Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[Admiral Yi]

Google says 75 to 90 thousand. 

I have never met a Quaker.  Not seen one mentioned in the news.

[HVC]

They make good oats though

[crazy canuck]

Google says 75 to 90 thousand. 

I have never met a Quaker.  Not seen one mentioned in the news.

You have not seen a lot of things, and yet they exist.

[crazy canuck]

The Rapture didn't take the MAGA supporters away yesterday. The Dems are going to have to go with Plan B.

[Razgovory]

Shooting at an ICE facility.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think there is something similar on the domestic front. While there was a need to fight and win a world war and a Cold War, and anti-Communism - there was space for more expansive social welfare and enhanced union rights as there was a need for social peace. Having triumphed in those global conflicts, there is no need to maintain social peace; you can go for the win now, red in tooth and claw.

That is the calculation but it's also about change in personnel.  During WW2, people from all over the country, east-west, north-south, urban-rural, rich-poor, all fought together in the same units.  Not a lot of room to buy out deferments or get a doctor's note for flat feet.  That gave a powerful connection that transcended everyday partisan bickering.

Bob Dole and Daniel Inouye were two of the most powerful US senators during the 70s and 80s.  Very different ideologies and opposite sides on the aisle.  But far more important was the connection of sharing the same hospital room during WW2.  Both were badly wounded fighting in the same theater for legendary units that saw brutal action. No matter what happened in politics or the Senate floor, there was no way those two would ever act disrespectfully to each other or tolerate disrespect from anyone else. 

We lost that when that generation aged out.  Dole did run and lose in 96 but the late 90s were characterized by the conflict between Clinton and Gingrich, two very different sorts of people.  That's around when the no holds barred attack politics started back in earnest.

[HVC]

Shooting at an ICE facility.

Either the sniper had bad aim, or more likely, he was aiming for the detainees.

[Sheilbh]

That is the calculation but it's also about change in personnel.  During WW2, people from all over the country, east-west, north-south, urban-rural, rich-poor, all fought together in the same units.  Not a lot of room to buy out deferments or get a doctor's note for flat feet.  That gave a powerful connection that transcended everyday partisan bickering.

Bob Dole and Daniel Inouye were two of the most powerful US senators during the 70s and 80s.  Very different ideologies and opposite sides on the aisle.  But far more important was the connection of sharing the same hospital room during WW2.  Both were badly wounded fighting in the same theater for legendary units that saw brutal action. No matter what happened in politics or the Senate floor, there was no way those two would ever act disrespectfully to each other or tolerate disrespect from anyone else. 

We lost that when that generation aged out.  Dole did run and lose in 96 but the late 90s were characterized by the conflict between Clinton and Gingrich, two very different sorts of people.  That's around when the no holds barred attack politics started back in earnest.

So that's really interesting because that's also part of the point often made about the quality of politicians in the UK. I don't know if it's necessarily seen as tied to a change to politics itself.

WW2 was also a formative experience for leading politicians until the 80s (and National Service ran a little bit longer). Interestingly (but as you'd expect) here it was seen less as being about regional differences as class. There may have been officers and squaddies but fundamentally everyone was involved and it broke down class barriers for people at a really formative moment - they were thrown into situations of working with people from all sorts of class backgrounds that in a peacetime period (without National Service) didn't happen so much. You could glide from school to university to business/professions or from a different school to blue collar work without ever really mixing.

There's something on the experience too as you say. I think it's a joke they made on the Rest is History podcast in one of their Britain in the 70s episode, that public life, including politics, was filled with uncharismatic bald men with massive eyebrows wearing nylon suits and thick glasses - you look at their background in the war and they were beach masters at Anzio, mentioned in dispatches (Dennis Healey), tank commander at Normandy (Willie Whitelaw), codebreakers at Bletchley (Roy Jenkins), serving on carriers in the East Indies Fleet (Jim Callaghan) or, outside of politics, tank commander at Normandy who was awarded the Military Cross and one of the first British troops in the liberation of Bergen-Belsen (Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie). In British politics Dennis Healey introduced the idea of the "hinterland" - it worried him when he met younger politicians who did not have passions, interests or experiences outside of politics that formed them. And I think it is telling that he's from that generation where there was this vast, communal hinterland. I think that shaped public life in very important ways.

