THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BALTICS

Part I of my essay explored my impressions of the people and history of the Baltic region. Part II will discuss the importance of the Baltics within the context of recent foreign affairs.

I must begin with our mode of transportation through the Baltics.  Cruise ships are perhaps the most diverse ecosystems in the world.  A captain from Italy, wait staff from every third world country and our cabin porter from tiny French Guiana in South America. The passengers are no less diverse, just older and better off economically. I enjoyed watching conservative Republicans from the United States sharing tables with families from Hong Kong, Egypt and Nigeria. Like Dorothy, they knew they were not in Kansas anymore. Multiculturalism is alive and well on the high seas.

I seemed to be among the few who felt comfortable raising political issues with fellow passengers within this confined environment. But what better opportunity to take the world’s temperature on Trump, Brexit, Paris yellow jackets, Putin and the demonstrations in Hong Kong?  

On our last excursion in Denmark, a family from Hong Kong was afraid they would not be able to fly home because of the airport demonstrations. A couple from Paris described Prime Minister Macron as a robot, with no emotional affect. The English we spoke with all viewed Prime Minister Boris Johnson as the ticket to economic and political ruin.  Everyone wanted to hear our impressions of President Trump and what the future holds for America.

We learned that every country in the Baltics has adopted some degree of cradle to grave benefits for its citizens, with high taxes to pay for these programs.  Free health care, education, pensions and elder care are universal. From the many conversations I had with our excursion guides and with local citizens, democratic socialism is imbedded deep in the DNA of the Baltics as a model that guarantees the basic needs of all citizens. I heard many complaints concerning political leadership, but none concerning the democratic socialism economic model.

Next, we learned that favoring social programs for all citizens does not translate into favoring open borders or mass immigration. Almost everyone I spoke to in every Baltic country we visited wanted some form of limited/controlled immigration. It was not difficult to translate this widely held view into the rise of populist political leaders throughout the Baltic region.

The Baltics has its own unique history of multinational trade versus national interests that I found fascinating.  The Hanseatic League was a powerful commercial and defensive confederation of merchant guilds and market towns, first formed in the late 1100s. The League came to dominate Baltic maritime trade for many centuries.  Hanseatic cities had their own legal system and operated their own armies for mutual protection and aid.

On many of our excursions, we heard stories of local medieval citizens forced to choose between following orders from their King or from the transnational Hanseatic League.  Making the wrong choice resulted in mass slaughter.  Whole communities were burned to the ground.  The power and influence of the Hanseatic League based solely on economic interest, with little religious or national affiliation was greater than any multinational corporation or international trade pact that exists today.

Champions of the European Union have pointed to the Hanseatic League as a kind of prototype version of economic unification.  All of the Baltic countries we visited belong to the EU. Unlike Great Britain, no one we spoke to seemed eager to exit the EU.  The ease of travel and free trade with EU partners throughout Europe has served the Baltic region well. 

On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that these countries would agree to expand the EU into a political alliance and to give up their ability to govern as independent nations.  Patriotism is high in tiny Latvia with its two million citizens; Denmark with its 6 million; and Russia with a population of over 144 million. Each country has its own creation myths, national heroes and milestones that are honored with great pride.

One of the challenges across the Baltic and indeed throughout Europe is to recognize the importance of celebrating unique national identity, without permitting patriotism to morph into nativist, racist views.  To illustrate this point, I will focus on tiny Estonia, population 1.3 million people.

As the fortunes of Estonia changed over the years of the modern era, one of its major streets was chronologically renamed: Lenin Street, Hitler Street, Stalin Street and now, Freedom Street.  Young, urban Estonians are fiercely independent and want no further intervention into their affairs.  But Estonia’s remarkable economic growth has remained in its capital, Tallinn, and poverty remains high in rural areas.

In July of 2019 the Conservative People’s Party won enough seats in the parliament to be included in the new government. The party’s leaders rally against migrants, same sex partnerships and the mainstream media.  They claim to be the champions of rural Estonians and are often aligned with Russian policy positions. 

Progressive Estonians have formed a coalition against the far right with a new movement: “Yes to Freedom, No to Lies.” They advocate not attacking the far right head on, but rather talking directly to citizens about “Estonian democratic values.”  As in the United States and in all western democracies, the struggle to maintain liberal democratic principles is a real crisis.  But for Estonians an illiberal outcome comes with immediate consequences. If democracy losses and Russia again dominates society, a major street in Tallinn will be renamed Putin Street.

For centuries, the Baltic region has been the buffer between Western Europe and Russia.  Nothing has changed this reality.  Under Putin, the Russian bear is again on the prowl, seeking to increase its sphere of influence and to tamp down domestic dissent.  Americans should pay close attention to tiny Estonia, the canary in the coal mine.

  

A TRIP AROUND THE BALTIC SEA

This essay will detail our experiences cruising on the Baltic Sea earlier this summer.  Part I will provide some background on the region and its people. Part II will give a political analysis of the Baltics and its role in shaping current events.

Our journey began in Stockholm, Sweden and would end two weeks later in Copenhagen, Denmark.  We traveled east to Helsinki, Finland and St Petersburg, Russia. Then headed down the coast of the small Baltic States, and swung west to Germany. We had extended land based stays in both Stockholm and Copenhagen.

The Baltic Sea and those nations surrounding it have never gained the recognition of its big sister, the Mediterranean. This is unfortunate because the history is rich, with many well-preserved medieval towns.  The palaces, castles and churches are among the most magnificent in the world. The warrior Vikings, followed by the Kingdom of Denmark, followed by Sweden, each took turns being the bully on the block. In modern history, Russia and Germany have fought for hegemony of the Baltic region.

The small Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania could do no better than roll with the political and military punches, which came far too often. Large but sparsely populated Finland always punched above its weight.  For an excellent analysis of modern Finnish history read Jared Diamond’s new book, Upheaval, which details Finland’s heroic battle against the Russians in the 1940 winter war.

One must be careful in drawing sweeping conclusions about a nation and its people based on short visits, but despite the close proximity of the countries we visited, each was distinctive.  The Scandinavian portion of the Baltics is much different from the small Baltic States that were formally under Soviet domination.  Sweden remained neutral during the world wars and its historical structures remained untouched. In Russia and the Baltic States the great palaces and churches were decimated and have been rebuilt.

The Swedes appear more reserved and introspective than the Danes.  Both countries treasure their Viking heritage and have not forgotten the centuries of war and conquest of one against the other.

The Russians are somewhat arrogant, much like the French, but with awful food. They do not smile often, but then the sun seldom shines in the summer and the winters are horrific and long in St Petersburg. Although not willing to vocalize their discontent to tourists, Russian patience with Putin appears to be wearing thin as they realize he is no Peter the Great and may not deserve his imperial pretensions. We were fortunate to escape St. Petersburg several days before local election protests erupted in Russian cities.

Russians take pride in selling Americans stuff they do not need at outrageous markups like nesting dolls (of course there is a Steeler version) and amber jewelry. Our favorite tourist initiative was a young girl who ran from bridge to bridge (20 bridges over 5 miles) to wave and dance over top our canal excursion as it passed under each bridge. By the end of our tour, she was receiving thunderous applause and generous tips.

The Finns are beautiful, artistic people who purchase more live theater and performing art tickets than Americans purchase movie tickets. One of our favorite stops was the open air Helsinki Market, full of salmon cakes, excellent crafts and artwork and a farmer from northern Finland selling his own lingonberry jam.

You get the feeling in Tallinn, Estonia and Riga, Latvia that the natives are simply thrilled to have their own small nation states, free of foreign intervention.  Both countries proudly fly the NATO flag next to their own as if to proclaim “never again.”

Our port in Germany was part of the old GDR, East Germany, prior to German reunification. The miracle here was how quickly the country was able to westernize the east into one seamless democracy, after years under communism.

