Regarding Andrew Sullivan’s dark view of the American future, a reader writes:
The same Andrew Sullivan who declared his unabashed support for fascism? Here:
If I'm reading this right, Andrew Sullivan more or less declares himself to be a fascist here https://t.co/bzRhNq6WRY pic.twitter.com/s5SYanO5go
— David Klion (@DavidKlion) August 28, 2020
Of course, it’s useful to review the tweet and the replies, of which the first is from Sullivan, refuting the attack. Although a refutation on Twitter, one of the saddest and ineffectual social media platforms, is a twisted or fragmentary thing[1].
But I think Sullivan’s first mistake was not clearly delineating the abstract nature of the discussion, because he’s centered on how the Democrats screwed up. The abstract nature is that this is a discussion of societal governance competition.
Which is to say, if democracy does not provide for the safety and prosperity of the citizenry, out it goes. There is nothing sacred about democracy, just as there’s nothing sacred about a theocracy or a monarchy[2]. Democracy is one way to run a society; there are several competitors, a word which I stress, such as the aforementioned divinity-based forms, along with straight autocracies, whatever it is we call what Russia is currently using, the conservative Swiss model, radical anarchy, and including the Amish approach of requiring each modification to how things are done be reviewed by the community’s families for its potential effects on the community as a whole – and if they decide it’ll damage the community, it’s not permitted. Call it an implementation of the precautionary principle.
Briefly, Sullivan is demonstrating a linked prioritization ladder – first safety & prosperity, then the form of social governance. If democracy can provide safety & prosperity, great – any long-time reader of Sullivan knows he’s for democracy, due to its support for individual rights, and its ability to swiftly evolve when injustices are discovered, such as gay rights in general, and gay marriage in particular. Klion appears to be quite the douchebag.
But if democracy is going to put Sullivan in perpetual danger because of the policies of its main proponent – and, yes, I don’t view the GOP[3] as a proponent of democracy these days – while the GOP, the only other likely choice, under the ugly flag of fascism, claims it guarantees safety, well, what to do?
Of course, fans of democracy can argue about the fate of all fascist regimes, which is a rapid decline into bigotry, barbarity, and disaster. But there is a problem with this approach: Most Americans are historically illiterate. Their view of history extends back to the last car they bought. It becomes a yelling contest, and such smoothly-coiffed villains such as Matt Gaetz are likely to out-charm the Democrats, who tend to be technocrats, geeks crossed with schmoozers.
And it doesn’t help that the proponents of democracy do not, at least in Sullivan’s view, talk about safety.
In my view, the work to guarantee that safety, insomuch as that’s possible, has already begun because of the awareness of the systemic, as well as explicit, racism present in society precipitated into national debate by the brutal Floyd murder, and how it damages democracy. Asheville, NC, is already exploring reparations, a subject which should be picked up at the state and national levels over the next year or two. But the Democrats had better link these nascent efforts to the safety they will bring as the black community finally begins to share, en masse, in the prosperity of the American dream.
And that’s what I think Sullivan should have emphasized – that if the Democrats promise to bring permanent chaos, then it’s not an attractive choice, and it’s an evolutionary failure. The GOP is also not an attractive choice, as Sullivan has made obvious in multiple New York Intelligencer articles, as well as the 15 years of his previous Daily Dish blog. It’s why I can’t possibly take Klion seriously – he’s either malicious or he’s intellectually shallow.
But it’s worth contemplating that democracy is not a replacement for a religion, an eternal institution, it’s just an approach to societal governance that seems attractive – until this sort of thing happens. As my long-time readers may remember, I’ve worried a time or two that the Trump election may be damaging not just the United States, but the entire concept of liberal democracy as a viable governing form. I think, in essence, that’s all Sullivan is doing.
1 “Twitter storms,” indeed. That’s simply a way to say, “This platform isn’t useful for anything more than sharing cool maps.”
2 I apologize. I’m sure my reader saw it coming.
3 Aka the “Party of Trump,” which I presume will, someday, become its legal name.