Although Healey also meant the fact that he had a cultural life outside of politics too - he was an amateur photographer, loved music and would play piano (and lead sing-songs) at the drop of a hat, enjoyed literature, painting, art - and all of this was part of who he was in public. Those interests were part of his persona. One of my favourite politicians from that era, Barbara Castle, said something that I think is still basically true: "the secret really in public life is to be a person [...] You've got to be yourself. You've almost got to defy the public: that's me. Take me or leave me."

I think it's part of what's going on with authenticity. It's public exasperation with politicians who come from an increasingly narrow and self-selecting class that is broadly quite similar to each other, but also a slight risk aversion/fear of being caught out by being yourself (I actually think this was where "woke" had an impact on Democrats and the ability to just "hang" on a podcast etc). So either there isn't really a hinterland - all they've wanted to do since age dot is become an MP, Senator or whatever else - or they worry about how their interests will be read. Not too elitist, not too populist etc. I feel like the nadir of this in the UK was when Keir Starmer was leader of the opposition and in a Guardian interview claimed not to have a favourite novel or poem I suppose it definitely won't offend anyone.

[crazy canuck]

It is a different experience here in Canada.  Our politicians fought in the theatre of Parliament but in private they were cordial and even friendly.

A story I like telling to illustrate the point is back in the free trade debate of the 80s. There were two implacable political foes. Sheila Copps of the Liberal party and John Crosbie of the Progressive Conservatives. Both formidable politicians.

They attended a debate at Simon Fraser University in the largest lecture hall on campus. They debated to a packed house.  There were barbs and jabs and jokes, but never once did they make a personal attack on each other. It was all about the issue of free trade.  Don't get me wrong. The debate was hard fought, but in the way that you would hope it would be.

After the debate ended, I saw them off stage, shaking hands and having a laugh.

I think that is also now dead in Canada.  But it's a more recent event.

[Oexmelin]

Google says 75 to 90 thousand. 

I have never met a Quaker.  Not seen one mentioned in the news.

Have you heard of Richard Nixon?

[Oexmelin]

It is a different experience here in Canada.  Our politicians fought in the theatre of Parliament but in private they were cordial and even friendly.

It really depended (and depends) on the issue and the matter.  It is much harder to be cordial and friendly when the matter is understood as existential. The debates around Quebec separation, for instance, did not foster a lot of friendly banter. Likewise on issues about women's rights. And perhaps also that a debate around free trade allows such friendly relationship, because someone like Sheila Cops or John Crosbie will be fine regardless of the outcome.

One of the issues currently in the US is that the right sees its own fight as existential, while many a Democrat does not.

I understand very profoundly the necessity not to treat all politics as schmittian. But populism is also a reaction against this vague sense that politicans are in their own boys-girls club, and can afford to treat some issues very lightly.

[Oexmelin]

Google says 75 to 90 thousand. 

I have never met a Quaker.  Not seen one mentioned in the news.

Have you heard of Richard Nixon? 

I have met many, if only because I suspect the unconventional background motivates some of them to study history.

[HVC]

A digression, but amusing to me, I met Sheila copps once when I was a kid. She was very very drunk . She and some other politicians were doing a pub crawl of sorts in Hamilton. Don't recall the other politicians or the exact reason for the event (I guess a blitz of small businesses to shore up the every day man vote?) but I vividly recall her.

[The Minsky Moment]

In British politics Dennis Healey introduced the idea of the "hinterland" - it worried him when he met younger politicians who did not have passions, interests or experiences outside of politics that formed them.

To wit: Our PM Stephen Miller

[crazy canuck]

It is a different experience here in Canada.  Our politicians fought in the theatre of Parliament but in private they were cordial and even friendly.

It really depended (and depends) on the issue and the matter.  It is much harder to be cordial and friendly when the matter is understood as existential. The debates around Quebec separation, for instance, did not foster a lot of friendly banter. Likewise on issues about women's rights. And perhaps also that a debate around free trade allows such friendly relationship, because someone like Sheila Cops or John Crosbie will be fine regardless of the outcome.

One of the issues currently in the US is that the right sees its own fight as existential, while many a Democrat does not.

I understand very profoundly the necessity not to treat all politics as schmittian. But populism is also a reaction against this vague sense that politicans are in their own boys-girls club, and can afford to treat some issues very lightly.

I don't think your characterization of the free trade debate is accurate.  It was viewed at the time as an existential fight.  And it was characterized that way in the free trade debates.  There were huge protests in Vancouver and at the University Campus where the debate I attended was held.

As a side note, it interesting to see how the issue of free trade has been transformed over the last 40 years.  In Canada the lack of it is now viewed as the big threat.