Showing posts with label Rick Perlstein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Perlstein. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 24, 2024

Acclaimed Scholar and Historian Rick Perlstein On the Reality of American Fascism and precisely why it is the major question facing the United States in 2024 and Beyond

 https://www.democracynow.org/2024/1/22/ron_desantis_drops_out_2024

“American Fascism”: Historian Rick Perlstein on Trump’s Grip on the GOP & Chances of a Second January 6

January 22, 2024


Image Credit: Left: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

We look at the state of the Republican Party after Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s announcement Sunday that he has suspended his presidential campaign and endorsed Donald Trump to be the Republican Party’s 2024 nominee, making it a two-person race between Trump and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. With the pivotal New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, we speak with author Rick Perlstein, a historian of the modern conservative movement, who describes Trump’s iron grip on the Republican Party as “American fascism.” He says regardless of how many votes Trump gets, the real question is how his extremist supporters will respond. “The horse race doesn’t matter if the guys in the MAGA hats blow up the track,” says Perlstein.

Transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman.

We look now at the state of the Republican Party as Tuesday’s presidential primary in New Hampshire narrows down to a two-person race after Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced he’s dropping out, in a video posted Sunday on social media.

GOVRON DESANTIS: I am today suspending my campaign. I’m proud to have delivered on 100% of my promises, and I will not stop now. It’s clear to me that a majority of Republican primary voters want to give Donald Trump another chance.

AMY GOODMAN: As DeSantis drops out of the race and endorses Trump, more questions are being raised about Trump’s mental capacity. At a campaign event Friday in New Hampshire, Trump confused his Republican rival Nikki Haley repeatedly with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

DONALD TRUMP: By the way, they never report the crowd on January 6. You know, Nikki Haley — Nikki Haley — Nikki Haley — you know they — did you know they destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, deleted and destroyed all of it, all of it, because of lots of things, like Nikki Haley is in charge of security? We offered her 10,000 people, soldiers, National Guard, whatever they want. They turned it down.

AMY GOODMAN: Trump’s lapse prompted his Republican presidential opponent Nikki Haley to question his mental fitness in an interview Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation.

NIKKI HALEY: I mean, he claimed that Joe Biden was going to get us into World War II. I’m assuming he meant World War III. He said that he ran against President Obama. He never ran against President Obama. He says that I’m the one that kept security from the Capitol on January 6th. I was nowhere near the Capitol on January 6th. But, Margaret, don’t be surprised: If you have someone that’s 80 in office, their mental stability is going to continue to decline. That’s just human nature. We know that.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by historian Rick Perlstein, author of a four-volume series on the rise of the modern conservative movement. His column for The American Prospect is “The Infernal Triangle.”

Rick, welcome back to Democracy Now! We don’t have much time, but a lot to cover. Talk about the significance of DeSantis pulling out, endorsing Trump, what this all means now, the two-person race, though he is winning in polls by a level — I mean, in Iowa — we haven’t seen before, trounced DeSantis by 30%. And one after another Republicans are endorsing him.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Yes. He is definitely going to be the nominee, presuming his continued ability to function as a human being, which is, you know, negligible. The important thing to understand is that, you know, the horse race stuff is fine, but the horse race doesn’t matter if the guys in the MAGA hats blow up the track. The important thing is not how many votes Donald Trump is able to get. He’s going to win the nomination. The important thing is not how many votes he gets in November, because he’s going to claim he won no matter what. The important people is — the important question is: How many people are going to be willing to take arms up for Donald Trump, you know, on the next January 6th, you know, in 2025? I don’t want to be melodramatic about it, but, you know, reality itself now seems to — for millions of Americans, a considerable part of the Republican Party, flows from the person of Donald Trump. And the word we have to begin using for this situation, as melodramatic as it seems, is “American fascism.”

AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about people like New Hampshire Governor Sununu, who did endorse Nikki Haley, now saying if it’s Trump, he’s going to ultimately support him, to the questioning of Kristen Welker on Meet the Press? “You’re saying you would support him despite January 6, despite what you said about insurrection?” All of these Republican leaders who have questioned Trump falling into line in the end, as Trump now, today — 

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: — once again, is dealing with the rape of E. Jean Carroll, the judge called it, essentially, in common parlance, “rape.”

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right. There’s nothing new about that — right? — if we look at what people like Lindsey Graham said in 2015 and 2016 about Donald Trump, and then what they said when they saw him as a vector to keep their own power. Again, it’s really unfortunate and kind of creepy that the only sort of words that we have within the context of political philosophy that describe what’s happening come from the German language. This is Führerprinzip. You know, the truth comes from the leader.

And when they need to kind of get behind a criminal in order to be, you know, kind of a legitimate figure within a political party, that political party is — you know, you’ve got to wonder what these guys are going to look like 50 years from now in the eyes of history, right? They’ll look like, you know, the guys like Fritz von Papen, who said, “We have Hitler backed into a corner so far that he’s going to squeal.” Right? Fritz von Papen was the vice chancellor of Germany, the guy who made a coalition with Hitler that made him chancellor of Germany, right? These things are processes, you know? And we’re very far along a process, one for which the questions that are asked by conventional political journalism no longer signify anymore.

AMY GOODMAN: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has dropped out of the presidential race two days before the New Hampshire primary, less than a week after he lost to Donald Trump by a record 30 percentage points in the Iowa caucus. In a video released Sunday, DeSantis said he’s endorsing Trump.

