Perry Bacon, Jr. in an op-ed addresses “performance politics,” specifically “performance centrism,” something which our two prima donna Democratic divas excel at to our great peril. The problem with performative centrism:
In basically every major institution in America, there are powerful figures who I doubt voted for Donald Trump but nonetheless play down the radicalism of the Republican Party, belittle those who speak honestly about it or otherwise act in ways that make it harder to combat that radicalism. That needs to change. Americans desperately need leaders and institutions that are fully grappling with Republicans’ dangerous anti-democratic drift.
In tech, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg have fought efforts to get right-wing misinformation and conspiracy theories off their platform. On the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer dismisses the (accurate) contention that the court has been captured by a group of conservative justices who are essentially Republican partisans. In the legal world, Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman and former acting Obama solicitor general Neal Katyal wrote fawning articles during the confirmations of Trump Supreme Court nominees who have since helped gut the Voting Rights Act and defend GOP moves to make it harder to vote.
On Capitol Hill, Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) have cast liberal critics of the filibuster as overly partisan even as state-level Republicans pass voting restrictions that Democrats can’t override without ending the filibuster. In the media, journalists like NBC’s Chuck Todd and outlets such as Politico at times treat calls to rethink how the media covers politics as demands for it to cheerlead for Democrats.
It’s entirely possible for someone to like the legal positions of Trump’s Supreme Court nominees or think that Republican lawmakers were correct to vote to disqualify the election results in certain states. But there is no indication that those I list above actually hold those views.
So why this posture? Some of it is probably about career and financial incentives. Since the media prizes neutrality and counterintuitive views, Democrats who defend Republicans or cast other Democrats as alarmists get op-eds published in major papers and land on big news shows. Facebook won’t make as much money if Republicans abandon the platform, creating obvious incentives to appease the right.
A related explanation is that this approach distinguishes those who take it from their peers. The left-leaning figures who praised Trump judicial appointees, intentionally or not, communicated: “I am more thoughtful than my hyperpartisan liberal friends who just complain about all Republicans no matter what.”
A third explanation is that, consciously or unconsciously, centrist institutionalists believe the radicalism of the Republican Party is overstated. Centrist institutionalists are often male, upper-income White residents of blue states. Such people did fine when Trump was president, and they aren’t likely to be directly affected if the Supreme Court makes it harder to vote or get an abortion. If the United States moves to one-party Republican rule, those Democrats who haven’t been all that critical of the GOP will fare best.
But I think the most important explanation is simple elitism. Institutionalists worked hard to enter America’s bipartisan elite,and they value that status. Admitting that the Supreme Court has become highly partisan would diminish Breyer’s 27 years there. Admitting that the main divide in the legal world is between conservatives and liberals, not super-smart people and those who aren’t quite as smart, isn’t that useful for a Harvard law professor. Media outlets could lose influence if frank coverage of Republican radicalism cost them access to GOP officials.
Here’s the big problem with all this performative centrism: Real harm is being done. It’s harder to push for changes to the Supreme Court when one of the liberal justices is playing down the danger. It’s harder to get political journalists to adapt to the radicalism of the GOP when some of the most prominent figures in the field suggest that covering Republicans honestly amounts to left-wing activism. It’s harder to prevent false information from reaching millions of Americans when the leaders of the biggest social media companies aren’t fully committed to that cause.
Throughout the Trump era, a pattern has played out over and over: Those in the center or on the left, often women and people of color, warn that Republicans are about to take a radical step. They are cast as alarmist by institutionalists. Republicans take that radical step. The pattern repeats.
Before I became a columnist, I personally felt real tension around this issue: How could I speak honestly about how I see the Republican Party and still advance my career as a nonpartisan reporter? This is something a lot of journalists, particularly those of color, have felt the past several years as institutionalists — disproportionately White — in the media have often suggested that the press is divided between left-wing partisans and neutral observers.
How do we deal with these misguided institutionalists?
First, by criticizing them, forcefully and often. Coverage of the radicalism of the Republican Party is getting more honest and frank in part because journalists who engage in both sides-ism are increasingly being scolded by their peers.
Second, by building up and supporting alternative institutions and people. Analysis of the Supreme Court was once dominated by lawyers who regularly argued before the court, former Supreme Court clerks and people who teach at law schools like Harvard and Yale. This legal elite, heavily invested in the court’s legitimacy and power, consistently played down the rightward shift of the court. But a new set of observers, such as the website Balls and Strikes and The Nation’s Elie Mystal, has emerged that describes the court’s conservatives as the Republican partisans that they are. Establishment outlets will have to adapt or lose respect — and potentially their audiences, too.
