Saving American democracy: The dangerous split in the Democratic Party

This discussion is based on some of the comments that PD made in a related post here yesterday, Can Civics Save America? That discussion is based on a May 2021 article in The Atlantic with the same title. PD's original comments are at this link. 

The Democratic Party deep split; a party on the verge of implosion?

One cannot speak of the American left as a monolith. In large part, the Atlantic article is about a schism within the left. The article's author, George Packer, calls it 'progressives vs. liberals'. What we see in Congress, the intraparty tension between the progressive caucus/Justice Democrats https://justicedemocrats.com/ and the rest of the democratic party, is mirrored in this debate about civics. 

Justice Democrats screenshot

The original Dissident Politics discussion posited that Biden made a mistake by losing neutrality and taking the progressive side in some of his policy statements. However, he did not make a "mistake." Instead, he fulfilled a pledge to woke progressives to fight for a certain narrative about American history, justice and the nature of racism, as well as gender rights. Even though Biden is a culturally conservative centrist, he ran a campaign and staged a carefully choreographed "diversity"-themed Democratic Party Convention in the summer of 2020 that engaged in a lot of virtue-signaling. As 

George Packer, author of Atlantic piece, notes this all but insures continued paralysis on the civics/history front. The 1619 Project mentioned by Packer, which has been blessed as the basis of K-12 social science and history curriculum by the Pulitzer center and many woke progressives. Unfortunately, The 1619 Project is historically inaccurate in several of its claims.[1]  Packer is quite clear about the danger of today's self-described "leftists" of the Justice Democrat variety. He opens his essay in The Atlantic with this very serious warning about the danger the Democratic Party faces:

The early months of the Biden presidency have revealed a conflict between two approaches to policy. One is liberal and universalist, the other progressive and particularist. One pursues equality through programs that include as many Americans as possible; the other targets groups, sometimes narrowly defined ones, in the name of equity. One minimizes cultural flashpoints; the other heightens them. One tries to weaken the Republican opposition with broadly popular ideas; the other, pushed by activists, draws conservatives into battles that intensify polarization. One has a chance to build a governing majority; the other risks consigning the Democratic Party to the dismal fate of the British Labour Party.

That's no joke. He is arguing that the woke progressives, with their purity tests and orthodoxies about "particularist" claims pertaining to "narrowly defined groups," and the no-compromise, morally indignant politics of owning the "high-ground" in their minds, would keep "particularizing", i.e., breaking everything down into "narrow" identity groups, rather than building bridges across the political spectrum at this vital time in order to preserve the Democratic Party, which is the only legitimate major party today, and the process and peaceful transfer of power. 

The progressives are an insurgent group, not a prudent one. They are ginning up rather than quelling the hyper-partisanship. The question is no longer, assuming it ever was, "who's worse, the blundering left or evil right?" It's useless casuistry (the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions; sophistry). The so-called "leftist" progs are not just "blundering" but programmatic ideologues. If Packer is right, and I agree with him, they may lead to the implosion of the Democratic Party, which might be, "consigned to the dismal fate of the British Labour Party," i.e. irrelevance. 

I've thought so for a while, but it's time to speak up. In 2016 the leftist intellectual historian and political theorist, Mark Lilla, in The Once And Future Liberal (2016), issued the same warnings about going down the path of identity politics with little of the broader concerns about class and not just race and gender, etc.[2] He was not so much "cancelled" by progressives as condemned to the "silent treatment" after being bashed by woke progressives on Twitter. He was called "out of touch with the key issues" by "progressive" pundits, and rarely appears on TV interviews about politics nowadays. Yet he predicted much of what has happened since 2016.

So, no-compromise woke progressives want to install one vision of America, frankly somewhat mythical, ahistorical and self-flattering. For example, in history as taught by The 1619 Project, black slaves become the "real" original founders of American Democracy, though they were excluded from it. Meanwhile, those in the authoritarian right offer a dangerously distorted view in which Christian nationalism, elements of a Lost Cause mythology of the South, and vile nativism and scapegoating combine to frame ideological discourse, and curriculum/ text books. For example, look at the Texas schools today, with book-banning, and CN textbooks. Both must be eschewed. 

