At some point, we will all come to our senses and see that almost nothing –nothing of real lasting value—will come of it without reasonable accommodation on the critical issues of our time.
But is it possible for either Party to assume the mantle of national leadership which has been largely vacated by both as the internecine strife continues and escalates in the aftermath of the Kavanaugh confirmation?
Both Democrats and Republicans are engaged in jungle warfare—and the casualties are mounting. Many in Congress on both sides have given up all pretense of civility or efforts at cooperation.
The word “bipartisanship” is a hollow phrase that has been drained of all meaning. There is little possibility it will be soon restored if the principal objective is not constructive action but only obstruction of whatever the opposition wants to do.
A few Californians have the clout to invoke remedial action if they have the courage and willingness to cross the partisan Maginot line and are in a position to do so.
One is GOP Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy from Bakersfield, who is very likely to become the next House Speaker after Paul Ryan’s announced retirement if—and it is a big if—Republicans can hold on to their majority in November.
Another is Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, who has not been bashful about her desire to regain her title as Speaker.
Could either or will either want to be peacemaker?
Whether the feisty San Franciscan with redoubtable smarts gets there—again— depends in large part on the outcome of the congressional campaigns being ferociously waged across the political spectrum.
If the math comes up wanting it is a good bet she will be replaced. The magic turnover number is 23—well within range according to latest polls.
She makes sense when she calls on Democrats to quit trashing Trump and talking impeachment and concentrate instead on delivering a message that will recapture voters who have deserted the party.
These include millions of blue collar workers, many women suburbanites, apathetic African-Americans and Hispanics, and dissatisfied progressives and liberals still grieving and looking for revenge.
The last time the electorate was this angry it got Richard Nixon who in 1972 trounced the hapless Democratic nominee, George McGovern, who ran on an anti-Vietnam War platform.
That crusade was led by the youth of that generation who are today’s so-called boomers.
Today’s youth cohort, though potentially a major factor in the upcoming elections, is much more skeptical about both parties, split in their thinking, and less enamored of any party affiliation.
In 2016 there was no single galvanizing cause. The anger was widespread along class and cultural lines and Donald Trump knew exactly how to harnass it.
Democratic candidates, indignant with just cause over the treatment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s sexual assault accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, are taking direct aim on the crucial women’s vote and growing disenchantment with White House shenanigans.
This could be a winning strategy. But if the party out of power takes back even one House, will it result in congressional reconciliation or are we in for two more years of scorched earth warfare and perhaps even longer?
Would a Speaker McCarthy be inclined to do business with the Democrats if they lose to a reenergized Party?
And will Democrats be in any mood to smoke the peace pipe if their legions remain depleted?
Most importantly, are there substantive issues on which legitimate agreements can be reached and will such progress be thwarted if the Senate is not also a party to them?
Some front-line items such as a rebuilding of the nation’s transportation system, curbing gun violence, getting better control of medical costs, and meaningful immigration reform are being discussed.
But there are few signs yet of real movement—and the White House could remain the wild card as to what decisions are finally made for at least two more years.
Few acute observers on either side of the widening ideological divide can reasonably conclude that any change can realistically occur without some dramatic realignment of thinking in both parties.
Trump has shown little allegiance to the party whose banner he sported—and his barely contested ascendancy and what many see as a failure of leadership left a huge void.
So long as the fate of this president remains in limbo—and that might be for some time to come— the burden of leadership falls heavily on the Congress.
Pelosi’s demonstrable talents as a master tactician, unsurpassed vote counter, and fund-raiser for her party are beyond dispute.
If she were to recapture the Speakership—and this is not yet certain even if the Democrats pile up enough victories in seven weeks—her goals will have to calibrate with the platform of whomever becomes the party’s nominee in 2020.
Many are already getting in line including the Bay Area’s Sen. Kamala Harris who is doing early whistle-touring in bell-weather primary states such as Iowa and South Carolina.
Harris comes out of the Progressive Wing of her party that always makes a strong showing in California but, as Bernie Sanders proved—may be less formidable in other regions.
McCarthy, if elected Speaker, would have the even greater burden of not running afoul of his party’s putative leader, Donald Trump, who won the presidency with little enthusiastic support from within the GOP high command.
If he and Pelosi or whomever succeeds them can somehow join ranks and bring their respective and often squabbling factions along behind them, they will have performed a historic service for the country.
That will require recognition of the gravity of the stakes involved and some heroic efforts at reformulation within both parties and a mutual desire to find areas of cooperation.
If they fail, and the extreme passions roiling the nation continue with little desire to bring them under control, there may be a renewed thrust to create yet another party to push aside the one that Trump has apparently created without a name.
Trumpism could be the rule of the land for decades to come.
This splintering might only add to the disorder, but that is ultimately a choice which only the voters can make. There is no precedent that it would succeed, and there is no precedent for a Trump presidency either.
Rachel Klein, the noted Canadian author and social critic has pointed out with convincing evidence that, “politics hates a vacuum. If it isn’t filled with hope, someone will fill it with fear.”
That is a road which no thinking person should want to go down.
Is there someone out there in either or any party ready, willing and able to assume the mantle?