Visits to smaller communities in the countryside provided their own distinctive pleasure.  Visby Sweden and Jelling Denmark were towns with century’s old thatched roofs and local pride in their medieval walls and ancient ruins. In Visby, a medieval festival was in full swing with hundreds of young Swedes in period dress. In Jelling, one of the oldest churches in Europe still stands near the Danish rune stone that first referenced both “Denmark” and “Christianity”.  The carvings on the face of this birth Stone appear on every Danish passport.

The number of palaces, castles and churches we visited could become mind numbing. My wife’s diary helped us to place each within the historical context of each country we visited. It is admirable that no matter how many times each structure was ravished by fire or war, they were quickly rebuilt as symbols of national pride.

There was much history to absorb and opportunity for further reading. Peter the Great (1672-1725) and Catherine the Great (1729-1796) had a hand in almost all we witnessed in Russia.  When one views St. Petersburg and realizes that the city is no older than our major American cities, the amount of splendor is hard to comprehend. King Gustav II of Sweden and Queen Margaret I of Sweden were both nation builders that deserve further study.

If you go, do not take hordes of dollars. The Baltics, sans Russia, are working to become a cashless region.  In Sweden, the number of retail cash transactions has fallen by 80%.  By comparison, America is at least a decade behind.

In part II of this essay I will consider some of the political implications of the Baltics in today’s foreign affairs.

THE ECONOMY WILL DETERMINE THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Remember all the excitement among Democrats when Conor Lamb won the special election for Congress in a Republican district. This euphoria was repeated when the Democratic Party took back the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections. Now it is happening again, as Trump levels racist attacks against progressive members of Congress.  Many political pundits are predicting that these events, along with other positive signs, are setting up a major Democratic victory for the presidency in the 2020 election.

As I survey the political landscape in the summer of 2019, I do not feel confident that Trump will be defeated.  In fact, given his formidable array of political advantages as the incumbent President, I believe the odds of Trump being reelected increase; the closer we get to Election Day.

The economy has always been a major factor in national elections, and Trump’s economy is the most robust in the world. Despite ongoing trade battles with China and saber rattling with Iran, the stock market hit all-time highs in mid-July. Unemployment, new jobs and GNP numbers continue to impress. Consumer spending is on fire with not even a hint of recession on the horizon.  The Federal Reserve has conceded to the President’s demand to reduce interest rates, guaranteeing that cheap borrowing and the economic expansion will keep humming along through 2020.

A great deal of research has been conducted over the years on the effect of economic conditions on presidential elections. Politico points out that Yale economist Ray Fair, who pioneered this kind of modeling, shows Trump winning by a fair margin in 2020 based on the economy and the advantage of incumbency.

Most Americans have little interest in following Trump’s tweets.  They are not familiar with the myriad of articles, books and cable news shows that explain how Trump has degraded both domestic and foreign policy institutions.  They do not care who was appointed to the Trump cabinet or why certain officials resigned in disgrace.

These voters, who are not avowed members of one of our partisan political tribes, and who have no ideological skin in the game, will enter the voting booth in 2020 asking one primary question:  do I feel more economically secure and has my 401(k) account grown since the last election? In many cases, Trump gets an affirmative vote, no matter what secondary issues may concern the voter.

In addition to the economy, if matters stay the same, the President will also be able to claim a reduction in American troops in the Mid-East with no new entanglements.  This is critical to winning over a war weary nation and a position shared by most of the Democratic electorate.

 There will be those that challenge my assessment of Trump’s political future. They will point to his immoral standing, his imperial and narcissistic personality and his personal attacks against the rule of law, the media and against individuals who disagree with him. These were valid issues leading up to the 2016 election but will hold little water in 2020. At this point there is nothing new about Trump’s past, his political views or his treatment of individuals that would shock those who are familiar with his history.

Voters have come to expect the President to act out in unpredictable ways. Trump tends to say things that affront those who would never vote for him in the first place.  He is careful to both praise and reward his political base with frequent announcements. Moreover, voters in recent elections have appeared to be been more influenced by “what affects them” than “what offends them.”

