I just read a column by Graham Vyse in the New Republic in which he argues that the victory of Donald Trump was not a rejection of liberalism. It's a strange sort of piece which seems to get lost in some very contorted logic.
First, we get the obligatory argument that Hillary won the popular vote so liberalism couldn't have been rejected. Really? That misses the point. It is safe to say that a great many Hillary voters didn't consider liberalism vs. conservatism when they went to the polls. After all, Hillary ran on one theme: "I'm not Donald Trump." That's not a liberal argument. People who voted against Trump could hardly be considered to be affirming their support for liberalism. Then there's the massive defection of non-college educated Americans to the GOP. That's the group that for many years was the core of support for liberal Democrats. Their movement was notable in that it pushed about five or six states from the Democrats to the GOP. That's a pretty big rejection.
Second, Vyse misses the big picture. It is true that America was closely split for president, but when it got to senators, congressmen, governors and state legislators, the split was totally one-sided. The more anodyne conservatives in these other races beat the liberal Democrats again and again and again. That's where the rejection of liberalism really shows. Only in a very few of these races were personalities able to make a difference. It's probably safe to say that voters choosing a state senator had no idea what that man or woman was like; it was a policy or philosophy decision that was made. Those decisions show wholesale rejection of liberals.
Third, Vyse waxes ecstatically about all the liberal accomplishments of president Obama and argues that this proves liberalism has not been rejected. And what are those accomplishments? First, of course, is Obamacare. But Obamacare is about to be repealed, something that was made clear to the public during the campaign. The public voted to get rid of Obamacare. The second liberal accomplishment cited by Vyse is the stimulus. Eight years ago, Obama pushed through a massive spending bill that was supposed to push shovel ready jobs which never got built. The stimulus turned into a move to push cash to state employee unions, and it led to the creation of the Tea Party (hardly a reaffirmation of liberalism). It was also a one time thing that gave Congress back to the Republicans in response. Vyse also mentions financial regulation (Dodd Frank), another law about to be seriously changed. In fact, there really is nothing that Vyse points to that could be called a lasting "accomplishment".
So has liberalism actually been rejected by the American people? I don't think so despite all that I have written above. A better way to look at it is that the American people have decided that the liberalism of the Democrats has not worked and they are opting to give something else a try. If Trump and the GOP can be successful in governing so that people's lives are improved, then the choice of something other than liberalism will be embedded in the minds of a great many. That could be a true rejection of liberalism. It may be coming, but it's not here yet.
First, we get the obligatory argument that Hillary won the popular vote so liberalism couldn't have been rejected. Really? That misses the point. It is safe to say that a great many Hillary voters didn't consider liberalism vs. conservatism when they went to the polls. After all, Hillary ran on one theme: "I'm not Donald Trump." That's not a liberal argument. People who voted against Trump could hardly be considered to be affirming their support for liberalism. Then there's the massive defection of non-college educated Americans to the GOP. That's the group that for many years was the core of support for liberal Democrats. Their movement was notable in that it pushed about five or six states from the Democrats to the GOP. That's a pretty big rejection.
Second, Vyse misses the big picture. It is true that America was closely split for president, but when it got to senators, congressmen, governors and state legislators, the split was totally one-sided. The more anodyne conservatives in these other races beat the liberal Democrats again and again and again. That's where the rejection of liberalism really shows. Only in a very few of these races were personalities able to make a difference. It's probably safe to say that voters choosing a state senator had no idea what that man or woman was like; it was a policy or philosophy decision that was made. Those decisions show wholesale rejection of liberals.
Third, Vyse waxes ecstatically about all the liberal accomplishments of president Obama and argues that this proves liberalism has not been rejected. And what are those accomplishments? First, of course, is Obamacare. But Obamacare is about to be repealed, something that was made clear to the public during the campaign. The public voted to get rid of Obamacare. The second liberal accomplishment cited by Vyse is the stimulus. Eight years ago, Obama pushed through a massive spending bill that was supposed to push shovel ready jobs which never got built. The stimulus turned into a move to push cash to state employee unions, and it led to the creation of the Tea Party (hardly a reaffirmation of liberalism). It was also a one time thing that gave Congress back to the Republicans in response. Vyse also mentions financial regulation (Dodd Frank), another law about to be seriously changed. In fact, there really is nothing that Vyse points to that could be called a lasting "accomplishment".
So has liberalism actually been rejected by the American people? I don't think so despite all that I have written above. A better way to look at it is that the American people have decided that the liberalism of the Democrats has not worked and they are opting to give something else a try. If Trump and the GOP can be successful in governing so that people's lives are improved, then the choice of something other than liberalism will be embedded in the minds of a great many. That could be a true rejection of liberalism. It may be coming, but it's not here yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment