In foreign policy diplomats distinguish between hard and soft power. Hard power may involve the threat of actual use of military force, soft power the use of diplomacy to settle differences. In general, the American left, in particular are dovish, favoring soft power, the right more hawkish, putting the military option on the table. Applying sanctions to hostile powers is an intermediate position sometimes embraced by both sides. The reverse is true for the doctrinaire left in domestic politics who regard their conservative adversaries with what might figuratively be called a military mindset. The center right hardly exists, captive as it is to a disgraceful far right administration, rendering it virtually impossible for principled bipartisanship with a center left, which does exist. What we have now is a polarization of our politics greatly exacerbated by a mindlessly disruptive administration on the far right. The behavior of the far right is an understandable provocation for a consistent hard power response. Is it wise? Why not a soft power response, mixed with occasional hard power—as in foreign affairs. What do I mean by domestic soft power? Showing a willingness to compromise to settle differences—even in the face of unwillingness of the opposite side. Compromise tends to be a pejorative on the left in domestic matters and a virtue in foreign affairs. Why the difference? For the left the object in foreign affairs is a peaceful world, which means reconciling with hostile authoritarian nations. If we are willing to negotiate with authoritarian rulers in other countries, why shouldn’t we be willing to negotiate with leaders in our own country with whom we are fundamentally at odds? We may never achieve agreement on fundamental principles with the opposition. What we can achieve is agreement on particular issues. Total consensus on issues is not possible or even desirable in a democracy. The choice is between total war or limited engagements and truces. In a democracy there is always opposition we must learn to live with. These remarks are addressed to the hard left, not to the center left, the place where I stand. The far right is opaque to such an appeal and a principled center right has gone with the wind. It is at this moment in our history that the left must remind the country what a viable democracy is about.
Having won the House of Representatives, Democrats are divided on which strategy to employ; a radical agenda (single payer for healthcare, impeachment of the president) or a more “moderate” position (defend Obamacare, legislate infrastructure, regulate against change change and for gun control, organize for the defeat of Trump in 2020). Barring a devastating report by Robert Mueller that would, hope against hope, convert a sufficient number of senators to vote for conviction, I believe that the vote for a time-consuming impeachment in the House would be the kind of symbolic action that would backfire, particularly among his base supporters who would rise up in rage, further increasing political polarization. Impeachment and a litmus test for a radical agenda for the whole of the Democratic conference would also alienate and exclude independents, whose support is the difference between victory and defeat in elections. The president normally is expected to represent the entire nation, not simply his political constituency. (Trump is an anomaly in viewing the presidency as confined to his political base that helped elect him and in demonizing the opposition with the intention of denying them participation in the political process.) In the absence of a unifying president, a united Democratic majority in the House should present itself as a unifying alternative.
The Democrats have a triple task: act to overcome the dangerous polarization afflicting our country, attack the polarizing presidency of Donald Trump and advance a positive agenda. In opposing him one must be careful not to mirror his rhetoric or behavior. The opposite to Trump should not be shock and awe, but passionate conviction and civility. What is needed is a sorting out of issues in which battles must be fought and principled compromise is possible: on gun control, a battle for regulation short of repealing the Second Amendment, on healthcare universal healthcare with a regulated role for the market, on climate change regulation with sensitivity to its effect on the economy. The goal should be the conversion of the electorate to the view that gridlock is not the agenda of the Democratic Party. The offer of a willingness to compromise may not be reciprocated, but it might demonstrate to independents (swing voters) a willingness to get beyond rhetoric to get things done.
***
We are a divided nation and the divisions exist within the parties as well. On the Republican side the division has been virtually overcome by the Trumpian purging of the so-called moderate wing or by the conversion of its members to the Trumpian cause. On the Democratic side, a rebellion against its leader in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, threatens to snatch defeat from victory. Without being able to articulate a single distinguishing idea or program, this band of rebels, a number of whom are newly elected and of conservative disposition from red states, has as its cause the need for young new leadership in the party, notwithstanding the proven competence and experience of the current leader, admitted by the rebels themselves. The insurgency against Pelosi is not from the left, Pelosi is in fact to the left of a number of members of the insurgency, but from those with an anti-establishment and ageist animus has the aspect of identity politics militancy: young versus old. It is hard to see how the group of 16, a group of relatively conservative red states members and left blue member states have an agenda in common apart from a desire for younger new leadership. (Note, one of the group, Representative Steve Lynch, complains that the party has moved too far to the left.) Unprepared for leadership, the insurgents have not been able to find anyone willing to contest Pelosi for Speaker. Representative Marcia Fudge, a leader of the Black caucus was mentioned as a possible candidate, but she threw her support to Pelosi. At a time when the Democratic Party must be united in its struggles against Trumpism and needs to present itself as a force willing to end the dangerous polarization that afflicts the country, the action of the group of 16 abetted by another 16 seems counterproductive. What Shakespeare’s Enobarbus said of Cleopatra can be said of the political Pelosi, “Age cannot wither nor custom stale “ her political accomplishments and deny her the acumen (e.g. the passage of Obamacare). As a transitional leader which she admits to be, Pelosi should begin to bring younger members of the Democratic caucus into leadership positions, perhaps even Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, the spokesman for the group that has wanted to deny her the speakership. Moulton has been an impressive congressman, his role in the insurgency surprisingly misguided. As Joe E. Lewis says to Jack Lemon, dressed up as a woman and to whom he has proposed marriage, when she discloses her sexual identity at the ending of Some Like It Hot, “Nobody is perfect.” Such a gesture would be deserving and a gracious act on Pelosi’s part.
As for the left wing of the party, uncompromising left militancy may achieve significant victories, but it may also provoke dangerous backlashes—see the 1960s and the election of Nixon. What then is the alternative to accomplishing progressive change? A rational, deliberative sorting out of issues that are negotiable and non-negotiable with their conservative counterparts. This may be possible only after a certain amount of disciplined militant protest on the left, but it assumes what is generally the case that the militancy does not get everything that it wants. It also assumes that the so-called moderates (genuine liberals and progressives in their own right) are empowered to make compromises by their more leftward colleagues. It means, for instance that when the demand is made for federal law increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour from $7.50 and economists, sympathetic to an increase, point out that the immediate jump to $15 might have a negative effect on employment and the economy and that $$12.50 would be preferable in the immediate term, the advocates for $12.50 should not be demonized by their allies on the left as traitors to the cause. It also means not blaming leadership for not getting desirable results when it can’t overcome intransigent opposition, despite good faith effort.
We are told again and again about the divide between the coastal elite and the heartland—unfortunate labels, as if those professing progressive ideals such as universal healthcare and hospitality to refugees seeking asylum are elitist and those opposed are all heart. If the heartland is represented by those who appear at the Trump rallies, perhaps heartlessland is the more fitting label.