What about the Mueller Report and the possibility of the Democratic House bringing impeachment proceedings?  The Report has not changed the view of the Trump base and will have less impact on neutral voters as the election approaches. Any attempt to impeach the President is a fool’s errand because the Republican Senate will never convict.  In addition, impeachment would provide Trump with additional fuel for his claim that a vast conspiracy is afoot to discredit his 2016 election.

For Democrats to cobble together a winning strategy to defeat President Trump in 2020 will indeed be a formidable task.  The key will be to take back several key states that were part of the Obama coalition.  There must be a willingness to listen to those voters who turned Republican in 2016 and to address their needs. Unfortunately, a good strategy and a humble attitude will not be enough to defeat Trump if the economy keeps firing on all cylinders and continues to reward those who previously voted for him.

While the president has few leadership or administrative skills, his political savvy as the ringmaster of the presidential circus is formidable. Every decision he makes going forward will be based on reelection.  Unless the economy has an unexpected reversal, Trump will likely win a second term in 2020.

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

It is difficult enough to keep track of family schedules, local news and domestic politics.  Attempting to keep informed on the status of other countries is beyond the capabilities of most of us.  Unless one is blessed with entirely too much free time and an insatiable appetite for reading the Economist, the Financial Times and the daily postings of Foreign Affairs. What follows is my short summary of where other select countries stand in this summer of 2019.

↔ Russia. Economically, Russia is a one trick pony with oil and gas production.  Putin has mastered the art of the authoritarian regime, with limited democracy, by instilling a sense of patriotism through propaganda based on Russian history and myth. Military adventurism against countries with Russian speaking populations and in Syria have helped Putin remain popular.  This approach is wearing thin as living conditions have not improved. 

↑ China.  While China appears to be faltering in the short term with riots in Hong Cong and at an economic disadvantage in the face of U.S. tariffs, these wounds are superficial.  American leaders think in terms of the next election cycle, the Chinese plan in terms of multiple decades.  China is well positioned to challenge the United States for hegemony in Asia and eventually beyond.

↓ Great Britain.  Following the referendum vote to leave the European Union, Great Britain has faced its greatest challenge since WWII.  The popular vote to leave was contrary to what the established political elites thought was best for the country. The government has been unable to agree on the conditions for leaving. Two conservative Prime Ministers have resigned and Boris Johnson, a political jokester who favors “leave” at any cost is well positioned to take control.  The next deadline with the EU to finalize terms is in October.  The three possible outcomes: soft leave with a deal signed; hard leave with no agreement; and another referendum to possibly reverse the decision to leave, each are fraught with economic and political landmines.

↔ France.   Emmanuel Macron was elected President of France in 2017. It appeared that his country had escaped the right wing populism that was washing over Europe.  Macron championed rational economic reforms with unions, pensions and other cost saving measures.  The goodwill disappeared when a proposed tax on gasoline lead to the “yellow vest” demonstrations that lasted for months.  Macron has regained control of the streets, but not widened his political appeal, after showing his authoritarian stripes in permitting deadly police weapons like flash-ball guns and dispersal grenades against the demonstrators.  The political choice in France is now between authoritarian neoliberalism and nationalist populism. 

↔ Mexico.  Mexico needs the new trade agreement negotiated with Trump and Canada (Usmca) to pass Congress.  This helps explain Mexican cooperation with the President in addressing the flow of refugees flowing from Central America to the U.S. border.  As the border patrols from both countries change diapers and make baloney sandwiches, it is open season for the flow of drugs to the north and cash/guns to the south.

↓ Venezuela, Cuba.  American foreign policy is directed against these two socialist countries while other nations to our south, below Mexico, are ignored. An American supported coup in Venezuela failed to topple Nicolas Maduro. Economic embargoes remains in place against both countries.  Cuba depends on oil from Venezuela, but all exports are in shambles, resulting in severe deprivations to both local populations.