Sane, informed history and civics requires the rejection of both, not the coddling of one side as "merely mistaken" and the condemnation of the other as "evil." Both are "evil" if that means dangerous to the future of democracy. Both are self-conscious movements. The woke left, and Biden in courting it, did not "make a mistake" but rather calculated how to get, as they see it, the votes of several minority groups including blacks, latinx, lgbtq+, etc. That's what Packer means by "particularism." 

"Progressives" mean POC (people of  color) + Lesbian + Gay + Transgender +Muslim+ Non-binary + Feminist + nominal socialism (ala the ill-defined DSA), but MINUS "heteronormative cis-gender white males" all of whom, presumably have "white privilege" and are part of the dreaded "Patriarchy." They may hold placards and such, but don't vote for one if *he* is on the ballot! Is there even ONE straight white man running for office on the Justice Democrat Website?? Of course not. Such are the rigid identitarian dogmas of this "joyless religion," as Nick Cave called it. Nor do they realize that *many* people lumped in these categories-- do not buy into all this divisive rhetoric or care much about it. 

If you watch too many youtube vids and go on Twitter a lot, it looks like all leftists agree on these issues, on history, civics, how to interpret slavery vis a vis democracy, the need for "truth and reconciliation and reparations" right now, in the middle of a slow-motion authoritarian coup. These woke progressives just don't get that most people don't internalize or commit to all these PC talking points. But most people do care about good education, a safety-net, decent living wages, safer neighborhoods, fewer crimes and homicides, health-care, and a way to break out of the stagnant freeze on their paychecks as costs of living rise daily. The few social programs that are left can no longer keep struggling Americans (of all colors) safe, warm and fed. Poverty and hunger in this land are embarrassingly widespread across ALL race, gender, age and regional categories as discussed in this National Geographic article. 

Educating For American Democracy, which Germaine praised, was prepared by academics from more ideologically restrained quarters of both the left AND the right. It's time to recognize identitarian progressivism and its mainstream media propaganda for what they really are. After all, MSNBC and many op-ed journalists at NYT are to the "left" what FOX news is to the right. Much of the content in woke TV-land and journalism promotes identity-based ideology, while maintaining the economic status quo. Woke journalism does not seriously challenge the elites or get into the broad picture of economic inequality among ALL "identity-groups", i.e. groups outside of the race/minority identitarian context. The culture wars and identity politics are themselves the root problem. The largely racist, authoritarian right USES woke nonsense (like 1619 and BS anti-racist manuals that teach "racism exists without racists" while simultaneously calling out individuals as smug racists with the scarlet W of "white privilege") to demonize the entire democratic party as "dangerous, socialist" and any other scary terms that unsettle many middle Americans. 

Problem is, when authoritarian right propaganda quotes from some of the woke books, speeches, tweets, or cut to cancel culture video, etc. they do score points because much of that discourse IS embarrassingly stupid, as a growing number of reluctant but increasingly vocal critics are beginning to say. That makes sense because if we don't speak out now, democratic unity and pro-democracy momentum could be lost VERY SOON. It is time to prioritize pro-democracy over pet agendas. MSNBC, NYT opinion staff writers, Biden's virtue signaling-- it's all of one piece. Most people don't have much of a dog in the fight over the year of the founding of the USA, but few really think that year is 1619, regardless of the black indentured servants that arrived that year in a British Colony to join oppressed white servants here. 

Stop coddling the progressive left-- starting with the college students that need "safe spaces" for each and every social identity they embrace while endangering the careers of professors who don't use the mandatory PC lingo. Professors like Brett Weinstein and many others end up with violent threats, intimidation and loss of employment. Does anyone think this is what most voters want to see in the name of "progress?" This clip from Vice News shows what woke progressivism looks like up close and it's well worth a look (I looked at it and PD is right - it's worth a look (and it's darned ugly)):

We can't clean up the right because we, here, are mostly not within it, and its rot is far too deep. Just last week, Adam Kinzinger, one of Trump's last Republican critics, announced his retirement. Nobody can save that party right now. It must be defeated, and hopefully later a different kind of GOP or new party that plays by the rules will emerge. But comparing the GOPs "sins" to the problems on the left is a distraction from the task of getting our own shit together and bringing this quasi-fascist/neo-fascist train to a screeching halt before the many blessings we now take too much for granted go up in smoke. 

