural tools, but they can come in handy at the negotiating table, which is by and large how the administration has used them, in my estimation. 

But what about family values? Seriously, in Washington, Stephen?  Surely you jest.  Personal peccadillos of the Trumpian sort have been baked into the swamp cake since the dawn of the republic. Do I wish he was less like JFK and more like Obama in the category of marital fidelity? For sure. But you work with what you’ve got. And in the new age of a leftist, socialist-slouching Democratic party, I think an increasing number of conservatives are inclined to take a more macro view.  

At the macro level, Trump, I would argue, is the most conservative president in my lifetime.  Drawing down the 15-year Afghanistan fiasco, taking the hard line with China, appointing textualist Supreme Court justices, delivering American energy independence and leveraging the same in foreign policy, supporting Israel, the Middle East’s only functioning Democracy, putting Hezbollah and the Iran mullahs on their heels and calling out the leftist media establishment for their gross journalistic malfeasance. 

The only blind obedience I’m aware of within my Republican circles is to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and the ideals these documents embody. Trump isn’t perfect by a long shot, but he’s drawn the party back toward its genuine center of gravity, motivating its base and drawing a stark contrast with the socialist, globalist, identity politics dogma of the unhinged left.  

If time and space weren’t issues, I’d take another thousand words to explain how Obama was, by contrast, the least traditionally liberal, least inclusive president in my lifetime, by a long shot, but that’s a column for another day.

—–