↑ Turkey.  On 15 July 2016, an unsuccessful coup was attempted in Turkey against state institutions, including the President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  Erdogan used this event to jail and purge hundreds of thousands of his detractors from the military, civil service and higher education.  In addition, he has sought to cozy up to Russia and ignore his European allies, while becoming more authoritarian.  This somber picture began to change when his scheme to annul the election of a popular, more liberal, opponent to become the mayor of Istanbul failed after a second election on June 23. Shoots of democracy are beginning to reappear in Turkey and the currency is recovering from a 40% drop in value.

↔ Israel.  On the outside Israel appears to be in the best position since its creation.  The most important Israeli ally, the U.S. has moved its embassy to Jerusalem and recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights.  Many Arab countries are no longer calling for Israel’s destruction as they have common cause against Iran.  Iran, Israel’s mortal enemy, is in an economic tailspin because of U.S. sanctions. But none of these positive developments will solve a more desperate Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, or a more desperate Palestinian population from starting a new wave of violence, or address the multitude of domestic problems facing Israel.

For more background on any of these countries (or others), the best up to date analysis can be found at the Economist.com, on numerous podcasts and blogs and of course, Wikipedia.

THE QUARREL OF THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS

It was good news to see four sold out concerts of the Pittsburgh Symphony performing Beethoven’s 9^th symphony (Ode to Joy) at Heinz Hall. It was disheartening to see many of the patrons using walkers and hearing aids with few twenty somethings in attendance. One would expect that the Symphony’s performance highlighting the 50^th anniversary of the Rolling Stones rock album Let It Bleed, later in July, will show the opposite demographics.  Arguably, to many millennials, the Rolling Stones are interesting but ancient history and Beethoven is unapproachable. 

The popular music scene is bursting with unknown young artists, many with little formal training. The trick is to post new tunes online that have been cobbled together electronically in the family basement.  If conditions are right the song will go viral with millions of “hits” in a matter of days.  The artist becomes an instant celebrity. Similar success stories are now common among painters and writers who utilize social media and the internet to gain instant recognition.

How is it possible that our culture can accommodate both classical and this modern wave of “streaming” creative arts?  Will the old eventually give way to the new, with the world’s symphonies forced to play only modern music to survive? Will classical literature, art and music appreciation classes disappear from college curriculums? Will Shakespeare festivals like Stratford Ontario, now featuring lightweight musicals along with the Bard, eventually feature no Shakespeare at all?  

 In many respects our culture is experiencing a new “quarrel of the ancients and the moderns.” This term was first used to explain a literary and artistic debate in the early 17^th century. Sir William Temple argued against the modern position in his essay On Ancient and Modern Learning, invoking the famous quote: “we see more only because we are dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants.”  In support of the modern position, humanists like Francis Bacon argued that the three greatest inventions of his time (printing press, gunpowder, the compass) would invariably prove the superiority of the “Moderns”.

The “Ancients” supported the merits of the philosophers, authors, and painters from antiquity contending that a Modern could do no better than imitate them. The “Moderns” countered with the argument that modern scholarship allowed man to surpass the Ancients in knowledge and therefore the ability to create.

Classical artists seem to be strongly on the side of the Ancients. No one would doubt that Mozart benefited from Bach, Beethoven learned from Mozart and that all classical composers post Beethoven learned from him.  Picasso once proclaimed that: “Cezanne is the father of us all.” Picasso spent years on a large painting that was his tribute to his Spanish muse. The work is a cubist interpretation of Velazquez’s major Renaissance effort, “The Guardian”.

It is interesting that when civilization is at its lowest place, the Ancients are often invoked. Christianity in the Middle Ages sought to erase “pagan” Hellenistic and Roman thought and creativity from common memory, plunging Christendom into the dark.  Scholars throughout Europe, through the exchange of letters, rediscovered ancient philosophy, art and secular writings, leading to the Renaissance.

American legal philosophy, developed from the English common law has always sided with the Ancients. The guiding principle of “stare decisis” meaning: “to stand by that which is decided” compels Judges to follow precedent in their legal decisions.  Similarly, conservative political thought calls for careful deliberations before making changes to policies that have stood the test of time.

