Something felt real off to me about this piece by David Masci at Discourse, the culture-and-ideas journal of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The title, "A Biden-Trump Rematch Is No Reason To Panic."
Get the idea?
But he does a pretty lame job of selling the message. He spends the first nine paragraphs going over the current horse-race stuff, and the approaches of both camps. Then, in the last two paragraphs, he tries to convince us of his point, laying out two reasons.
Reason one:
First, while partisans on both sides talk about dictatorial and criminal behavior on the part of both men and others in their orbit, America’s institutions, while themselves flawed, remain strong enough to keep our democracy secure. Recall that the Jan. 6 riot delayed but did not stop Congress from certifying the election results, leading to the peaceful transfer of power from Trump to Biden. Likewise, President Biden’s unauthorized effort to forgive student loans was overturned in the courts.
Well, it wasn't for lack of trying that the MAGA hordes didn't prevent certification on January 6. The Very Stable Genius told them in person that he'd be "very disappointed" if Pence didn't "do the right thing" and when they got to the Capitol they were within seconds of getting hod of the Vice President. And, yes, that was a nice court slap down of a bad Biden policy, but it's overwhelmed by all the, um, successes he's had elsewhere advancing climate alarmism, militant identity politics, wealth redistribution, and running up the national debt.
Reason two:
But a more important cause for hope is the presence of what my mother used to call “horse sense”—in this case, the horse sense of the American people. Yes, Trump’s and Biden’s grip on their parties mean that, despite what most people say they want, we may soon be faced with a choice between two deeply unpopular, uninspiring candidates. But history shows us that the electorate has a tendency to eventually correct its mistakes. After all, following the ineffective tenures of Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, the American people elected Abraham Lincoln. And the post-Watergate malaise of the Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter years was followed by the two-term presidency of Ronald Reagan.
"The American people elected Abraham Lincoln. To preside over a friggin' civil war. And America's cultural rot proceeded apace even through the undeniably great-on-many-levels Reagan years, and we all know the statistics we are now living with for marriage rate and family formation collapse, the collapse of acknowledgement of a transcendent order (as evidenced by church attendance statistics, among other metrics), teen depression rates and declines in academic performance. And then there's the polarization.
Am I being overly doom-focused?
Let's ask some folks around the world:
When I asked the European ambassador to talk to me about America’s deepening partisan divide, I expected a polite brushoff at best. Foreign diplomats are usually loath to discuss domestic U.S. politics.
Instead, the ambassador unloaded for an hour, warning that America’s poisonous politics are hurting its security, its economy, its friends and its standing as a pillar of democracy and global stability.
The U.S. is a “fat buffalo trying to take a nap” as hungry wolves approach, the envoy mused. “I can hear those Champagne bottle corks popping in Moscow — like it’s Christmas every fucking day.”
As voters cast ballots in the Iowa caucuses Monday, many in the United States see this year’s presidential election as a test of American democracy. But, in a series of conversations with a dozen current and former diplomats, I sensed that to many of our friends abroad, the U.S. is already failing that test.
The diplomats are aghast that so many U.S. leaders let their zeal for partisan politics prevent the basic functions of government. It’s a major topic of conversations at their private dinners and gatherings. Many of those I talked to were granted anonymity to be as candid with me as they are with each other.
For example, one former Arab ambassador who was posted in the U.S. during both Republican and Democratic administrations told me American politics have become so unhealthy that he’d turn down a chance to return.
“I don’t know if in the coming years people will be looking at the United States as a model for democracy,” a second Arab diplomat warned.
Many of these conversations wouldn’t have happened a few months ago. There are rules, traditions and pragmatic concerns that discourage foreign diplomats from commenting on the internal politics of another country, even as they closely watch events such as the Iowa caucuses. (One rare exception: some spoke out on America’s astonishing 2016 election.)
But the contours of this year’s presidential campaign, a Congress that can barely choose a House speaker or keep the government open, and, perhaps above all, the U.S. debate on military aid for Ukraine have led some diplomats to drop their inhibitions. And while they were often hesitant to name one party as the bigger culprit, many of the examples they pointed to involved Republican members of Congress.
These foreign diplomats have a better understanding of how to make distinctions between domestic and world-stage policy concerns than a whole lot of post-American lawmakers:
In particular, they criticized the decision to connect the issue of Ukrainian aid and Israeli aid to U.S. border security. Not only did the move tangle a foreign policy issue with a largely domestic one, but border security and immigration also are topics about which the partisan fever runs unusually high, making it harder to get a deal. Immigration issues in particular are a problem many U.S. lawmakers have little incentive to actually solve because it robs them of a rallying cry on the campaign trail.
So now, “Ukraine might not get aid, Israel might not get aid, because of pure polarization politics,” said Francisco Santos Calderón, a former Colombian ambassador to the United States.
They're starting to get proactive as a result of their concern:
So the world’s envoys are reconsidering how their governments can deal with this America for many years and presidents to come.
Some predicted that a Republican win in November would mean their countries would have to become more transactional in their relationship with the United States instead of counting on it as a partner who’ll be there no matter what. Embassies already are beefing up their contacts among Republicans in case they win back the White House.
“Most countries will be in defensive positions, because the asymmetry of power between them and the United States is such that there’s little proactively or offensively that you can do to impact that,” said Arturo Sarukhan, a former Mexican ambassador to the United States.
When I asked diplomats what advice they’d offer America’s politicians if they were free to do so, several said the same thing: Find a way to overcome your divisions, at least when it comes to issues that reverberate beyond U.S. borders.
We'd do well to heed the more sober voices beyond our borders. There is much to turn around in post-America, and it's not guaranteed that there's time to do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment