The short answer is no.
And although I will be looking at what I see as a “bright
spot” in his political message, let me be clear in stating up front that Mr.
Trump is a thoroughly despicable, untrustworthy, and psychologically unhinged
individual.
The Two Party System is almost certainly the two faces shown
to the public by a single oligarchy. The
oligarchy benefits from providing the public with an illusion of choice. The precedent for this is found in the former
Soviet Union, where voters could choose between candidates but all of the
candidates hewed to the same party line.
Evidence that the two parties share a single pro-oligarch agenda is
ample, but some of the more salient examples are (1) the complete absence of political
effort to overturn Citizen’s United, (2) the continuing favorable tax treatment
of corporations, (3) policies which subsidize the replacement of American jobs
with low-paid foreign labor, either through foreign outsourcing or “insourcing”
immigrant labor to replace Americans, and (4) an unforgivably laggardly
performance with respect to raising the minimum wage.
Nonetheless, it is worth thinking about the possibility –
however fanciful -- that, even within the constraints offered by the Two Party
System, the will of the people might find expression. The occasion for this musing is that question
posed up front, “what happened to the Party of Lincoln?”
As even the casual student of history knows, the Republican
Party that Abraham Lincoln represented was the anti-slavery party. Lincoln’s adversaries were pro-slavery
Democrats. A series of unfortunate political
events ensued. In time, leaders of the
Republican Party latched onto a “Southern Strategy” which relied on overt and
covert race-baiting and racial antagonism to win the loyalty of White Southern
voters. The Democratic Party started to
champion the aims of the Civil Rights Movement and leaders such as FDR, JFK and
LBJ took concrete steps to address racial inequality, facing staunch resistance
by Republicans.
The Republican Party that Abraham Lincoln represented was
also the party of Protectionism. One of
the more fascinating developments of the 2016 election cycle is the emergence
of popular support for changes in policy to better protect American labor from
the predations of low-cost foreign labor.
We saw this emerge among Bernie Sanders’ supporters and among Trump
supporters. We have also seen the
political establishment rise up with startling ferocity to quash both of these
candidates. The Democratic Party turned
against one of its own. The Republican Party
turned against one of its own.
And yet, millions of Americans seem to have awaken to the
fact that Protectionism is a good idea.
These same Americans are undoubtedly the Americans who have been most
severely and most directly affected by the closure of American factories or by
the resulting decline in the revenue of cities and states that have lost large
numbers of jobs.
Sure, many learned academics have told us the Protectionism
is folly. They used to tell us that
so-called “free trade” policies will ultimately benefit the American
economy. Nowadays, they are a little
less willing to make that assertion, but they will say instead that “there is
no alternative.” If the United States is
not on board with “free trade” and globalization, it will fall behind.
 |
| The lie revealed: Globalization has not benefited U.S. GDP. |
The big surprise of the 2016 election cycle has been the
waking up of millions of Republican voters to the reality that “free trade”
policies have harmed them. Rank-and-file
Republicans have the reputation of being staunch defenders of business
interests and staunch defenders of the holy principle of “free market economics.” They still are. But they’ve clearly caught wise to the fact
that “free trade” belongs in scare quotes.
It is a misleading label for U.S. trade practices. It is a way of disguising the fact that trade
agreements are earmarks for a small group of large, multinational
corporations. These large, multinational
corporations are anathema to free
markets because they are very simply the modern expression of Gilded Era trusts
and monopolies. Heads of said
corporations also contribute lavish sums to certain effective, influential, and
acquiescent politicians. And so, mirabile dictu, it is on
conservative-friendly sites like the Drudge
Report and Breitbart that one
sees expressions such as “crony capitalism.” That’s the sort of turn-of-phrase that
belongs in the mouths of persons who have studied Karl Marx and are smart
enough to recognize that, for all the rubbish he said, Marx made some valid
points.
