California Gov. Gavin Newsom says that Democrats should “fight fire with fire.” He forgets that most fires are fought with water — the exception is wild fires which Newsom knows something about and may shape his view. In politics when we fight fire with fire the whole house gets burned down.
I’m referring here to Newsom’s push to change California law so that the state’s congressional seats can be gerrymandered to give Democrats perhaps another five seats, matching the five seats Republicans may pick up after Texas rigged their districts in favor of the GOP.
There’s a large part of the Democratic Party that loves to hear this kind of thing out of Newsom or anyone else. And much of the time I’d be among them. I have little but disdain for the League of Women Voters view of politics.
The trouble for me is that I see America degenerating into just another two bit banana republic. One side fights and cheats to gain power with the primary purpose of destroying its enemies and enriching its friends. Then the other side fights and cheats its way back into power and returns all the favors.
Under those circumstances I don’t care much who wins. If the Democratic Party becomes just a liberal version of Trump’s hard-right white Christian nationalist populism, well then, a pox on both their houses.
“Democracy relies on people with different views finding their way to reasonable compromises and consensus built on a core of shared values and common goals,” said Jack Goldstone, professor of public policy at George Mason University. “If a population becomes sharply divided into different identity groups that see their opponents as enemies whose goals — nay, whose very existence — is a threat to their own values and goals, then democracy is likely to fade away in favor of competition to control the state in order to wield state power to vanquish those dangerous enemies.”
Under Newsom’s view that is exactly what’s happening. The idea among some Democrats is that we’re in an existential fight (liberals love the word “existential” almost as much as “genre”) for survival. So anything goes. If Trump lies, we lie. If the Republicans cheat, we cheat. It they try to rig the game in their favor, we do all we can to juice things for our side. When they go low, we go lower.
I don’t want to be part of that party. I want to belong to a party that sticks up for fairness and fair play. When you’ve got the ball treat your opponents with respect and with the idea that someday they’ll be back in power and they should treat you the same way. When you’re in the minority figure out why that is and stop being the minority. That used to be the norm, but Trump began its unraveling in 2020 when he broke precedent by refusing to accept the results of a free and fair election.
Now, I know that some of you (maybe all of you) are thinking that the party of Trump will never play fair. Of course they won’t. But at some point the cycle of tit for tat must be broken. At some point somebody’s got to be the adult in the room. At some point we’ve got to go back to following the rules, and the norms must be reestablished.
Of course what I’m suggesting is risky. If the Democrats don’t get at least the House back next year will there be any democracy left to fight for?
But the real question is, what is our fundamental goal? Is it just to claw our way back into power so that we can enact some policies that help our side and punish theirs only to have those policies reversed once they regain the edge? Or is our goal to reestablish fair play and a tolerant, pluralistic liberal democracy where those out of power for the moment are considered to be only the loyal opposition, not the devil?
I don’t want to live in a country shaped by endless enmity. I want a return to some comity, to some search for common ground and respect for our opponents. Even if Newsom is successful and the Democrats take back a slim House majority, it could wind up being just another step down into a very dark place.
Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos 
We’ve been heading toward banana republic status since the Supreme Court gave corporations the rights of a “person,” gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act (with complete destruction of the Act on the way), gave the green light to unlimited gerrymandering, allowed Super PACS to flood any election with a tsunami of money, and kicked the federal courts out of the business of protecting the rights of citizens from states who willfully crushed those rights. The Constitution, once hailed as a blueprint for democracy, has been interpreted from the bench as an enabling tool for dictatorship. Playing “fair” doesn’t exist under the current set of rules.
I want what you want, but how exactly do we get there from here?
LikeLike
Have you actually read any of the League’s positions
LikeLike
I have and readers can read it for themselves here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ta3fzGutiUuq0UAKlsXlGk6_PRuQdbw0/view. It reads like the Democratic Party platform. I personally agree with 90% of it, but it seems to me that the League has lost its focus on good government and branched off into taking liberal positions on abortion, guns, the death penalty, the environment and a host of other issues. Again, I might agree on all or most of these things, but they are beyond the scope of the League’s mission (or what I’ve understood that to be) and worse, they alienate most people who are Republican or independent. This makes the League’s good work on its good government core issues so much harder. There are plenty of other groups who will advocate more effectively on those other issues. I think the League would do better to return to its core mission.
LikeLike
Dave, please explain further what is your definition of the “League of Women Voters view of politics”…..I have been a member of LWVs in Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Florida, since the 1970’s, and, looking at it from the inside for all those years, we (used to before the rules changed) were mainly involved with registering folks to vote; also, still, sponsoring candidates’ forums and publishing information about candidates’ positions (in their own words)—the roots of League are all about the voting franchise, the organization having been founded by the likes of Carrie Chapman Catt. Each of the Leagues I’ve been a member of have reflected their community’s issues and interests–suburban Milwaukee in the 80’s–00’s was not my Fl retirement community today.
Did you have a bad experience with a League lady? If so, I am sorry for that. If I were in Madison, I’d invite you for coffee and hope we’d have a better conversation. I like your sense of humor. And, mostly, your politics….. and your pragmatism….
Mary LaVelle
LikeLike
I appreciate all the good work you’ve done and much of what the League has done over its history. What I refer to is what I consider to be an unrealistic, even sometimes naive view of politics. Also, at least here in Wisconsin, the League has lost credibility outside of the Democratic Party by taking consistently liberal positions on issues unrelated to voting and participatory democracy. Nonetheless, I would think that my views on gerrymandering are 100% in agreement with the League.
LikeLike
“I don’t want to be part of that party. I want to belong to a party that sticks up for fairness and fair play.”
If this is true, you may want to consider getting involved or lending support to the Fair Maps Coalition. They’re advocating for non-partisan redistricting to be enshrined in law here in Wisconsin. Lots of people forget the fairer maps we have right now are simply the product of Evers and Vos striking a deal because Vos was afraid the state Supreme Court would pass less GOP-friendly maps. We currently still don’t have any non-partisan process enshrined in law though, and now would actually be a great time to enact it given that, at least for the moment, we have divided government with Dems in the executive branch and the GOP holding the Legislature.
All that progress to get fairer maps could go right out the window again if 2030 turns out to be a wave year (for either party) like 2010 was.
https://www.fairmapswi.com/
LikeLike
Yes. I couldn’t agree more.
LikeLike
I honestly couldn’t agree more and you are one of the few people saying this and it’s a bit refreshing. I’m terrified of what this could mean, how do we ever undo this cycle and have anyone remain credible if we can’t even maintain gerrymandering reform. I personally think the system needs a deeper fix at this point but if we give up on ending gerrymandering that is a massive step in the wrong direction.
LikeLike
What realistic path do you see to achieve this vision?
LikeLike
I don’t see a “realistic” path right now. I do have an unrealistic one. That would be the formation of a Moderate Democratic Party — not a third party but a party within a party. I’m thinking about a party that supports what to this point has been the American system of pluralistic democracy and which also takes policy positions that are popular with the bulk of American voters. A candidate like Rahm Emanuel or maybe Pete Buttigieg could lead such a party. But I see no movement to make this happen, which is why as of now it’s unrealistic.
LikeLike