GOVRON DESANTIS: He has my endorsement because we can’t go back to the old Republican guard of yesteryear, a repackaged form of warmed-over corporatism that Nikki Haley represents.

AMY GOODMAN: With DeSantis out, the Republican race has essentially become a two-person contest between Trump and Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, who served as Trump’s U.N. ambassador. Over the weekend, Haley campaigned in New Hampshire. She questioned Trump’s mental fitness after he confused her with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Joe Biden is now running an online ad questioning Trump’s mental capacities, featuring Nikki Haley’s comments.

NIKKI HALEY: Last night Trump is in a rally.

DONALD TRUMP: You know, Nikki Haley — Nikki Haley — Nikki Haley —

NIKKI HALEY: And he’s going on and on, mentioning me multiple times as to why I didn’t handle January 6th better.

DONALD TRUMP: Nikki Haley is in charge of security. We offered her 10,000 people. They don’t want to talk about that.

NIKKI HALEY: I wasn’t in office then. They’re saying he got confused. He got confused and said he was running against Obama. He never ran against Obama.

DONALD TRUMP: And we did with Obama. We won an election that everyone said couldn’t be won. Obama wants to — he doesn’t want to talk about it.

BRIAN KILMEADE: Well, you mean President Biden. So —

NIKKI HALEY: Don’t put our country at risk like this.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I’m Joe Biden, and I approve this message.

AMY GOODMAN: So, there Trump says he ran against President Obama. He also said you wouldn’t want Joe Biden to preside over World War II, instead of III.

What Florida Governor Ron DeSantis represented, the amount of money that he spent in this failed presidential bid, where it came from?

RICK PERLSTEIN: Yeah. I think the most important thing to understand about what Ron DeSantis represented, since, you know, he made no dent on the cult of personality of Donald Trump, you know, no appreciable contest, really, what he represents is the failure of the mainstream media to do its job in informing people about what it requires to be self-governing citizens. You know, they took this guy who celebrated torture at Guantánamo — you know, he kind of supervised it as a lawyer, laughed at the people being tortured — you know, a guy who basically is turning his own state into a kind of little fascist fiefdom, and they raised him up not only as the person who could beat Donald Trump, but as somehow better than Donald Trump, right? So we’re kind of caught in this hall of mirrors, as I’ve been repeating, where the kind of traditional ways of doing mainstream journalism, where you have the front-runner and you have the challenger and they’re in a horse race and yada yada yada, don’t even really signify what’s going on in America anymore.

AMY GOODMAN: And the amount of money that he got? He spent something like $150 million?

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right. This speaks to, I think, the way a fascist cult of personality works. It’s impervious to facts. It’s impervious to challenge, right? I mean, the fact that Nikki Haley is pointing out that Donald Trump thinks he ran against Barack Obama and that she was the speaker of the House, I mean, this resembles what we read about in 1984 by George Orwell, where, you know, your loyalty to Big Brother is signified by your willingness to say two plus two equals five. I mean, really, if you look at Donald Trump’s quote, it’s not only that he confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi, he said that he requested 10,000 troops. That never happened, right? So there’s no fact-checking that’s possible when you’re within this kind of mythic space of this kind of almost religous figure who’s going to deliver us from transcendent evil. It’s not the way people learn about thinking about American politics in journalism school.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to play a few of the clips of, well, then-Republican presidential contender — now he’s dropped out of the race — Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who doubled down on the Florida Board of Education’s new rules that require educators to teach students that enslaved Black people, quote, “developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” DeSantis defended the curriculum.

GOVRON DESANTIS: I think that they’re probably going to show some of the folks that eventually parlayed, you know, being a blacksmith into doing things later in life. But the reality is, all of that is rooted in whatever is factual. They listed everything out. And if you have any questions about it, just ask the Department of Education. You can talk about those folks. But, I mean, these were scholars who put that together. It was not anything that was done politically.

AMY GOODMAN: The NAACP called Florida’s new curriculum a, quote, “sanitized and dishonest telling of the history of slavery in America.” Rick Perlstein, I was wondering if you could weigh in on this and also —

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: — the controversies around Nikki Haley, right? It’s now a —

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: — two-person Republican race.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: Everything from her forgetting to say, as she said forgetting to say, but when asked what caused the Civil War, not mentioning slavery, and then —

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: — when asked on Fox about whether the United States was a racist country, she said it is not a racist country, and it never has been. Your thoughts, from DeSantis to Haley?

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right, yeah. This one goes way back in the history of the right and the conservative movement and the Republican Party. I wrote about this in my 2014 book, The Invisible Bridge, with Reagan on the cover. You know, when Roots came out and, you know, introduced Americans, many of them for the first time, to the cruelties of slavery, he said he hated this show, that, you know, treated all the white people as the bad guys and all the Black people as the good guys, right?