When it comes to literature, the advocate of the Ancient’s position has long been Harold Bloom. This 90 something Yale professor has written volumes to support his position that Shakespeare and Dante are the gold standard, with all literature that came after imitations of the original.  Bloom believes that: “there always will be incessant readers who will go on reading the great books of the past, despite the proliferation of fresh technologies for distraction.”  He points out that: “such a reader does not read for easy pleasure, but rather to enlarge a solitary existence.”

This point raised by Bloom opens another door into understanding our renewed quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns. Our modern culture thrives on change. It creates new goods and services, and teaches us to want them. It adds new technologies, things and ideas at an increasingly rapid rate. The amount of cultural change experienced in America between 1950 and 2019 is far greater than the amount of change experienced in the entire eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. 

New works of music, literature and painting play to our instant gratification and require little effort on our part to appreciate. While all are in some respect “creative”, few are derivative or build on what has come before.

Today’s internet driven culture is clearly on the side of the Moderns. Nevertheless, if history offers any lessons, there will come a time when our culture experiences a backlash against the superficial, sensory overload of what passes for the modern.

While time buries almost all human effort, certain creative works of genius will always prevail. No doubt, some of this genius will result from modern sources. But it would not surprise me to find the children of our grandchildren “rediscovering” what the Ancients have to offer in enriching their understanding of what it means to be human. 

 

POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP IS THE NEW FUNDAMENTALISM

  

Fundamentalism has long been part of religious and political thought.  For centuries, faith was an all or nothing proposition. Strict adherence to religious texts and dogma were maintained. There could be no compromise as the great monotheistic religions sought to rule the world. Within faiths, Catholic fought Protestant and Sunni fought Shia because of fundamentalist schisms.  The Jewish people were persecuted by everyone. 

In political thought, the 18^th and 19^th centuries are remembered for ideological battles between those who favored conservative monarchies versus fledgling liberal democratic leadership. The 20^th century featured fundamentalist battle lines drawn between fascism, communism and democracy.  This was followed by the all or nothing cold war battle for world domination played out between Soviet communism and democratic states.

On the other hand, American political parties in our pluralist democracy were most often open to divergent views and welcomed large tents which could accommodate both moderates and ideologues.  As an example, Northern Democrats proceeding the Civil War were divided into war Democrats who followed Lincoln and peace Democrats who sought a complete accommodation with the southern states.  

Recently, things have changed. The democratic tension between individual freedom on the right and equality on the left has hardened the political parties into fundamentalist like organizations.  

A new type of political zealot has replaced the moderate actor willing to considerate alternative positions. Partisan tribes have been formed that demand allegiance to a narrow set of ideological political views. Within this context facts and rational thought are unimportant. 

There is a party line and the partisan members willingly accept the rigid dogma it entails. In my view the irrationalism of Donald Trump and his followers has much in common with Abbie Hoffman and the 1960s new left, with an opposite ideological spin. Even Ronald Reagan was not above compromise with his political opponents.

 Partisan ideology is encouraged, reinforced and made more reasonable by cable news and social media.  Mass media provides the fire and brimstone sermons of partisan politics. Within both the Republican and Democratic parties, it is more important to win each conflict, which is non-negotiable, than to understand the positions of the other.

The modern day political partisan is unwilling to think rationally.  Remaining partisan requires little effort and is emotionally satisfying.  Conversely, rationality involves stepping outside one’s comfort zone to view the big picture, in all of its messiness and shades of gray.  Rational political thought is choice with a conscious, not a blind eye toward conflicting positions.

Social science studies have shown that even a smarter, better-educated electorate does not produce less partisan views.  Instead, political participants armed with facts are simply better equipped to argue their own side of the conflict.  In one study this was true for both progressives and conservatives. See Dan Kahan:  Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, 4 Judgment & Decision Making 407 (2013)

I have decided that avoiding political partisan fundamentalism is largely an individual decision and requires some effort.  For my part, an exercise in respectful tolerance of the views of Trump supporters, with whom I generally disagree, is the key. I begin by making a list of Trump positions that are rational, including the following:  1) Trump has taken steps that have improved the economy. 2) The Mueller Report has detailed a strong case in concluding that the President and his campaign were not complicit in a conspiracy with Russia. 3) Democrats need to cooperate with Republicans to solve the border crisis. 4) The United States should withdraw from further engagement in the Middle East.  5) Taking a strong stand against China is in America’s best interests.  Taking the time and effort to understand these positions does not mean I will ultimately agree.  It does make my decision making more rational.