Third, by reminding them that they, too, will suffer if a Trumpified GOP takes over the country. Trump didn’t quite know how to execute his vision, particularly in his first years in office, so he allowed his administration to be filled with traditional Republicans who adhered to democratic norms. But a similar or second Trump administration would assuredly be staffed with anti-democratic figures from the start. One-party, autocratic governments don’t allow private companies, media outlets and other institutions to operate freely.
I’m not calling for everyone who didn’t vote for Trump to fawningly praise President Biden. What I am asking for is the end of “let me show how not liberal I am” performances from powerful elites. They are disingenuous and lazy and, most important, they harm the real work so many are doing to defend the United States’ democracy in this perilous moment.
Looking at you Senator Sinema. This is the “performance centrist” shtick that you regularly play with the beltway media and local media, while you are failing to defend American democracy from the radical GQP war on democracy.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Washington Post says what I have been telling you all along: Joe Manchin doesn’t know squat about economics, he can’t even explain inflation. “Sen. Manchin is wrong on inflation and Build Back Better”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/23/sen-manchin-is-wrong-inflation-build-back-better/
Out of all of Mr. Manchin’s arguments against the bill, [inflation] is probably the most deeply flawed. What happens to inflation in the coming months will be driven largely by the coronavirus and the Federal Reserve’s actions. If Build Back Better — or some version of it — passes soon, the bill would be a rounding error in inflation calculations.
The main reason inflation is at its highest level since 1982 right now is the pandemic. Demand for goods — everything from couches to washing machines to fancy decks — has soared as people continue to spend a lot of time at home. Meanwhile, supplies for these items are low as factories have struggled to reopen and staff up; supply chains were not capable of handling this surge. The result of high demand and low supply was easy to predict: Prices went up.
The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan that Democrats (including Mr. Manchin) passed this year likely contributed to inflation as well. It was designed to give most Americans money. What was spent on groceries, rent and other items helped push demand higher.
But Build Back Better is a very different bill. It does increase government spending, which traditionally boosts growth and inflation, but it also raises taxes on the wealthy and large businesses, which traditionally decreases them. The legislation is also (mostly) paid for, at least in the near term.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would add about $160 billion to the deficit over the next decade. That’s not zero, but it’s small in the context of a $23 trillion economy.
Inflation is most problematic for Americans who live paycheck to paycheck. Build Back Better would help reduce the costs of medicines, health insurance and child care for many low-income Americans. The current version of the bill also extends the enhanced child tax credit to give families with children extra money in 2022 to help pay for basic needs.
[M]oody’s Analytics, for example, estimates inflation would be about 0.2 percentage points higher next year if the current bill passes. A harsh winter could have a similar impact by driving up energy demand.
Build Back Better is about investing in the long-term future of the United States. Voting yes or no on this bill should not be based on the short-term inflation outlook.
The primary consideration — for Mr. Manchin and every other lawmaker — should be whether these investments in child care, climate change and lifting people out of poverty are worth doing to benefit society for years to come.
E.J. Dionne has a warning for Sens. “Manchinema”, “Democrats’ 2022 choice: Govern or lose”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/25/democrats-2022-midterms-biden-manchin/
In this traditional moment of year-end reflection, Democrats of every stripe have a lot of thinking to do and a big decision to make. They can begin the new year by delivering progress for working families, the environment and democracy itself, or they can watch their party implode.
A week has passed since Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) delivered what appeared to be his Big No to President Biden’s Build Back Better plan — which, to be more precise, was his no on “this piece of legislation.”
There is an enormous difference between rejecting a deal altogether and pushing aside the program’s current legislative iteration. That’s also a source of guarded hope.
[B]ut even before the Senate votes on Build Back Better, Democrats will face their single most important decision: whether to alter filibuster rules to allow passage of two pro-democracy bills — the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act — aimed at pushing back against voter suppression and election subversion in Republican-led states.
Here, the news is promising. Even in the Fox News interview, Manchin did not rule out filibuster reforms, and he has been working closely with colleagues on possible alterations to allow voting-related bills to pass without Republican support. Biden stepped up his efforts on their behalf in an interview last week with David Muir of ABC News. The president said flatly that he supported doing “whatever it takes” to pass the democracy bills, including “making the exception of voting rights for the filibuster.”
Democrats have a narrow window to get a lot done. They face a nearly unified Republican opposition. They have the slimmest of majorities. And at moments last week, it looked as though they were eager to spend the next year trashing each other.
They can’t afford the luxury of recriminations.
“We can’t give up,” said Jayapal, who has kept open lines to Manchin. “It is urgent. Families are suffering.”
If Congress fails to deliver, she added, “it’s going to be very hard for all the people who are up for election around the country to be able to say to people, ‘Look, I made your life appreciably better.’ ”
That’s still the job description.