This script of innocence in which America is God’s ordained nation and can’t do anything bad, you know, is one of these kind of structures that Trump inherits, but, like so much of kind of Trumpism — right? — as shown by Nikki Haley, it’s kind of conventional Republicanism kind of turned up to 11. Right? But this idea that you cannot be disturbed with anything other than the pristine perfection of your own country, you know, you can’t really kind of function in the world that way, in a modern world, in which kind of complexity and contradiction and reality — right? — have to be the ground of your actions. So, we’re kind of stuck in this situation where half the country has to live in this kind of mythic dream space. And that’s why some of us are beginning to use the word “fascism” to describe, you know, basically, the hegemony of the Republican Party.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk more about fascism.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Well, fascism, you know, is not just kind of ugly right-wing politics, right? We’ve had that for a long time. Fascism is a cult of personality around the individual, who is taken to embody the will of the people. And it’s the idea of a mythic return to, you know, this past that requires the destruction of these transcendent enemies of the people who are kind of constituted in this way of thinking as normal, you know, the true Americans. And they believe things like, you know, when you hear Mike Lindell say, if you had accurate polls, 70% of the American people are red, right? This idea that they are the people, that they are the state, and the idea that any opposition to this is illegitimate.

And when you pair that with, you know, an armed opposition, that say, quite explicitly — and this is, you know, the NRA ideology — that their guns are for fighting tyranny, you know, and preserving the Republican form of government against the bad guys, the tyrants — and they say the Democrats are the tyrants — this is a very bad formulation. This is a very ugly situation. And if people are tired of politics, if people are exhausted of politics, I don’t know what to say. You know, we might not have a — as Donald Trump likes to say, we might not have a country anymore that we can recognize five, 10, 20 years from now.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, the New Hampshire primary is upon us. And when Republican New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu was asked about what’s going on with the Republican Party on NBC Meet the Press, the host, Kristen Welker, this was his response.

GOVCHRIS SUNUNU: I don’t care what political party you’re from, whether you’re an extreme conservative or a socialist liberal, everybody should be concerned with that type of mentality going into the White House.

KRISTEN WELKER: Despite all of these comments, despite his comments on immunity, despite what you said, about the insurrection, you would still vote for Donald Trump in a general election against Joe Biden?

GOVCHRIS SUNUNU: Well, according to the polls, most of America would. This is how — I mean, this is what you guys aren’t reporting. This is how bad Biden has been. This is how incompetent he’s been. The guy can barely get off the stage. Nobody wants what is currently, and everyone is scared of a President Kamala Harris.

AMY GOODMAN: So, when he talked about everyone’s scared of, he didn’t talk about why he was endorsing Trump after criticizing him, you know, especially around —

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: — the insurrection. But he’s talked about Kamala Harris.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right. Yeah, I mean, that’s the mythic dream space — right? — the idea that, you know, Joseph Biden is a total failure, right? I mean, you know, there’s a lot, lot, lot to criticize about Joseph Biden, but we also have the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, right? So, it’s just this kind of made-up world, you know, where everyone is against Kamala Harris, right? And, you know, this is one of the ways a fascist formation functions, right? You need these legitimate conservativesm, and the Sununu family have been retainers in the Bush family, just to take one example. His father, I think, was the chief of staff — right? — of the first President Bush. You need this kind of legitimation by the so-called establishment conservatives in order to seem like a viable holder of a position of power. So, you know, he’s just as responsible for what’s going on as, you know, some Proud Boy who’s willing to beat up an election worker.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about the Davos meeting that took place, the Davos summit of the corporate elite of the world, corporate and governmental lead of the world, and what was being said. Last week, at the World Economic Forum, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon talked about how Trump has been right on many issues. He said, quote, “I don’t think they’re voting for Trump because of his family values. Just take a step back and be honest. He was kind of right about NATO. He was kind of right about immigration. He grew the economy quite well. Tax reform worked.” And the reported consensus out of Davos is that Donald Trump isn’t just going to win the Republican primary, he’s going to win the presidency back.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Well, that, again, reminds us of the German elite in the early 1930s, who thought that, you know, basically, they could control this, they could ride this tiger, right? And, you know, that’s not why they’re voting for Donald Trump. You know, what was it? Eighty-two percent of Republican primary voters said they agreed with Donald Trump that undocumented immigrants were poisoning the blood of America, right? So he’s living in this mythic dream space, too. And that’s — wow, if you’re not joining the resistance to, you know, the end of democracy as we know it — again, this is another establishment member who is revealing himself as part of the problem.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to play for you Donald Trump addressing the Republican Jewish Coalition Annual Leadership Summit in October.

DONALD TRUMP: Because they want to destroy our country. They want to destroy our country. Under Biden, we have not one, but two immigration disasters. We have one on the border, and we have one in the Biden State Department, which is admitting colossal amounts of jihadists into our communities and campuses and our refugee programs. That’s why you see all of these big demonstrations in New York, in Chicago. Nobody can believe what’s taking place. They’re letting them in at levels that nobody’s ever seen before. We cannot allow that to happen. And we don’t want to be like Europe, with jihads on every corner. That’s what happens. I mean, we’re going to have — we’re going to be like Europe. You take a look at London. You take a look at Paris. You take a look at what’s going on over there. We want to be the United States of America, and we want to make our country great again. Right now we don’t have a great country. We have a laughingstock.

As president, I will end, once and for all, the mass importation of antisemitism into the United States. And just as I did before, we will keep radical Islamic terrorists the hell out of our country. We’re going to keep them out of our country. We were keeping them out. We were keeping them out. You remember the travel ban. On day one, I will restore our travel ban. We had a travel ban, because we didn’t want people coming into our country who really love the idea of blowing — blowing our country up. Let’s blow up our streets and our shopping centers and our people. So I instituted what we call the Trump travel ban. And it was an amazing success. It was suspended immediately upon his coming into the country. And I never talked about this for four years. I never mentioned it. We didn’t have one incident in four years, because we kept bad people the hell out of our country. We kept them out. We didn’t have one, not one instance. I didn’t want to say it during the four years, because I didn’t want to walk out of the speech and have something happen, right?

