Tag Archives: opposition

Words Of Wisdom

One of my “go to” sources for political news and thoughtful analysis is Talking Points Memo. I nearly always find myself in agreement with its editor, Josh Marshall–and especially in his “cut to the chase” commentaries on our current political situation.

Recently, Marshall considered the navel-gazing of the “usual subjects.” He began by citing two recent Bulwark essays. One, by Matt Yglesias, engaged in the sort of “analysis” that drives me up the wall–Yglesias criticised the Democratic Party for clinging to positions that he believed imposed “a decisive disadvantage when it comes to winning the Senate in 2026 and in a challenging position when it comes to the Electoral College.” He argued for a “major repositioning on issues like guns and fossil fuels (among other issues) to make Democrats more competitive in states like Iowa or Texas.

Jonathan Last made a very different argument–and like Marshall, I found it far more persuasive.

The argument was that Democrats are the opposition and that the role of the opposition, especially in such a binary, Manichean moment, is to systematically disqualify the party in power. Any naval-gazing or attempted rebrands are somewhere between irrelevant and counterproductive.

Amen.

Marshall argues that pundits’ emphasis on policy prescriptions misreads the situation in which we find ourselves–that it is a bias held by people who think and write– and that ignores reality. “Opposition parties win when they manage in whole or in part to discredit the party in power — almost always with a ton of help from the party in power itself.”

I spent 21 years teaching law and public policy. I absolutely believe in the importance of policy prescriptions, in the need to consider what the evidence teaches us about policy decisions and mistakes. But if there is one thing I am absolutely convinced of, it is that elections aren’t won or lost by adjusting the nuances of this or that policy.

As Marshall notes,

Democrats who are currently focused on repositioning the party away from being “woke” sound like they’re in a time warp. People are scared about losing their jobs. They’re upset about authoritarian attacks on the rule of law. There’s deepening pessimism about a looming recession. A big focus on “wokism” seems mostly like someone speaking from the past. It’s just not what people are thinking about right now. They’re worried about Trump and the climate of chaos and uncertainty.

Again: politics is all about salience. That’s why people so frequently get themselves mixed up with polls. Maybe your issue has 80-20 support. But if it’s not what voters are voting on, it’s irrelevant. Americans overwhelmingly oppose Trump White House cuts to medical research. But it’s not getting a lot of traction at the moment. Because most people don’t know about it. It’s not a driving focus of the news. It’s salience is low. So it makes sense for Democrats to do everything they can to focus more attention on it.

There’s a mountain of evidence to the effect that people who are against something are more likely to cast ballots. I am confident that every person who participated in the No Kings Day protests will get to the polls.

As Marshall says, the salient issue right now is Trump and the damage he is doing to America. It isn’t only Democrats who are appalled by the assaults on reason and competence and liberty. As one of my favorite protest signs has it, IKEA has better cabinets, and a majority of Americans recognizes the damage that is being done by these clowns and ideologues–to the economy, to health care, to America’s global role, to constitutional governance.

For that matter, every Republican I worked with “back in the day” when I was a Republican and the GOP was a political party rather than a fascist cult is horrified by Trump and terrified by the direction he is taking the country.

Marshall is absolutely right that Democratic success depends upon opposition to Trump and MAGA, not to the fine-tuning of  a positive vision. As he points out, “the positive vision emerges from the outlines of what you oppose. But fundamentally the job of an opposition is to oppose. Don’t overcomplicate it. It’s not simply that you gain more ground from opposing than from grand-strategizing. You learn more from it too.”

America has a lot of long-term systemic flaws, and we need to pay attention to them and fix them. But right now, we need to rid America of today’s Confederates, the MAGA White Nationalists who are trying to remake us into a very different country.

You don’t debate the best way to make the plane safer while it’s going down.

Comments

Stop The World…But Then What?

Every once in a while, I come across an article or column which doesn’t convey anything particularly new or earth-shattering, but that sets out conventional wisdom in a way that makes a light-bulb come on. I had that “aha” experience when I read an opinion piece in the New York Times titled “Trumpism Has No Heirs.

The author, Jane Coaston, pointed out that–at least for the next two years–the Republican Party is ideally positioned.

As the opposition party, it will not be expected to offer solutions to the country’s myriad problems, much less introduce substantive legislation. It will not be expected to do anything except what it does best — oppose the Democratic administration and the Democratic Party.

Coaston’s observation isn’t new, of course–anyone who can spell “Mitch McConnell” or  has followed national politics even superficially over the past few years will agree that “even when holding power, movement conservatism is fundamentally an opposition movement.”

However, Coaston suggests that this “spirit of opposition” is the GOP’s Achilles’ heel –a weakness that will doom Republican efforts to “move on” from Donald Trump. Over the past few years, “conservatism” has become an empty label; as she notes, although many people  call themselves conservatives, they mostly agree about what conservatism isn’t. There is no consensus on what conservatism in the 21st Century is. And she says that Donald Trump’s candidacy and presidency exploited conservatism’s glaring lack of a central motivating vision.

The conservatism that was seemingly agreed upon by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute and National Review was not the conservatism that Mr. Trump sold to the American people.

Mitt Romney campaigned in 2012 on being “severely conservative” and lost. Mr. Trump campaigned on a self-serving redefinition of what it even means to be conservative and won. After all, as Mr. Trump told ABC News in early 2016, “this is called the Republican Party, it’s not called the Conservative Party.”

But what Mr. Trump was for, and what his voters supported, was not the populist nationalism generally associated with “Trumpism.” Populist nationalism has a long history in this country. Paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan, the former Nixon assistant and political commentator, have espoused a blend of America First isolationist foreign policy rhetoric and distrust of perceived culture and political “elites” for decades.

Pundits who see Trumpism as a form of populist nationalism miss the fact that such nationalism doesn’t depend on any one individual. Trumpism does, which is why no one will pick up the “mantle.” There is no mantle, no program or philosophy of governance. Trumpism is simply the “middle finger to perceived enemies and the bulwark against real or imagined progressive assault.”

The central motivating impulse of today’s GOP is grievance and an overwhelming desire to “own the libs.” What Coaston has identified–and what I previously failed to focus on–is the essential weakness of using opposition as an organizing principle over time.

In the short term, of course,  being against something or someone generates energy and turnout. (A significant portion of the 81 million Americans who voted for Joe Biden would have voted for Daffy Duck if Daffy was running against Trump.) But for the longer term, it’s not enough.

At some point, being against everything–having no programs, no coherent political philosophy, no vision–will fail to energize enough voters to keep a party in power. That recognition is behind the formidable assault the GOP is currently mounting against voting rights.

The question is: when does disillusionment kick in? Until 2022, being against everything the Democrats want to accomplish is likely to be seen by the Republican base as a valiant effort to stop the modernity and social change that so deeply threatens them. Only if they are successful in retaking the House or Senate (or both) will citizens recognize that they have nothing positive to offer.

And by then, it might be too late.

Comments