Once I have completed this exercise it is easier to resist the Washington generated bitter war between the two well-funded, sharply defined tribes.   It becomes clear that each has their own partisan machines for generating evidence and their own enforcers of orthodoxy.  I choose to make up my own mind and stake out my political positions from a more rational place.

My progressive friends would argue that such an exercise gives credence to the “others” and gains no respectful tolerance in return.  My answer is that politics should not be an all or nothing proposition. Trump voters and progressives alike share many of the same goals and we all love America.

If we seek to understand those who disagree with us, even if a final accommodation seems difficult to achieve, something valuable has been gained. If the Trump administration adopts a rational policy with which, after careful reflection, progressives agree, we should not attack the policy in the name of partisan politics.  Rationality must begin somewhere.

AMERICA IS NOT MOVING TO THE FAR RIGHT

Much has been made of the Trump presidency and of illiberal democracies around the world resurrecting the menace of far right political views.  Under this theory, voters in this country and abroad have been converted to the ideology of the far right, including the rebirth of political institutions from the 1930s that favor authoritarian leaders and permit them to undermine the press and the courts.  Some liberals are even espousing the age-old default position that the masses asserting populism are “up to no good” and can no longer be trusted to deliver equality, liberty and justice for all.

I believe this position is overblown and misses the point of how Trump and others have won elections.  First, it is important to remember that no right wing populist has come to power anywhere in Western Europe or North America without the full cooperation of traditional conservative elites.  In our country, Republican voters did what they always do and voted for the representative of their party. For Republicans and many Independents, Hillary Clinton was unelectable. What took place was predictable and normal.  It was the candidate who was not normal, not the electorate.

Second, the election of Donald Trump was not the enthusiastic endorsement of a Ronald Reagan or an LBJ. Those who voted for him were compelled to overlook character flaws in favor of their anti-abortion or other conservative policy positions. Many of Trump’s illiberal attacks against the media and the courts did not appear until after the election.  There is no evidence that many of those who voted for him support these authoritarian right wing views.

Third, the mid-term elections demonstrated a strong moderate and left of moderate current in the American electorate.  The trend in American political history has always been that following any period of extremism the pendulum swings back toward the middle. It is my view that the 2020 election will follow this inclination and elect a moderate Democrat to the presidency.

Fourth, In America, the appearance of acts of right wing violence and rhetoric since Trump’s election are representative of the perspective of a small minority, unlike troubling reports from parts of Germany and Eastern Europe.  The incidents in America, fueled by domestic and foreign social media and by the President’s own conduct, have encouraged America’s fringe right wing to take action.  There has not been a significant shift in public opinion in support of right wing views.

Lastly, the American democratic experience of a constitutional republic balanced by three branches of government, runs deep and strong. There is no appetite to permit Trump, his family and wealthy political supporters to gain economic advantage through the presidency, or to label non-Trump supporters as “enemies of the people”, or to permit the executive branch to brazenly act in unaccountable ways.

Progressives would do well to stop trying to analyze what caused Trump and to plan for the future, post Trump. Moreover, the average voter is not interested in hearing about revisionist history and how our founding fathers got our institutions all wrong because of racism and sexism.  While there may be some historical truth to these claims, it is counterproductive.  We need to stress what the founders got right and why it is worth preserving for the next generation of Americans.

Trump alone is responsible for breaking the office of the presidency into an unrecognizable institution.  Much of the damage can be traced to his self-promotion and to self-preservation, not a grand plan of right wing authoritarian takeover, as was the case in Russia, Hungary and Turkey.  The American electorate will soon make things right.