I’ll also be implementing strong ideological screenings for all immigrants coming in. If you hate America, if you want to abolish Israel, if you sympathize with jihadists, then we don’t want you in our country, and you’re not going to be getting into our country. I will cancel the student visas of Hamas and sympathizers on college campuses. The college campuses are being taken over. And all of the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests this month, nobody’s ever seen anything like it. Come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. We will deport you.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that was President Trump after the October 7th attack, addressing the Republican Jewish Coalition, talking about the pro-Palestinian rights protests around the country on college campuses, among a number of other things, the Muslim ban, etc. Can you hold forth on this, Rick?

RICK PERLSTEIN: Yeah. First of all, I appreciate you running an extended clip, because people really need to know what Trump discourse sounds like, and not just kind of the soundbites that kind of get picked up in the media reports.

Second of all, there’s lots to say about that, but the thing that really leaped out at me was the beginning, when he said, “Oh, you know, the State Department has been infiltrated by jihadists.” And that’s, you know, an exact parallel to what Joseph McCarthy said in his famous speech in 1950, that the State Department had been infiltrated by communists. And it just shows how so much of what we’re dealing with now is kind of — these kind of scattered kind of roots of it, you know, exist throughout the history of the Republican right.

And what McCarthy was saying and what Trump is saying is that anything bad that happens in America was made to happen by elites, right? So, that is a very dangerous way of thinking. And then, everything bad that happened that elites have made happen is caused by aliens. You know, in Chicago, where I am now, an 8-year-old boy was stabbed to death by his landlord, because he thought this young Palestinian kid must be a jihadist, right? He’s scapegoating undocumented immigrants.

And the way this dreamscape works is, this promise of redemption, this promise that everything bad in the world is going to go away if these bad people go away, it can’t be satisfied. So that’s when you get to the next group. That’s why, you know, Pastor Niemöller’s, you know, “They came for the communists, and I didn’t say anything because I wasn’t a communist” is so prophetic. You know, when the redemption doesn’t come, when he, quote-unquote, “kicks out the Mexicans,” and when he, quote-unquote, “kicks out the jihadists,” people will be looking for the next scapegoat. And we need to appreciate that this is a ongoing process. It ratchets in a more and more authoritarian direction every week, every month, every year, so there’s kind of no fever that breaks here. We’re on a course that’s extremely dangerous.

AMY GOODMAN: So, I want to ask how Wall Street fits into this picture. As we were speaking, a piece came over on CNBC — right? — NBCs business channel, and it says, “As Donald Trump surges toward the Republican nomination, many Wall Street executives have made a calculated decision not to speak out against him, and in some cases they will consider supporting the Republican former president over … Joe Biden, according to [more than] a dozen people familiar with” this case. “This view reflects one shared by large portions of Wall Street, who are scrambling to come to grips with the idea that Trump is the likely [Republican] nominee for president and … could beat Biden in November. A Real Clear Politics polling average Sunday had Trump leading Biden nationwide by about 2 points in a general election.” What does this mean? And do you think that money determines who is president? Is that just a truism, or perhaps not?

RICK PERLSTEIN: Well, if money determined who was president, you know, Nikki Haley would be on a glide path, because she’s the Koch brothers’ candidate, right? There’s lots of things that determine who becomes president.

What leaps out at me at that is by the corporate elite saying, you know, “Yes, it doesn’t matter.” It doesn’t matter to them if Trump wins. You know, they can work with him — right? — is another one of those kind of Fritz von Papen situations, right? I mean, history will not absolve them. I mean, they will be looked at as part of the problem, when people look at the ruins, the smoldering ruins of America as a functioning republic, you know, if there are historians to tell us the story 50 years from now or a hundred years from now. I mean, these people, you know, have to join the fascist resistance, the anti-fascist resistance, or else, you know, it’s like Lenin said. I mean, they’re basically selling Trump the rope to kill them, because he’s going to be — you know, they’re going to be under his thumb, right? I mean, what Ron DeSantis tried to do with Disney is going to be a picnic to anyone who crosses Donald Trump, you know, even if they’re some kind of corporate master of the universe. I mean, you know, the guy is going to have the NSAsurveillance technology behind him. He has the army behind him. And the idea that they somehow believe that, you know, as Winston Churchill put it, they can kind of negotiate with the crocodile, it just means that they’re going to be eaten last.

AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about young people voting. You know, a while ago, you wrote this op-ed in The Washington Post about the Democrats forsaking young voters.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right. Well, so, my column and a book I’m working on now about, basically, the last 25 years is called “The Infernal Triangle.” And the triangle is Republican authoritarianism, media incompetence — present company excepted — and, you know, kind of democratic fecklessness. And the fact that the Democratic Party has, you know, not seen it as an absolute priority to kind of hand the torch, to paraphrase John F. Kennedy, to a new generation of Americans is a real institutional failure and a real institutional tragedy, right? Because if people can’t feel like they can identify with the Democratic Party, well, you know, in our political system as it exists, it’s like Stephen Douglas said in the 1880s to African Americans. You know, the Republican Party might suck. You know, they might be becoming more and more plutocratic. They might not really be protecting us from, you know, lynching and terrorism in the South. But the Republican Party is the boat, and all else is the sea. And if the Democratic Party is not giving young voters, who, basically, you know, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now will be old voters, and if they become Democrats now will maintain that identity — if they’re not winning and maintaining their loyalty, they’re not doing their part to fight this fascism, either.

