Can (some) progressives and conservatives unite?

Historically, Americans who’ve talked about getting “beyond left and right” have been elitists who advocate woke-ism combined with neoliberal capitalism.   But maybe we, the grass roots common people, cam also get together across party lines and ideological categories.

On Tuesday, I linked to a post by Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism about how reform movements in the United States succeeded only when progressives (idealistic middle-class people) and populists (oppressed working-class and poor people) united.

I suggested that U.S. politics are stuck because the Democratic leadership consists of fake progressives and the Republican leadership consists of fake populists, both of whom support the powers that be.  A commenter on that thread suggested ways in which the genuine progressive liberals and populist conservatives might unite.

Progressive Priorities the radicalizing secular Right might agree to:

• Anti-militarism
• Universal secular education
• Female legal equality
• Consumer protections

Radical Priorities the secular “America First” Right might agree to:

• Eight hour day and work place safety
• Unemployment benefits
• Tax the rich
• Anti-trust and anti-corporate
• Anti-imperialism

To join forces with the “America First” Right, the Left would have to concede some ground in areas considered sacrosanct for the Democratic Party. These would include:

• Strict border enforcement (immigration, drugs etc.)
• More protectionism in trade policy (maybe scrap the WTO and NAFTA altogether)
• Other?

What I’m proposing is a fusion of “anti war” “America First” and “Pro-Jobs” values.  Couldn’t this be a winning combination?  And most of all, could it work?

As I see it, the biggest obstacle to such a combination is the culture wars  The new ideology – “woke-ism,” critical race theory, queer theory, “cancel culture,” etc. – consists of a series of wedge issues that keep Americans divided.  

But maybe that ideology could be transcended, based on the principle of equal rights for all, special privileges for none.

Maybe all the failure of the American political establishment to deal with continuing problems – endless wars, deindustrialization, climate-related catastrophes, contagious disease – will become so extreme and so apparent that wedge issues will be forgotten.

Populism, politics and the future

How Trump Lost by Peter Beinart for the New York Review of Books.  “If he governed as he ran in 2016, as an economic populist, he would likely have been re-elected.  Instead he reverted to the same old Republican playbook.”

Is There a Trumpism After Trump? by Ross Douthat for The New York Times.  “His presidency showed the way to a presidency that’s multi-ethnic, middle class and populist.  But soon he may stand in its way.”

Ding-dong, the jerk is dead – But read this before you join the Hallelujah Chorus by Thomas Frank for The Guardian.  “Trump’s defeat is a time for celebrating – let us praise God for victory.  But let us also show some humility in our triumph, and think a bit about how we got here.”

Trump Proved That Authoritarians Can Get Elected in America by Zeynep Tufekci for The Atlantic.  “Trump was ineffective and easily beaten.  A future strongman won’t be.”

They Are Trying to Silence Progressives, Because Money Never Sleeps by David Sirota for The Daily Poster.  “We’re all exhausted, but in the 24 hours since the election was called, corporate interests and their allies have already started their war on progressives.  There’s no rest for the weary.”

There Was Actually a Lot of Good News for the Left on Election Day by Liza Featherstone for Jacobin.

Left-wing parties win college grads, lose workers

Click to enlarge

Left-wing parties in the UK and France, as well as the USA, are gaining support of the educated classes while losing support of blue-collar workers.

The French economist Thomas Piketty said politics in these three countries is a conflict between the “Merchant Right” and the “Brahmin Left,” a high-incom elite vs. a high-education elite.

I don’t know about the specific situation in France, but it’s clear to me that the leaders of Democratic Party in the USA and the Labour Party in the UK care more about the material interests of a professional class than they do about the material interests of workers.

LINKS

Brahmin Left vs. Merchant Right: Rising Inequality and the Changing Structure of Political Conflict by Thomas Piketty.

How the left stopped being a party of the working class by Simon Wren-Lewis for his Mainly Macro blog.

Can Hillary Clinton be pulled to the left?

At Donald Trump’s wedding

Democrats who support Bernie Sanders, but don’t expect him to win, say that his contribution will be to pull Hillary Clinton to the left.

If she has to be pulled to the left, that means her heart lies elsewhere.

She may change in campaign rhetoric in response to Sanders.  But if you know that is the reason for the rhetoric, how much can you really trust it.

Big Wall Street banks and other industry groups have literally given her millions of dollars in speaking fees—the content of which she refuses to reveal.

At Nancy Reagan’s funeral

She challenges opponents to give an instance in which a money contribution changed her decision.  Of course that’s not how the system works.  Elected and appointed officials make decisions based on their own judgment, and then those who benefit from those decisions do things that express their gratitude for services rendered and their anticipation of future benefits.

The Clintons are friends of the Trumps, the Bushes and Henry Kissinger.  How much of an opponent of the financial and political elite can she really be?

At a 2009 awards ceremony

Hillary Clinton is in the upper 1 percent of income earners, but the people she hangs out with are in the upper 0.1 percent.  In her social circles, she may well find herself the most liberal person in the room and the least well-off person in the room.  That still doesn’t mean she has anything in common with real reformers or real people struggling to make ends meet.

For the past 25 years, Clinton-Obama Democrats have told us that what we have now is the best we can hope for, and we should vote for them because the alternative is something worse.

If you believe that, by all means vote for Hillary Clinton.  But don’t kid yourself that she represents fundamental change or can be pushed into representing fundamental change

If she were to become an opponent of the financial oligarchy and an advocate of peace, she would not be “pulled to the left.”  She would have undergone a radical, life-changing conversion.

The return of right-wing populism

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, many people in Europe and North America turned to populist radical and left-wing parties, while many others turned to populist nationalist and racist parties.

The first group blamed their troubles on the wealthy elite and a failed capitalist system.  The second group blamed their troubles on foreigners, minorities and a failed democratic system.

There were exceptions and overlaps, but I think these broad distinctions apply.  Nationalism and racism are a way of diverting public discontent away from bankers and landlords.

We have the same two kinds of populism today.  In Europe, we see Jeremy Corbyn in Great Britain, Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece, and, on the other hand, the United Kingdom Independence Party, the National Front in France and Viktor Orban in Hungary.

The left, the right, libertarians and Ron Paul

As I look at this Venn diagram published by Mother Jones magazine, I see myself in the middle of the Left circle, but I don’t see many national political figures on the circle along with me.

I’d put Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and the Democratic congressional leadership in the Right circle than the Left.  President Obama claims the right to commit acts of war without authorization of Congress, and has acted on that claim.  He claims the right to imprison people without trial, to sign and execute death warrants without due process and may well be authorizing torture on as wide a scale at President Bush’s administration.  He supports NAFA-style treaties with Colombia and South Korea.  His administration is deporting unauthorized immigrants in larger numbers than the Bush administration.  He does not support reproductive rights.  He does support repeal of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, but as part of a package of economic austerity and cutbacks in the social safety net to taxation of the middle class.

President Obama and the Democratic leadership did enact the Affordable Care Act, which may turn out to be a net positive, and repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which I agree with, but not at the price of endless war and suspension of basic Constitutional rights.

All this makes me more open-minded about the Libertarians and Ron Paul than I otherwise would be.   Even though I can’t agree with them on important  matters of policy, they at least support the core values of American freedom and democracy.  I admired the way Al Gore and Howard Dean spoke up against abuses of power during the Bush administration, but they have nothing to say about the equal or worse abuses of power going on now.

The great merit of the Libertarians, and of Ron Paul, is that they have principles that are not held hostage by any political party or powerful vested interest.

Click on The Venn of Ron Paul and Other Mysteries of Libertarianism Explained for the source of this diagram and background on Libertarianism in Mother Jones.