We CAN and should start calling out the no-compromise progs Packer's article describes. Those who think they have a monopoly on cultural and political truths, imposing purity tests, refusing to pass legislation unless it's got X or Y (in an ideal world, yes, we'd be able to pass X and Y, but in the real world the votes ain't there and we should get what we can get done now and continue struggling for the rest after that-- you can't wish assholes like Manchin and Sinema into oblivion-- you have to swallow the bitter pill of reality, and take the best deal on offer while that offer lasts).

Civics which I've been involved in and promoted for years is now hostage to authoritarians on the right and PC woke progressives on the left. So NO the left has some serious problems right now. It shoots itself in the feet in the name of "Justice." The Justice Democrats are an insurgent sub-party within the Dems more interested in primarying incumbent Dems then uniting around pro-democracy cause as I described in an earlier post here.

If we can form a pro-democracy UNITY coalition of all non-GOP groups and take what's left of that rotten party down to the ground, each member of the coalition may not get everything it wants, but chances are good that democracy in the US will survive another day. Then the differences in policy preferences, agendas, ideologies can be hashed out. After we've saved the basic form of gov't we currently stand to lose.

A personal observation: a lesson learned

PD goes on to make other points. One is his criticism of me for being too sucked in by my own casuistry, i.e., sophistry or maybe clever but definitely unsound reasoning. On consideration, he has made a convincing case. I goofed. I underestimated the threat from the internal progressive left to both the Democratic Party and democracy in view of considerations including (i) how alienating no-compromise the progressives are to out-groups, and (ii) how much actual truth and propaganda the woke left just hands over to the radical right. I was blinded by my focus on how threatening the radical right and its authoritarian goals are to good things including democracy, civil liberties, the rule of law, truth and honest governance. 

Questions: 

1. Is it reasonable to argue that the progressives or justice Democrats are counter productive or dangerous no-compromise ideologues on a par with the now morally rotted and irredeemable Republican Party?

2. We are flying by the seat of our pants[3] and something more effective arguably needs to be done. Is forming a pro-democracy unity coalition of all non-GOP groups something reasonable that should be tried in the short run to oppose the Republican Party and its anti-democratic agenda?

3. Is the woke left evil or a threat to democracy?

Footnotes: 

1. The 1619 Project asserts that "Black Americans have...been, and continue to be, foundational to the idea of American freedom. More than any other group in this country’s history, we have served, generation after generation, in an overlooked but vital role: It is we who have been the perfecters of this democracy. Through centuries of black resistance and protest, we have helped the country live up to its founding ideals. And not only for ourselves — black rights struggles paved the way for every other rights struggle, including women’s and gay rights, immigrant and disability rights. Without the idealistic, strenuous and patriotic efforts of black Americans, our democracy today would most likely look very different — it might not be a democracy at all."

In response to that, PD wrote this at his blog in 2020:

I am not sure how such a sweeping causal claim can be established, nor am I sure just what kind of empirical evidence might be marshaled to support it. As Hannah-Jones says, it is an interpretive claim about which reasonable people can disagree. .... What, then, are some of the alleged FACTS marshaled by the 1619 project to make the grand claims they advance appear plausible? There are a few, and some of them disturbed major historians of American History enough to cause them to write a letter to the Times requesting several corrections of what they regard as mistakes and untruths. .... Leaving aside the broad claim regarding blacks as the ultimate cause of modern US democracy, these scholars focused on more discrete and manageable issues amenable to empirical inquiry.

2. Lilla wrote this in a November 2017 New York Times op-ed piece that got him ostracized by progressives:

“American liberalism, has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.”

The Guardian wrote this in December of 2017:

In August, Lilla doubled down on his argument with The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics (2017), a short book and his first for a popular audience. “We need no more marchers. We need more mayors,” he wrote. Only by articulating a political vision that speaks to all Americans, Lilla believes, can Democrats secure political power, turn the tide of Trumpism, and help minorities.

Lilla, a liberal, wants to save liberalism from itself.

3. We're flying like this: