Time For a New American Radicalism

Bernie Sanders

“The Democratic Party is Radicalizing,” screams a headline from The Atlantic Online, one the magazine apparently loves so much that they’ve re-posted it to social media every six or eight hours for the last five days. It’s written by Peter Wehner, a paleoconservative think-tank veteran and “contributing editor” presumably brought on board to decipher the Right to the Left. His previous viral hit was entitled “What I’ve Gained By Leaving the Republican Party.”

The article includes such red meat for rabble rousers as: “If you want to understand just how radicalized the Democratic Party has become in recent years, look at the ascent of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.” Or: “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—now the second-most-famous democratic socialist in America—is the unquestioned star among the base.” Wehner apparently thinks we’ll be shocked to discover America’s nominally progressive party supports progressive candidates.

Disregarding Wehner’s tone, which resembles a rough draft for a neo-Nixonian “enemies list,” he clearly thinks asserting that America’s political discourse is “radicalizing” will scare voters into… something. “Radical” has become politics’ greatest bugbear, a monster jumping from behind rocks to gobble centrist discourse right up mwa-ha-ha! The word “radical” deserves its own subclause in Godwin’s Law because, like “Nazi,” speaking that word magically derails discussion.

Except what, exactly, does “radical” mean?

Over a decade ago, I read Shane Claiborne’s book The Irresistible Revolution: Living As an Ordinary Radical. Claiborne describes his Christian community’s mission, living as described in Acts, chapters 2 and 4. He describes this as “ordinary radical.” Ordinary, because it’s something they do every day, a means of living, not some rote observation they perform on Sunday mornings before returning to modern life. But also radical.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

“Radical,” Claiborne explains, descends from the Latin root radix, meaning “root.” It’s also the etymology of “radish,” a widespread root crop. To be radical, Claiborne explains, means to live at something’s roots, whether it’s one’s religious roots, political roots, or cultural roots—and, for Claiborne, all these roots are intertwined, becoming one massive expression of living for True Believers. Which, thinking about it, sounds pretty appealing.

For the sake of argument, let’s accept Claiborne’s definition. If “radicalism” means dwelling at your philosophy’s roots, what roots, exactly, are Democrats seeking? Considering the massive preliminary field of 2020 presidential candidates, we spot an array of Christians and atheists, soft-core capitalists and Emma Goldman socialists, career politicians and young upstarts eager to reinforce what they consider core American values. A veritable smorgasbord of ideological precepts.

If we’re seeking big-D Democratic roots, I propose reclaiming the roots of small-d democracy. And that means returning to one book nearly all of America’s Founders read: The Spirit of the Laws, by Charles, Baron de Montesquieu. Published in 1748, it was translated into English in 1750. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington had copies in their libraries. Transcripts of America’s Constitutional Convention of 1789 reveal the founders quoted it liberally.

Montesquieu compared different political systems at different historical times. He found political structures rested on distinct foundations. Monarchs required citizens who loved honor, while despots required citizens who loved (or feared) the despot. Republics, however, required citizens who loved virtue, who elected to place common good above personal profit, and who saw themselves as both individuals and members of their communities, at the same time.

Thomas Jefferson pinched his famous saying about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” nearly verbatim from Montesquieu. But he assumed his audience knew Montesquieu intimately, which modern readers generally don’t. Because when Montesquieu identified “life,” he didn’t just mean “not getting killed.” Montesquieu thought free society owed its citizens “a certain subsistence, a proper nourishment, convenient clothing, and a kind of life not incompatible with health.”

Charles, Baron de Montesquieu
(Wikimedia Commons)

In plain English, Montesquieu thought republics couldn’t countenance hungry, naked, homeless citizens. He didn’t mention health care, in an era when “medicine” mostly involved leeches and bloodletting, but one can easily imagine that among his precepts. Montesquieu didn’t think society should make everyone rich; he understood a finite world cannot support infinite desires. But he believed free societies provide a secure bottom limit beyond which no citizen can ever fall.

If that’s the radicalism Peter Wehner mentions, I can support that. Considering the two biggest monsters Wehner names, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have based their platforms on making sure America’s most vulnerable citizens aren’t naked and starving, I’d consider that a good description of the current movement’s roots. I’d hope most Americans would agree (as they did during the Eisenhower administration) that these are roots worth watering.