And, you know, I was very encouraged when Joseph Biden said that, you know, him and Kamala Harris were going to be — he said this in 2020 — kind of a bridge to the new generation of Democrats, but then kind of held on to their influence like grim death. You know, Nancy Pelosi, the fact that — you know, Ryan Grim has a wonderful — speaking of “grim” — a wonderful new book called The Squad. And the most shocking, jaw-dropping parts about it, frankly, is how instinctively she seemed to kind of patronize and condescend to the Squad and AOC, didn’t see them as an opportunity, but as a threat to her influence, you know, kind of calling the Green New Deal the “Green new dream” or whatever, right?

And, you know, to take your previous segment today on the issue of Israel-Palestine, nothing that the kind of superannuated class of 70-, 80-year-old Democrats believe about the world when it comes to what’s going on in the Middle East makes any sense to voters in their twenties, right? So, it’s just a terrible, sad situation. And we’re stuck with it. And, you know, I’ll go to the wall with the Democratic nominee, because the Democrats are the boat, and all else is the sea. But, you know, we have to think systematically about righting this tragic situation.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you say what you’re looking for, Rick, when it comes to the New Hampshire primary? And let me also say that this is not just a Republican primary. It’s also a Democratic one.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, Biden had said that New Hampshire and Iowa shouldn’t be the first two states.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, some of the whitest states in the country —

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: — determining the agenda of the rest of the country or, you know, laying out so much of what happens next.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: So, he is not on the Democratic Party — 

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: — roster in New Hampshire. But, what, Congressman Dean Phillips is. And quietly, his aides are launching a write-in campaign for Biden. But explain what that’s about, and then what you’re looking for out of the Haley-Trump competition in terms of the breakdown of who’s voting for who.

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right, right. For the first part about the Democrats — and, you know, frankly, the behavior of the people running the Democratic Party in Iowa and New Hampshire, kind of holding on to their position of power, you know, as the first in the nation, like grim death, even though the DNC, quite reasonably and responsibly, tried to kind of reform that, it just shows, you know, one more tragedy of a group of incumbent power holders who don’t have the patriotism and civic fortitude to maybe do something for the common good of the country, right? This could have been fixed in 2024. It’s not being fixed.

And as far as the Republican side goes, you know, I will repeat this again and again and again and again, because Donald Trump is going to win the most votes in the primary. I mean, it’s really not worth all that much attention and coverage at all. The real question for voters who are supporting Donald Trump is, you know, not how many of them there are, but how many among them will be willing to take up arms on January 6, 2025, you know, if he loses the vote, you know, and, as we know he will do, claims that he won it. Right? So, we really need to think these days not just in terms of Republican voters, but as Republicans as also a paramilitary formation. And if reporters aren’t talking about that, if they’re not thinking about that, they’re still living in 1996.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Rick, with President Trump, for example, praising Viktor Orbán of Hungary and saying what he’s going to do on the first day, dictator for a day, he says — 

RICK PERLSTEIN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: — how seriously do you think people should take what he’s saying?

RICK PERLSTEIN: Very seriously. There’s no dictator for a day. Right? I mean, if you, you know, say that you’re going to reverse executive orders, that’s one thing. That’s constitutional. It’s within the law. But if you think of that as a dictatorship — right? — and we know from, you know, the 2025 project that Republicans have gotten together to put out as their plan, it’s a completely integrated, you know, thousand-page plan to undo the idea of expertise in civil service itself, right? It is a plan to undo the American form of government. So, this is absolutely something we should take seriously. He absolutely intends to be a dictator. And, unfortunately, people like Jamie Dimon want to help him do it.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, why do you think Trump’s support hasn’t diminished at all, given the charges he faces for trials, 91 charges?

RICK PERLSTEIN: It’s the Führerprinzip. It’s that German word that all truth, all reality, all redemption flows from the person of Donald Trump. You know, it’s a cult of personality. There’s no breaking that spell, right? If the charge is coming from, you know, a state attorney general, well, that just means that it’s an African American, and they’re alien to real Americans, right? And the jury in a place like Washington is going to be Black, so they’re not real Americans. If it’s federal charges, it’s just somehow an extension of, you know, the deep state and Joseph Biden trying to delegitimize Donald Trump. It doesn’t matter what the facts are, right? This is a fascist dream space, a space of myth, in which there are bad guys and there are good guys, and Donald Trump is the good guy, and anyone associated with him is temporarily a good guy, and anyone against him is a bad guy and has to be terminated. That’s the situation we’re facing right now. We have to look it squarely in the eye, and we have to resist it with everything we have.

AMY GOODMANRick Perlstein, author of a four-volume series on the rise of the modern conservative movement, author of Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American ConsensusNixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of AmericaThe Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan, and Reaganland: America’s Right Turn 1976 to 1980. He also writes a column for The American Prospect titled “The Infernal Triangle.” We’ll link to it at democracynow.org

Sunday, August 21, 2011

Rick Perlstein On The Historical Necessity of A Bold, Aggressive Approach to Progressive Reform vs. the Crippling Limitations of Incrementalism

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_liberal_shock_doctrine

All,

Exactly three years ago on August 18, 2008 the following very prescient and prophetic article was written and published by Rick Perlstein in American Prospect magazine. Perlstein is the 42 year old author of the profound and critically acclaimed book Nixonland: The Rise of A President and the Fracturing of America (Scribner, 2008) a 750 page masterpiece that I and many others consider to be by far the best one volume work on American politics during the 1960s ever written (and trust me I've read most of the voluminous literature on this ever fascinating and highly idiosyncratic subject). In the following piece that appeared only 10 weeks before Obama was elected President Perlstein lays out a brilliantly argued and airtight analysis of what the new President and the Democratic Party absolutely needed to do and why from the highly informative prism of modern American social, economic, and political history. That this piece so accurately and trenchantly indicated both what needed to be done and what immediate and long range consequences lay in store for us all if these suggestions were not taken seriously or were simply ignored is not only a testament to Perlstein's acute knowledge and understanding of this history but stands as a powerful and-- most importantly for us-- useful guide to what WE must do in response now that the President and his governing party have for the most part passively surrendered to the fiercely oppositional forces of the right. This article and Perlstein's book strongly reminds us that if we as citizens don't put up and support the necessary organized national fight-back that is desperately needed at this point, we will ultimately be defeated by our sworn, extremely wealthy, and highly organized enemies, either now or in the very near future...

Kofi



A Liberal Shock Doctrine

History teaches us that presidents have to move quickly to enact progressive reforms before the window of opportunity closes forever. It’s a lesson Barack Obama should take to heart.

by RICK PERLSTEIN
August 18, 2008
American Prospect

Progressive political change in American history is rarely incremental. With important exceptions, most of the reforms that have advanced our nation’s status as a modern, liberalizing social democracy were pushed through during narrow windows of progressive opportunity—which subsequently slammed shut with the work not yet complete. The post–Civil War reconstruction of the apartheid South, the Progressive Era remaking of the institutions of democratic deliberation, the New Deal, the Great Society: They were all blunt shocks. Then, before reformers knew what had happened, the seemingly sturdy reform mandate faded and Washington returned to its habits of stasis and reaction.

The Oval Office’s most effective inhabitants have always understood this. Franklin D. Roosevelt hurled down executive orders and legislative proposals like thunderbolts during his First Hundred Days, hardly slowing down for another four years before his window slammed shut; Lyndon Johnson, aided by John F. Kennedy’s martyrdom and the landslide of 1964, legislated at such a breakneck pace his aides were in awe. Both presidents understood that there are too many choke points—our minority-enabling constitutional system, our national tendency toward individualism, and our concentration of vested interests—to make change possible any other way.

That is a fact. A fact too many Democrats have trained themselves to ignore. And it sometimes feels like Barack Obama, whose first instinct when faced with ideological resistance seems to be to extend the right hand of fellowship, understands it least of all. Does he grasp that unless all the monuments of lasting, structural change in the American state—banking regulation, public-power generation, Social Security, the minimum wage, the right to join a union, federal funding of education, Medicare, desegregation, Southern voting rights—had not happened fast, they wouldn’t have happened at all?

I hope so. Because if Barack Obama is elected president with a significant popular mandate, a number of Democrats riding his coattails to the House, and enough senators to scuttle the filibuster of his legislative agenda—all of which seem entirely possible—he will inherit a historical opportunity to civilize the United States in ways not seen in a generation. To achieve the change he seeks—the monumental trio of universal health care, a sustainable energy policy, and a sane and secure internationalism—he has to completely reverse the way Democrats have habituated themselves to doing business. If they want true progress, they have to be juggernauts. American precedent gives them no other way.

***

Let Franklin Roosevelt be our guide. We take for granted now one of his signature political innovations: the idea of an executive “legislative agenda,” a specific set of White House proposals, by which the success or failure of a presidency can be judged. FDR’s was the first and most spectacular. He understood that the New Deal would pass quickly or it would not pass at all. And so, politically, he yoked Congress’ willingness to pass his program without obstruction to Congress’ willingness to address the national emergency tout court.

We’re not facing a Great Depression–level emergency now. But with an unprecedented 77 percent of respondents in an Associated Press poll saying they believe the nation is on the “wrong track,” and 9 percent telling the Gallup organization they approve of Congress’ job performance, Obama is not without leverage. Ideally, Obama’s Washington would resemble FDR’s in 1935. “The stories of that period always seemed to follow the same pattern,” Thomas Frank writes in his new book, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, “how the bright young man arrived in the city, fresh from law school, where he was put to work immediately on business of utmost urgency; how he went for days without sleep.”

One of those exhausted bright young men, of course, was bright-eyed Lyndon B. Johnson of the Texas Hill Country. The 1930s Washington culture in which LBJ thrived was not merely a function of the New Dealers’ scramble to redeem a national emergency. It was a function of the fact that they understood the reality of America as “the frozen republic,” as Daniel Lazare has called it. By the time Johnson got his accidental opportunity to occupy his hero FDR’s chair, progressives understood implicitly that the unique constitutional system, conceived to protect the minority interests of slaveholders, gives the upper hand to obstructers. This, and not the supposed necessity of trimming ideological sails to placate some notional conservative majority, guided their strategizing. James MacGregor Burns’ book on the subject, The Deadlock of Democracy, was not merely what every progressive in Washington was reading during the Kennedy years, it was what every progressive was living. The House Rules Committee, dominated by reactionary Southerners, kept Kennedy from passing even an increase in the minimum wage, let alone his campaign promise—the cornerstone of his legislative agenda—to extend Social Security to cover medical care for the elderly. It was, as historians G. Calvin Mackenzie and Robert Weisbrot write in their fine recent study, The Liberal Hour: Washington and the Politics of Change in the 1960s, “a lesson fully understood by the Southerners in Congress. They didn’t need to have majorities on their side, they didn’t need to have public opinion on their side, they didn’t need the president on their side. They only needed to have the rules on their side.”

