Every successful
candidate—as well as most losing ones—for President of the United States attract “public
intellectuals.” They offer their services as storytellers, media whisperers,
and strategic thinkers. They make a difference; they help launch and sustain good
and unforgettably terrible ideas as well. And they are rewarded richly in the
best sense of the word: their exceptional brains work most brilliantly around
power. They must, however, swim in one of two immense pools: the Republican and
Democratic parties. The action is not on the beach with the independents.
The entry fee into these ponds has lightened; old-boy passports aren’t as valuable as
they once were. Presidential politics today is an extremely competitive marketplace,
with demanding investors who thrive in the vicious new meritocracy. So, merit
should get you in.
Exiting is not as
easy: it can cost you your name, career, and friendships. It raises a character
question: Can you be trusted on any team?
“Loyalty” is not
just a harmless pat on the back for dutiful service. The word imposes a sin tax
on exit: being known as “disloyal.” Being loyal doesn’t get you a promotion or
keep the business innovative or on its toes. It simply allows the institution to
not worry about potential quitters 24–7. (Insights on the power of loyalty goes to Albert O. Hirschman's "Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States")
The above
considerations partly explain why David Brooks in Time
for a Realignment and avowedly partisan thinkers write passionately about
the dislocation and movement of millions of voters, while largely sitting still
themselves. Their squirming has generated entertaining and clever discussion—and
we should appreciate that.
Joseph
Nye, the liberal who coined the strategic
panacea “soft power” hilariously excoriates Republican Donald Trump for being
soft on Vladimir Putin and squeamish about committing US forces to any war to
defend Lithuania. Conservative David
Frum speaks soulfully about his dark night in the Republican Party. He chooses
forthrightly to campaign against Donald Trump as a loyalist’s first step to
unite conservative Republicans, later.
Their loyalty
shouldn’t be overvalued. There’s another equally effective way to be intellectually
and politically useful: quit.
Too little attention
is paid to the virtue of picking up and leaving. America is great if only because America and it’s more timid
northern cousin are populated by switchers and quitters, not only by those who
keep their heads down, wait for bad times to pass, or hope that their bosses
will wake up one day and stop treating them as soreheads and has-beens.
Think of those
illustrious troublemakers insiders loathed at the time: Theodore Roosevelt and
his Progressive Party, René Lévesque and the Party Quebecois, and Preston
Manning and Reform Party.
Singing the
praises of the two-party system is an establishmentarian excuse for not rocking
the boat amongst the brains at the top as well as amongst the “white trash” below decks. Throughout the modern communication age, the oldest parties have
set the rules and acquired for themselves tremendous advantages to ward off
revolts and new competition.
The privileged, of
course, have done all this to make politics less corrupt and politicking more
like a profession.
Yet, there’s no
compelling evidence that breaking down the quasi-monopolistic advantages for
Democrats and Republicans and Liberal and Conservative parties would lead to
the chaotic fragmentation of our popular democracies. Insurgencies are
eventually absorbed by both adaptive competitors and by an enduring preference
by voters to give one party, not coalitions, decisive power to govern.
Malcontents serve
new ideas within established parties. However, they only rouse themselves when there’s
reasonable prospect that neglected constituencies will exercise their freedom
to move on.
More “public intellectuals” should try it—light the way, so to speak. Real change needs them.
No comments:
Post a Comment