Why is it so hard, almost impossible to have an open society “founded on compromise, toleration, and impersonal rules and institutions?” (George Will)
It looks like the Democrats’ choice might be Elizabeth Warren, and there are any number of anti-Trumpers, of which I’m one, who are scared, rightly or wrongly, that she doesn’t have the sand to stand up to and overpower Trump on the debate platform in 2020.
Who does? Anyone among the 21 still remaining? And that’s why the Dems are scared. It’s now all about electability. Do you remember Trump there, right behind Hillary as she was speaking? Well imagine him doing the same thing to Elizabeth or to Amy or anyone else, who among the present candidates would survive his overbearing presence? One would like to see as one of the candidates someone more like Al Pacino and Robert De Niro, someone who could at least act the part of a real opponent to Trump.
And Warren’s “plans” which she hasn’t yet told us, and specifically how we would pay for them, do look socialistic, this being a favorite whipping boy for Trump, and she is probably not the best one to defend a initial step towards socialism, and certainly not the bigger steps, that together would create a much bigger Federal budget and government, in order to provide more than ever before for people’s needs, or as some say, not needs but people’s rights to health care, schooling, work and a living wage, just to name a few.of them.
Below I cite the opinion s of a few fake news reporters and pundits, ih this instance from the New York Times and the Washington Post, which if you work in a Federal office you’ll no longer see, Trump having cancelled all government subscriptions to these two publications.
First David Brooks who was probably not the first to speak of this. In this day and age everything is spoken of every day by thousands, tens of thousands, and I for one can’t and no longer even try to keep up.
If It’s Trump vs. Warren, Then What?
by David Brooks on Oct. 17, 2019
‘This is a memo for the politically homeless. It’s a memo to those of us who could never support Donald Trump but think the Bernie-Squad-Warren Democratic Party is sprinting too far left. It’s a memo built around the following question: If the general election campaign turns out to be Trump vs. Warren, what the heck are we supposed to do? The first thing we could do, of course, is pray for a miracle.”
Then we have his Times colleague, Bret Stephens, who on Oct. 25, 2019 wrote” in the Times, Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote, and Those with plans for everything prove only that they can’t be trusted to plan for anything.
A decade ago, it was conventional wisdom that the world would soon start running low on oil and that the United States would henceforth be at the mercy of the inexorable trend. Then the fracking revolution came about, and the U.S. resumed its long-lost place as the world’s No. 1 oil and natural gas producer.
The result: lower oil prices for American consumers, less dependence on petrodespots, a dramatic shift from coal to natural gas for electricity generation (with concomitant benefits in carbon emissions), and hundreds of thousands of working-class jobs, including tens of thousands in swing states like Colorado and Pennsylvania. Elizabeth Warren wants to kill all this.
Then today, Tuesday, Oct 27, George Will in the Wash Post article, America’s current political moment might be so bad that it becomes good, has this to say:
” Warren is a millimeter away from Trump’s ‘I alone can fix it,’ where the antecedent of the pronoun ‘it’ is: everything. ”
And Will not to be undone by anyone, cites Jonathan Rauch who says: “humans were designed for life in small, homogeneous groups where change was slow and choices were few.” …Writing in National Affairs (“Rethinking Polarization”), Rauch, a Brookings Institution senior fellow, postulates a vast emptiness at the core of the politics that has engulfed us: “What if, to some significant extent, the increase in partisanship is not really about anything?” What if rival tribalisms are largely untethered from ideologies?
George Will: If he is correct, both left and right, like scorpions in a bottle, are in diametrically opposed but symbiotic reactions against modernity — against an open society “founded on compromise, toleration, and impersonal rules and institutions.”
So the three pundits, Brooks, Stephens and Will are all saying, almost in so many words, that the choice of Warren would be a disaster for the Democrats, giving Trump a second mandate.
And why? Because the country is not ready for the remake of our economy that Warren is proposing (planning), including what has to be a partial undoing of capitalism, although she denies this.
So are the three talking heads correct?? Maybe but there are of course other points of views, for example, and the one below comes perhaps closest to my own. I take it from Heather O’Donnell of Dusseldorf, Germany, who writes in her Letter to the Editor:
To the Editor:
Elizabeth Warren’s policies may seem radical within the American political spectrum, but they are standard, centrist course for most stable and moderately responsible democracies throughout the world. Whether it’s a responsible climate plan, sane gun restrictions, or equitable solutions to health care or student debt, most functioning democracies are already inhabiting this “far left” universe.