My Letter to "Progressive" Voters
/
ear “progressive” voter,
In the late 1800’s, the celebrated Scottish poet Robert Burns wrote, “O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us.” This feeling is universal. How am I coming across? What do people really think of me?
Indeed, imagine what insight would be gained to see ourselves through others’ eyes.
Let’s expand this thought to the current political moment. You, like many people, probably react with disgust and even horror when you see the crazed sycophants who populate Trump’s rallies. What in the world is wrong with them? Don’t they have a brain? Not even a fragment of self-awareness? If they only knew how they’re coming across, man, they’d duck away in shame.
But here’s the scary part. They’re thinking the same thing about you.
he filmmaker Michael Moore is a loyal and longstanding supporter of Bernie Sanders. During a recent interview, Moore was asked if he could relate to many Americans who fear that mandatory Medicare For All would take away every form of current health insurance. Could Moore relate to the uneasiness of trading something known for something unknown?
He began responding by saying, “that’s the wrong way to look at the question…”.
No. No, it’s not. And right there, he reveals a huge problem shared by too many “progressive” voters. In that moment, any Trump voter watching likely looked at Moore (and his candidate) with the same disgust and disdain you feel watching those masses at a Trump rally.
What those voters heard was what they’re convinced is a fatal flaw of the far left: elitism. They resent people who seem to think they’re smarter, and thus consequently believe they alone deserve to decide what’s to be done.
Does that claim hold any water?
Let’s consider that by visiting a few of the programs that are current foundations of the far-left candidates:
College Loan Forgiveness. Was that college education worth it? Did it land the big job you hoped for? And in any case, was the price tag even remotely justifiable? These answers may all be “no”, and you have every reason for regret.
In combination, those regrets have now turned into proposals to forgive those exorbitant outstanding college loans (in most circumstances). In any case, we know one thing for certain: the loan companies that hold those debts aren’t just going to tear up the papers and say, “Aw, that’s OK, why don’t we just forget about the whole thing.” One way or another the government is going to have to pick up the tab.
Which leads us back to the Trump voters. Many of them didn’t go to college. Maybe their kids didn’t, either. So, what’s in this program for them? What they see is this: kids rich enough or lucky enough to get into college getting a huge government handout. How do you think the Trumpies are going to react? Even fair-minded independents don’t like this idea. College loan forgiveness, however popular among the people owing those loans, reeks of elitism.
Reparations. No group in U.S. history was victimized more than African American slaves. That’s beyond dispute. But should their descendants receive cash rewards as a form of repayment? This raises some fundamental issues. How do you prove yourself a descendant? What if others with no connection to slavery entered the family tree somewhere along the way—does that dilute the payout? What about full-slave descendants who are now making seven-figure salaries--do they get the full reward, too?
For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that full descendants of southern slaves deserve, let’s call it, a “100% reparation” (whatever that number turns out to be). Well, what about current Native Americans? Their ancestors (in most cases) formally were not “slaves”…but they were slaughtered in the millions. And millions more were forced off their lands and onto reservations. Does that earn them…what…a 60% reparation? Thirty percent? And what about European immigrants fleeing the potato famine or deadly dictatorships, whose circumstances forced them into lethal coal mines…or pushed their preteen daughters into 12-hour shifts in in sweat shops? Were they “slaves”? Certainly not by the traditional definition. But do they consequently deserve nothing at all?
The issues are clear. Bottom line, more government tax dollars would be “reparated” into the pockets of largely non-Trump voters. You try telling those Trumpies they’re not getting the short end of that stick—a big payout, with nothing for them, just because elites think this is the “fair” way to go.
Universal Pre-K. No need to belabor the point. Every kid deserves a fair start. And theoretically, universal pre-K is the way to go—and it’s going to cost a ton of tax dollars. But what about the stay-at-home Mom who wants to prepare her preschool kid the way she wants? If she wants to do the job herself…no money for her?
You may believe each of these proposals is worthy of government funding. You might be right. But you can’t argue that each example here benefits a “special interest” group—and those groups don’t include many Trump voters. Or for that matter, quite a few in the political middle, as well.
Be honest. If you’re a non-recipient of anything proposed above, could that complaint about “elitism” ring true?
’ll finish by tying this to you and your vote. No matter how enthused you are with Bernie or Elizabeth, you can only vote once. And there aren’t that many of you to begin with. Allow me to be pretentious and refer to essential, eternal democracy math--the object of an election is not to gather the most passionate voters--just the most voters. As we demonstrated in Tribes (elsewhere in this issue), those who will decide this election live on the middle ground, between the two poles of political passion.
So, it makes sense to try to capture as many of them as possible, doesn’t it?
A recent Marist poll asked all Democrats which was more important to them: defeating Trump or electing someone who “supports their positions on most issues.” It’s obvious that most voters would prefer both; but this was a forced choice. Which one is more important?
Of the total, 54% said victory is most important, and 44% said it was more important that the candidate agree with the respondent’s personal politics.
Consider that 44%. Therein lies the problem. Two in five Democrats are effectively saying this election isn’t about who wins…it’s about them.
As I’ve said repeatedly, I agree with virtually all of the goals that far left candidates Warren and Sanders are promoting…even though specific plans in many cases range from preposterous to non-existent.
hus, let me put it as directly as I can. Presidential elections are about our country.
They’re not about you.
Pledge to yourself that after the primaries, you will support any Democratic candidate as fervently as you would the one you love most--even if the nominee isn’t fully aligned with your personal politics.
If this thought makes you in any way uneasy, then think about these last three years.
Do you want to risk four more?
Sincerely,
Reality
Have a comment or thought on this? Just hit the Your Turn tab here or email us at mailbox@cascadereview.net to have your say.
