In Matt Bai’s Op-Ed, “I reject both parties’ ideas of Americanism. And I’m not the only one,” he distains how both parties define our vision of American ideals. “Americanism” means our allegiance to the traditions, institutions, and ideals of the United States. That’s an interesting and valuable analysis, but he falls short in the end.
Bai’s article is personal and frank, clearly describing his history and how his political positions have evolved. Kudos for that. And he doesn’t condemn the system entirely. He points to several admirable politicians.
His dissection of the Republican idea of Americanism is succinct, damning, and in my eyes, dead on.
It seems self-evident that the Republican Party — more a celebrity fan club than a political organization at this point — would, if left to its own devices, destroy the foundation of the republic. I never thought I’d write those words about any U.S. political party, but here we are.
Washington Post, “I reject both parties’ idea of Americanism. And I’m not the only one,” Feb. 15, 2022.
I’m less sanguine, but then, I’m an old guy. I’ve been lamenting the Republican drift into authoritarian populism since Nixon. Reagan was nobody’s saint.
Americans love looking in the mirror, and I’m no exception. And I’m always interested in how we look from different angles. It’s the less flattering perspectives that help us improve. So, I was open to how someone else interpretation of Democratic ideals for being American.
Unfortunately, I’m still wondering. Bai starts with vague generalities and mostly stays there.
Rather than focus on traditional American ideals of citizenship over race or origin, the left is in thrall to its own misguided cultural revolution (yes, I use the term deliberately), embracing a vision of the United States that lays waste to the 20th-century liberalism of its greatest icons.
Stop teasing, Matt. What is that vision?
For all of his successes, though, there’s a fire raging in his party that Biden hasn’t even tried to control — and probably couldn’t extinguish if he did. For me (and probably a lot of suburbanites voting this fall), this is more than a backdrop to his presidency. It’s a dealbreaker.
So, what’s burning? I have no idea. I wade through each paragraph, looking for the meat. What does he see as a damning dealbreaker? I still have no idea.
Bai eventually quotes “How to Be an Antiracist” by Ibram X. Kendi. Finally, something specific! Bai pulls out this quote: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” That’s all he takes, then Bai spends the next two paragraphs attacking his interpretation of those two sentences.
Was Kendi’s work inflammatory? Sure. Is that one quote really the bible of Democratic Americanism? Bai insists it is, but makes no case for it; he just assumes that’s true.
Liberals used to believe in civil debate about such ideas. But now, the arbiters of language are constantly issuing Soviet-style edicts about which terms are acceptable and which aren’t (“woke” was okay, now it’s not) — a tactic used for controlling the debate and delegitimizing critics.
I’m shocked by that naivete. Is he disingenuous? Anyone who’s followed American politics has seen decades of appropriation. Republicans routinely and successfully grab words they dislike (“woke,” “liberal,” “Antifa,” “feminist,” “bureaucrat”) to discredit them or to take ownership (“freedom, “liberty”). Yes, their reliable success at theft is depressing – party Democrats are consistently hapless – but that isn’t a moral success. Might doesn’t make right.
Bai interprets these quotes to mean that Democrats are promoting a radical and politically self-destructive uprising. Um, really? It’s less of an argument than a vigorous hand wave. But Bai went on:
That we’ve failed to honor that promise [of fair laws, racial equality, free speech and unfettered worship] over the life of the country, and are failing still, doesn’t mean you throw up your hands and abandon the project. It means you rededicate yourself to the ideal of true equality, rather than reducing individuals to a box on a census form.
That would be a stark condemnation of Democratic politics – and a valuable point of view – if he gave us something more substantial to prop it up. But Bai didn’t show any work. Honestly, what few justifications he includes seem like a post-facto cover for his discomfort and feelings of abandonment. I’m not saying Bai doesn’t have good reasons, but he hasn’t presented them.
Matt, your feelings are always valid. And I hear your pain. I’m a privileged White guy, too. But think about our history. In my youth, White Americanism meant segregated schools, wives at home raising toe-headed kids, single-family detached, and a White-washed culture on all three TV networks. Anyone who wasn’t one of the cisgender White male ‘us’ lived in places we didn’t have to see. That culture was deeply flawed, but we wouldn’t change on our own. Nobody’s that enlightened. The people we’d excluded had to force change onto us.
I freely admit that every big-wave social change was upsetting, especially at the beginning. I’ve lived through a few now, and each widespread change left me feeling uncomfortable, unloved and vaguely abandoned. Think about civil rights, first-wave feminism, inequality, the one percent, Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and all the rest. Every meaningful change in wealth, race and power threatens my comfortable life. Nobody embraces change forced on them.
But now I’m an adult. I can see my childhood of White male privilege Americanism and recognize I had opportunities that many people didn’t. Yes, that’s a part of what “Woke” means. And once you see vicious inequality, racism, sexism, and all the rest, they seem like bad ideas. They’re things I’d like to fix, or at least improve. While that’s disturbing to the existing power structure, inclusion and equal opportunity aren’t the same as revolution, even if it feels like it sometimes.
I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Bai. He may be right. This article wasn’t good enough, but it was an interesting start. I want to hear more from him, not less.
