Who Started the Culture War?
A brief note of introduction to David Sirota's guest article
Racket just published an essay called “Can ‘Abundance’ Top the ‘Culture-Warrior-in-Chief?’” by friend David Sirota, whom I’ve known for two decades. I met Bernie Sanders through David, watched as he was set upon by press jackals for absurd reasons, and have been amazed at how much hard reporting his site, The Lever, puts out on a regular basis. (David also wrote an underappreciated and entertaining book about the politics of 80’s movies called Back to Our Future). Without talking out of school, I believe the Democratic Party establishment that’s given him such a hard time over the years would probably still be occupying the White House if it followed his general thinking, which was to tack away from neoliberalism and toward a New Deal model focused on working-class issues.
His essay today, which we publish in the spirit of stepping out of our bubble, echoes some of those themes, but I feel a need to offer a gentle reply. For instance I don’t agree, about Donald Trump, that “sure, he embodies the rise of oligarchy.” The bulk of institutional America opposes him, he’s been outraised in all his presidential runs, and even the New York Times now concedes his base is concentrated in “working-class counties.” Oligarchy to me is a better description of the duopoly that squeezed out candidates like Sanders for so long.
I also think that to see Trump as a creator of culture-war controversies is to miss something key about his politics. The candidate I saw in 2016 was doing the same thing Sanders did, drawing huge crowds by speaking to existing frustrations about trade, war, bailout economics, the “rigged” insider politics symbolized by Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street fees, and more. But Trump the reality star did something Sanders couldn’t and apparently wouldn’t do, hunting the broader audience, people who lived in those busted ex-factory towns and in addition to the other slights felt powerless to impact loony academic trends, corrupt media, hectoring Hollywood. I know Sanders was aware of these issues because he talked about them. After Trump’s first election, Sanders noted that when Trump voters saw themselves depicted, it was always “a caricature, some idiot. Or maybe some criminal, some white working class guy who has just stabbed three people…” The rage was there already, Trump didn’t invent it. He just had an ear for it, while Democrats refused to listen even to legitimate complaints without condescension, a tendency which has now cost them two elections.
I agree Democrats need to stop getting their political ideas from Davos and Ezra Klein, but I’m not sure the urgency is in “swinging disillusioned voters away from the authoritarian right.” I believe ending the culture war starts with respecting the choices of those voters and dealing with them as legitimate. I remember after 2016 when Sanders, whose rhetoric was often eerily similar to Trump’s (“Look at products like the iPhone, the X Box. These are American inventions, but they’re not even made in America anymore”), talked about giving Trump a chance, offering to work with him on legislation, etc. He framed it as “we will see to what degree there was any honesty in what he was saying” about, for instance, “draining the swamp.”
What happened there? If the populist wing of Democrats who Sanders and AOC ostensibly represent could stop calling Trump names and offer to work on areas of agreement, like for instance tearing down trade deals they dislike, it would have the twin benefit of terrifying Chuck Schumer/Davos Democrats and creating leverage to urge Trump back from various constitutional ledges. I know David’s essay is meant to imagine a new long-term political approach, but reading it I couldn’t help but feel that just offering to build that factional bridge would incentivize everyone to behave better, open eyes all around, and turn the gain down on worsening culture war madness.
Or maybe not. Either way, thanks to David for his piece, which offers food for thought.
Let me address just one of the issues raised. Harvard. Trump's actions against Harvard has nothing to do with tactics against democrats and everything to do with Harvard becoming a breeding ground for assholes. An institution that should have never received government funding in the first place now definitely should not get government funding. Trump recognizing this and acting is nothing short of great leadership. Something few other politicians would have the cajones to do.
Matt - I appreciate hearing other viewpoints, as long as they aren't so obviously biased. Yes, it's good to hear what other people think, and I patiently listen to all sorts of leftists/libs here in California telling me what they think. However, I really thought David's article was an attempt by someone who really doesn't understand DJT to sum it up in what he thought was a fair and balanced article -- and he failed. I think YOU do a good job of curating a thoughtful discussion of current happenings, and of those who are similarly objective (or who at least are a little bit less obvious in their loathing of anything DJT related.) So, for me, the article was a swing and a miss. He doesn't get it, because he's blinded by his bias.