Three accidents of history followed in quick succession to break the deadlock. First, in the most important turning point in history you’ve never heard of, Kennedy narrowly won a vote to dynamite the House Rules Committee’s role as a tar pit for liberal legislation by expanding its membership. Second, the Supreme Court’s first “one man, one vote” decision, Baker v. Carr (1962), outlawed Southern electoral systems, which, for instance, gave the three smallest counties in Georgia, with a total population of 69,800, as much voting strength as the largest county in the state, with a population of 556,326. And finally, Kennedy was shot. The national trauma was a blunt political opportunity from whose import Johnson did not flinch. “Let us continue,” he intoned in his first address to a joint session of Congress. Then, before this tragic but miraculous once-in-a-lifetime store of political capital drained away, he started passing the liberal legislative agenda that had been little more than a shadow during Kennedy’s lifetime.

Less than a month into his presidency, Johnson wrangled from a recalcitrant Congress a loan guarantee to help our mortal enemies, the Soviets, buy grain before he had been in office a month, convincing 38 legislators to return to Washington during their Christmas vacations to approve the loan. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964—the “war on poverty”—passed by a nearly two-to-one margin. Johnson advocated for a tax cut that conservatives called a budget-buster, bringing Dwight D. Eisenhower out of retirement to campaign against it. But Johnson passed that, too. Then came Medicare. Then the Civil Rights Act. “I’m not going to cavil, and I’m not going to compromise,” Johnson told Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia as the landmark bill Kennedy introduced to no avail in the summer of 1963 was steamrolling its way to completion.

In 1965 Johnson passed new legislation for preschool for poor children, college prep for poor teenagers, legal services for indigent defendants, redevelopment funds for lagging economic regions, landmark immigration reform, a new Department of Housing and Urban Development, and national endowments for the humanities and art. He even added a whole new category to the liberal agenda with the passage of the Highway Beautification Act, the Water Quality Act, and the Clean Air Act. He insisted to his congressional leadership that the House’s bill for federal aid to education pass the Senate “literally without a comma changed,” aide Eric Goldman recalled. It did indeed, two weeks later, with only 18 votes in opposition.

His insistence on ramming through bills “without a comma changed” wasn’t a function of Johnson’s natural aggressiveness or ego (or at least not only that). It was, in the American legislative context, a necessary sort of pragmatism. The 36th president saw that his opportunity to move the country forward could end any day and that he must act before America lurched back into a state of fearful reaction. He was right. During the span of just a few weeks in the summer of 1965, Johnson flew to Independence, Missouri, to sign Medicare—the reform JFK had run on in 1960—and to Washington to sign the Voting Rights Act. Five days later, on Aug. 11, the Watts Riots brought down the curtain on the liberal hour. After that, he couldn’t even get Congress to approve $60 million for rodent control in the slums.

The right and Democratic centrists have taught us to think of the Great Society in terms of its failures, like the War on Poverty’s Community Action Program, which drove a wedge between Washington and local Democratic municipal administrations and supposedly empowered all manner of swindlers and “poverty pimps.” We should focus instead on Johnson’s remarkable number of broad-based accomplishments in those first 22 months. We now take for granted the notion that the elderly have a right to medical care, that the government should provide aid for education, that immigration policy should not discriminate on the basis of race, and that the government should concern itself with clean air. It would be unimaginable to see them reversed—in part because of the constitutional inertia that made them so difficult to achieve in the first place. They are the kind of things Republicans now pretend they were in favor of all along. This is the way social change works. It is the responsibility of the next progressive president to crash through a similar set of reforms for the next generation to take for granted.

***
Conservatives understand these stakes, which is why obstructionism is the rock upon which they have built their political church. Not for nothing was Jesse Helms celebrated so unequivocally by conservatives upon his death this summer: He was “Senator No.” They know that a single well-placed roadblock, whether within the news cycle or behind closed doors in the legislative process, can stop progress cold—even in the face of a Democratic Congress united with a Democratic president and a friendly judiciary. They understand that in America, Democratic (and democratic) mandates are tailor-made for sabotage and that the sabotage must come early, quick, and hard.

This was the reliable formula that brought down such progressive initiatives as Clinton’s health-care program. But it was Jimmy Carter’s attempt to fix American energy policy that really set the precedent for failed reform. It is easy to forget how progressive hopes were soaring on January 20, 1977. A Republican president had resigned in disgrace. His replacement had proven hapless and tainted. A slew of young liberal lions had been swept into office in 1974 on the wave of disgust, and Jimmy Carter was elected to give America “a government as good as its people.” Even the pundits’ affection was in his pocket.