Rank-and-file Republicans appear to have evolved
intellectually. It’s sad to say that many
Democrats – specifically, supporters of Hillary Clinton – have not shown a
similar evolution in thinking. Some of
her supporters might have qualms about trade agreements but are content to
believe Secretary Clinton when she tells voters reassuring things about her
positions on foreign trade. They’re more
concerned with what they see as more pressing issues such as which bathrooms
transsexuals are allowed to use. Others
among her supporters believe what the learned academics have been saying about
the benefits of globalization. They’re
the ones who were shocked and appalled by the results of the Brexit vote (by
the way, the powers in Great Britain are busily engaged in devising a strategy
for overriding the will of the British voters who chose the Brexit source).
The sticking point is race. The ugly truth is that many Trump supporters are unabashed virulent Confederate flag-waving racists. As long as the racists put a face on the Republican Party, the party that was once the party of Lincoln is doomed to failure. The demographic reality is such that non-whites are becoming an increasingly large constituency and white, economically disadvantaged blue-collar Republicans will less and less of an impact on future elections. As one republican leader pointed out with unusual candor, “The demographics race we're losing badly,” according to senator Lindsey Graham. "We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
The Republican Party of today is not a party that African
Americans could ever embrace. And maybe
that’s for the best. Today’s
rank-and-file Republicans haven’t completely figured out crony capitalism,
after all.
Republicans came out strongly in support of projects such as
Keystone XL based on the false idea that the oil flowing through that pipeline would
have benefited Americans (in fact, that oil was intended for export to China). Support for Keystone XL has a lot to do with
the fact that many Red States are also states which benefit economically from the
onshore oil extraction industry. Just as
blithe “keep the oil in the ground” sloganeering comes from blue states which
do not
benefit economically from the onshore oil extraction industry (there’s a lot to
be said for keeping the oil in the ground, but that argument would probably be
more effective if blue-staters acknowledged the fact that there are Americans
whose livelihoods depend on oil extraction, and were prepared to discuss what
to do about people whose livelihoods depend on that industry and who aren’t
trained to do anything else).
 |
| A couple of pleasant surprises, but also more of the same-old. |
Republicans also continue to adhere to the specious “small
government is better” argument. Now, to
the extent that government is in the thrall of bankers and multinationals, I
can’t be entirely unsympathetic to the idea of reining in government. And yet, that Reagan-era slogan doesn’t hold
water anymore. Even the most basic and
essential and uncontroversial of public services, such as clean drinking water
and infrastructure maintenance, are imperiled because cities and states
invested public money with Big Banks and are now impoverished by the usurious
interest payments imposed by the likes of Goldman Sachs. And because good-paying jobs are being
systematically taken away from Americans, the old way of Republican thinking, “get
a job and pay your own way” has lost its currency. We need good schools now more than ever.
Pardon my digressions.
The point is that the Democratic Party, of the two major parties, is in
a very strong position to court and retain African American voters. Moreover, there are millions of white voters
who are passionately concerned about race relations and abhor the racism that
is all-too-characteristic of the Republican Party.
The tragic irony is that the Democratic Party answer to
racial inequality is not all that effective.
African-American scholars such as Michelle Alexander and Sheryll Cashin
have provided compelling arguments to the effect that affirmative action only
benefits a relatively few African Americans – specifically, the handful who are
(1) unaffected by neighborhood racial inequality (for example, the affluent
African Americans who benefit from affirmative action for no good reason) or (2)
somehow manage to overcome the adverse effects of neighborhood racial
inequality and apply for college or apply for good-paying jobs, only to find themselves
unprepared for success. Nor can one seriously
argue that fronting an African American candidate for president has ameliorated
the problem of racial inequality in America.
But such is the desperation of the African American community that its
members will respond with enthusiasm to even the emptiest of gestures on their behalf.
So, to answer my own question, the Party of Lincoln won’t
come back until we as a people rediscover the courage of our Founders. When the Founders were faced by oppression, they did not respond the way people usually respond to fear and anxiety. They did not close their eyes. They did not stop using their brains. They did not bury their heads in mindless
entertainments. They stood up. They took the measure of their
oppressor. They acted.
