The Great Political Sand Trap of “Both-Sides-Ism”

The original, offending quote.
Click to enlarge

Recently I shared a Noam Chomsky quote on social media, accusing America’s two major parties of having essentially similar views and being largely interchangeable. I caught some criticism for this, saying I’d claimed there was no difference between the two parties, a position clearly divergent from current politics, where the Republican party has yoked itself to Donald Trump’s sudden whims. Naturally, this got me thinking.

This quote is classic Chomsky. For those unfamiliar with his politics, he’s long contended that participation in the American electoral system requires candidates to submit themselves to certain shared principles; anyone without these values cannot get elected. Consider Elizabeth Warren’s claim that she’s “capitalist to the bone,” of John Hickenlooper claiming “socialism is not the answer.” To cite just two examples from the current primary campaign.

Sure, Hickenlooper got shown the electoral door early. But Warren remains one of the Democratic Party’s few serious contenders. Besides Joe Biden, who desperately attempts to find “middle ground” where none exists, the Dems’ great hopes currently are Warren and Bernie Sanders, who both promise, to varying degrees, to dismantle the institutional changes which President Trump has instituted, and return to, or expand upon, Barack Obama’s legacy.

What, exactly, is that legacy, though? President Obama campaigned in 2008 on “Change We Can Believe In,” but once elected, largely promised to continue the status quo indefinitely. His continuation of TARP money transfusions attempted to restore the American financial system to its pre-collapse architecture. And his Affordable Care Act, far from reforming American health care, gave private insurance companies legal standing for the first time ever.

Joe Biden

This continues the Bill Clinton presidential practice. President Clinton, for those unaware, rose to national prominence as a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, which consciously and deliberately steered the party away from its leftward roots in equity politics and labor unionism. As presidential historian Gil Troy writes, one of Clinton’s legendary political promises, “welfare reform,” originated as a promise during his long-shot primary campaign, not the general election.

Looking at American political history, it’s clear the two major parties aren’t identical. Democrats have a history of being more liberatarian on personal issues, particularly sex and drugs, and (since 1965) more welcoming to immigrants and people of color. Republicans have a history of libertarianism on economic issues, believing money reflects its users’ moral values, and therefore that free-flowing money encourages a moral society. The parties do differ.

However, on issues of sweeping economic scope, like trade and taxes, both parties, since at least the 1960s, have shared important values. Both have largely agreed that taxes should diminish, though they dispute questions like “for whom” and “how much.” Both have, to different degrees, looked askance at unions, and trusted management. Remember, President Kennedy appointed the CEO of Ford Motor, Robert McNamara, as Secretary of Defense.

In case anybody had forgotten that Vietnam happened.

Yes, the economy is only one aspect of political life. But it’s the aspect which everyone, regardless of race or class or party or other dividing line, shares together. We all have economic need for shoes and houses and work. The parties disagree on handling undocumented immigration, but anybody who follows news knows that immigrants enter America mostly looking for work. The economy isn’t everything, Karl Marx notwithstanding. But it’s part of everybody’s shared experience.

Political writer Eric Blanc writes that, before the 2018 teachers’ strikes, which happened primarily in states that supported President Trump, many union leaders expressed equal disappointment in both parties. Democrats have run a lite-beer version of the same economic policy for which Republicans have repeatedly claimed credit: cut taxes, cut spending, starve the public sector. Then promise that wealthy Americans will cover the shortfall in public goods.

President Trump claimed several voters who supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries supported Trump in the general election. I, and other left-leaning voters, pooh-poohed this notion. But Blanc found one unionized teacher who said exactly that: she thought Sanders and Trump would both shake up a fossilized system; her greatest disappointment was that Trump clearly bought into the system he’d previously promised to break.

That’s one anecdote, certainly; I can’t imagine any cost-effective way to divine meaningful statistics on who supported both Sanders and Trump in hopes of meaningful change. But this clearly did happen, and it happened because working-class Americans thought the political system served the rich and the well-connected. Sanders’ and Warren’s continued insurgency suggests they’re not wrong. Will either party learn from this while there’s still time?