In retrospect, of course, we remember how badly Carter mishandled the job of pushing his own legislative agenda. He couldn’t work with Congress. He alienated key Democratic constituencies. Maybe such deficiencies won’t hobble Barack Obama, who appears an infinitely more skilled politician. But despite his skill, Obama will not be available to avoid the fact that the right also learned from the early years of FDR and LBJ. They know the lessons in their bones: Strike hard and fast by any means necessary to degrade a popular new Democratic president’s capability to pass anything big right away, because once something is passed, it might never go away. Carter started out with a bang, just as FDR and LBJ would have counseled. He immediately proposed, as Sean Wilentz records in his new book, The Age of Reagan, “an enormously ambitious legislative agenda on matters ranging from national energy policy to streamlining the federal government.” He “demanded and received emergency authorization to deregulate natural gas prices,” then handed down unconditional amnesty for draft evaders and “weathered the storm and enhanced his reputation for decisiveness and independence”—shades of the bold strokes of Roosevelt’s First Hundred Days. Through April, his approval rating was 75 percent. “For the moment,” Wilentz concludes, “it looked as if the country had found the leader it had been searching for since Richard Nixon’s downfall.” And it also looked as if that something big might happen before circumstances slammed shut the window of opportunity. The energy program, an effort Carter announced as “the moral equivalent of war,” passed the House comfortably in April. But by the end of the year, the Senate eliminated it with extreme prejudice. Partly, again, it was Carter’s poor political skill. It also had plenty to do with the fact that Republicans managed to destroy Carter’s public goodwill in his first year as president.

A literary assassin played an outsize role in this project. Former Nixon operative William Safire was ensconced on The New York Times op-ed page. Sloppy record-keeping and the sort of petty favoritism endemic to provincial banking had brought Carter’s close friend and budget director Bert Lance, a former banker in Georgia, before a Senate subcommittee for minor questioning. Safire raised a series of where-there’s-smoke-there-must-be-fire insinuations. He hinted that the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund (which “the Labor Department says corruptly bankrolls Las Vegas mobsters,” Safire helpfully reminded readers) played a role, along with, of course, the Chicago Democratic Machine—and Arabs!

Safire penned eight Lance columns over the next four months, sometimes twice a week. He repeated the original charges, dropping ones others debunked, ever implying that the charges he still mentioned were the only ones he had made all along, counting on the public’s short memory to cover the fact that his original case was falling apart. Most often, his columns baited reporters: Why were they “refusing” to investigate Lance like they had hounded past Republicans? More cunningly, Safire larded the columns with less-than-subliminal linguistic references to Watergate. “Lancegate,” he implied, was exactly the same. He even declared a memo by the Manufacturers of Hanover Trust was “the ‘smoking gun.’” (Readers were counted on to vaguely recall that the “smoking gun” tape that had brought down Nixon two years earlier also involved the derailing of an FBI investigation.)

It worked, at least where it counted: in the court of political cartoons. Washington Post editorial cartoonist Herblock gave Carter a “Checkers Award,” after the infamous cocker spaniel Richard Nixon used to save his hide in a famous 1952 speech. Syndicated cartoonist Pat Oliphant went with a more straightforward depiction of Carter as Nixon: “Stonewall it. … They’re out to get us.” Lance resigned; the Justice Department handed down indictments. Even though Lance was eventually completely exonerated, the damage was done. Carter, like Obama, had run as a “different kind of Democrat”—pure, unsullied. So saboteurs like Safire had a clear challenge: “prove” that Carter was just another impure politician, if even on the shakiest of pretexts.

That, of course, is what the right will try on the next Democratic president. They will take the possibility that Obama might break through the icy seas of conservative stasis and try to render it an absurdity. There is now an army of Safires and a Republican Party full of Senator No’s. Recall William Kristol’s famous memo enjoining congressional Republicans to refuse to deal with President Clinton’s proposed health-care reforms. “The plan should not be amended,” he wrote, “it should be erased.” The right might not be at its strongest, but it certainly understands that the American system favors fell swoops, on offense as well as on defense. The system provides conservatives with opportunities for obstruction in profusion—no matter how low their approval ratings.

***
Barack Obama has not run as a policy maximalist. By and large, his big proposals have all been in that safe spot where liberals can’t quite get mad and the Beltway wise men can’t quite get scared. He has advocated for not-quite-universal health care rather than single-payer, and promised tax cuts, not massive new social outlays. But this shouldn’t worry progressives. There may be no better way to achieve an operational liberalism than to appeal to America’s rhetorical conservatism. That, after all, was how the balanced-budget-promising Franklin Roosevelt ran in 1932 and how the let-us-continue Lyndon Johnson was elected in 1964.

But when it comes time to govern, an ingrained habit of incrementalism may be a very profound problem indeed. Stopped in our tracks time and time again in attempts to assure Americans the basic social rights taken for granted by citizens of every other industrialized nation, progressives have made virtue of necessity—we have learned to think of strategic incrementalism as a positive good, even an end in itself. If, on the morning of January 20, 2009, Barack Obama should wake up to find himself president, with 60 senators and 250 representatives, plus 60 percent of the public firmly in favor of passing universal health care, would his instincts direct him to ram the legislation through as quickly as possible? No one can say for sure. This attitude is so dormant in progressive thinking that it’s hard to know whether we can revive it.

Weisbrot and Mackenzie’s The Liberal Hour is a very aptly named book: a splendid evocation of just how evanescent American moments of reform truly are. They are not unlike an action movie starring Bruce Willis, who has 60 minutes left to defuse a time bomb before everything blows up. Take immediate action, and you might just get reforms that had seemed impossible the day before but are impossible to imagine America without just one and two generations later. Take it slow, however, and you might not get anything at all.


Rick Perlstein is the author of Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America (2008) and Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus (2001). He is a senior fellow and blogger at the Campaign for America's Future.