With poll after poll suggesting that the Democrats are going to win back the House and perhaps the Senate in the coming congressional elections, expect to see more discussion about the practical need to be nice to Americans who regret voting for Donald Trump.
The idea is that we live in a system that's either/or. If we're going to build a big tent, we need to bring as many people into it as we can, which means avoiding saying anything that might discourage them from coming in. For the Democrats to win, these voters have to switch allegiances. Let's not make that process harder by scolding them about their bad choices.
I think this idea is wrong, morally and politically.
Morally, because actions have consequences. Trump's policies hurt his voters, meaning they hurt themselves. Only they are liable for their choices. Only they can choose to make things right for their sake. No one made them choose Trump. No one can make them choose a Democrat. If what I say determines their choice, no amount of pain will change their minds.
Politically, because protecting people from the consequences of their choices encourages them to continue choosing badly. I think it's unwise for progressives to suggest that it's OK to vote for a Republican as long as the Democrats are around to clean up the mess they inevitably make. That's no way to build a big tent, because once the mess is cleaned up, they go back to the Republicans. Politically, it's better to say "you hurt yourself – don't do it again."
Still, it's very difficult for progressives to look Trump voters in the eye and say "I told you so." I think it comes down to fear, which is to say, they fear that Trump voters will double down on their bad choices. They fear that telling people who hurt themselves that they could have avoided hurting themselves will only encourage them to hurt themselves, imperiling us all.
To that, I say you are right to be afraid! So the question isn't whether my opinion of a Trump voter will alienate him but whether he will hurt himself in a delusional bid to hurt me for my opinion of him. If so, the conclusion should be that there is no such thing as democratic consensus or the common good or mutual self-interest with a person for whom masochism is optional. The masochist won't be obligated to himself. Why would he be obligated to me?
This conclusion runs against the grain of progressive myth, which is to say, against the belief in "the people" as pure and innocent victims of a system rigged by rapacious elites. If we could get money out of politics, if we could reform the media, if we could tame "polarization" – if we could clear the way for liberty and justice for all, that's what "the people" would choose. "The American people are progressive," Elizabeth Warren famously said, "and our day is coming. Our values are American values and America's values are progressive values."
Not only does this myth overlook the fact that "the people" chose Trump twice. It overlooks the complicated and corruptible character of "the people" that chose him. It asks us to presume that his voters had good intentions but were mistaken or duped or just forgot the reasons why he was voted out the first time. It holds Kamala Harris accountable – she'd be president if she were a better candidate – but holds Trump's voters blameless for his victory. It's not really their fault, this myth tells us, so we should not remind them of their mistake.
For all the talk of animosity between the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and its centrist establishment, both sides agree on this myth: "The people" can't fail; they can only be failed. To shame voters for their self-destructive choices is to fail them. The terms of this agreement allow progressives to indulge in a kind of colorblind fantasy in which Americans would be united if not for divisive elites. More importantly, it allows party leaders to skate.
As long as the progressive myth predominates, Democratic leaders don't have to do the hard work of creating a vision for a more just and equitable society for everyone in America, or invest in the manufacturing of an infrastructure that would realize that pluralist vision. Instead, as we have seen since at least the 1980s, a party establishment that does not want to change does not feel that it needs to change when it can wait around for the moment when the Republicans bring the country to ruin, then reap the benefits of a popular backlash. And the party establishment is rewarded for its inertia by the party's progressive wing when it celebrates that popular backlash as a restoration of "the true nature of the people."
But contrary to progressive thinking, "the true nature of the people" is not revealed during these periods of backlash against the Republicans. It was never hidden. It has been evident in every cycle of boom and bust since the 1960s. "The people" elect a Republican president who invariably wrecks the economy. They then elect a Democratic president to fix it. While that Democrat is busy trying to restore and even expand access to the American dream, the Republicans invariably arouse anti-Black hatred and other bigotries to such heights that "the people" believe they are witnessing a crime when a Black man moves up the social ladder, as he must have stepped on someone more "deserving" to get there.
By the time of the next election, "the people" are primed to "make America great again," thus restarting the cycle. To the extent that progressive thinking recognizes the complicated and corruptible character of "the people," it's in terms of material deprivation. It's said that when times are hard, (white) Americans become vulnerable to demagogues who peddle propaganda. That may be true, but given the above cycle of boom and bust, the other way around is clearly also true. When times are good, (white) Americans are vulnerable to demagogues, as their sense of justice is even more aroused by the sight of Black prosperity. And if that's the case, are they really vulnerable? Sounds to me like they are choosing a Republican for the express purpose of stopping the crime of "those people" getting what they don't "deserve."
When white Americans choose a Republican to stop "them," they end up hurting themselves. They feel so much pain that they elect Democrats. It's a regular and predictable cycle of self-harm that ultimately hurts everyone, but it's not recognized as self-harm, neither by the white Americans who are harming themselves nor by the progressives who are trying to bring them around. Progressives believe that by saying nothing about their self-destructive choices – by being nice – they clear the way for direct appeals to their material self-interests. Let's not talk about you hurting you and yours, they say. Let's talk about universal healthcare.
But what progressives are really doing is enabling self-harm. The cycle of boom and bust should demonstrate that there are no rewards for good behavior. Every Democratic president of the last 50 years has not only fixed the damage done by the previous Republican president but also grown the economy. Yet despite that success, "the people" end up punishing the Democrats. Progressives say that's because the party did too little. Equally valid is saying they did "too much," which is to say, the economic policies of Democratic presidencies empowered those whom "the people" believed should not be empowered.
I said at the top that it's impossible to make common cause with masochists. That's true, but most people who hurt themselves are not masochists. They don't have a complete understanding of the consequences of their choices. That's why progressives should shame them. It's not enough to speak to their higher instincts with popular policy. We have to speak to their base instincts, too. Oh, you thought only others would suffer? Well, I told you so.