Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
I think so long as the outrage remains focused on matters of substance, doesn't veer into paranoia and conspiracy, and allows for a form of reconstruction post-Trump -- it's fine. And we ultimately will need to consider reconstruction in the same way Lincoln had reconstruction on his mind from around the time the first shots were fired at Bull Run. It's a really hard needle to thread but we need destroy Trump while allowing for a 'big tent' mentality. The party and the movement is going to need to allow for the Sanders wing and the Clinton wing to operate together AND pick up some regretful and reformed Trumpkin types or other concerned old school Republican types in. It can't focus on retribution and closed-loops. Maybe that's the more succinct point here. That a politics focused on outrage and victimization can be effective in opposition but self-limiting in total. Resist, obstruct, and fight hard now but not forget the ultimate goal isn't just to produce outrage and grievance and fear and paranoia but ultimately to govern and get durable, long-lasting results. At some point the modern right turned itself over to outrage and grievance and destruction as an end, not the means. It's understandable when it becomes your modus operandi and rest assured, I am not discounting both the short term gains Bannon-type politics can create nor minimizing the pain we're about to endure. We still to consider the long-view.
I agree with most of this, but I think you're overstating the risk that grievance politics poses to the left. I think there's potential to create a powerful shift to the left in this country precisely because the grievance politics of the left are more tightly moored to realizable policy.
The modern populist left has a coherent policy vision for America, and the populist right absolutely does not. You are viewing these thing as producing inherent tension. -- i.e., you cannot have the Outrage Machine working at full blast AND a coherent policy vision. I think there's something to that, but you are overstating the risk as it applies to the left. The Trump administration is having trouble because behind those grievances there was very little substance, sure. But another part of the problem is that the people in power are using their base,
and vice versa. The populist/nationalist industrial town furor on the right is in stark contrast with the WASPy ex-bankers of the Capitol Hill GOP. Their mutual interests are questionable, and that they can operate in tandem is not a given. Meanwhile, the Dems are currently looking at a party of Al Franken/Liz Warren/Bernie. Those people are in control of its politics, and
they are also its populist heroes.
The Democratic Party (or liberalism, I should say) has always been hamstrung by the big tent. They need centrist policies to bring in the numbers, and most liberals come along because the alternative is terrible. The prospect of Trump's failure presents the possibility for a reversal of this dynamic: the leaders of the party are staunch liberals, and the centrists come along because to the right there is only chaos.