It is a midterm election. It is not meant to be difficult. The United States is either a commercial republic or representative democracy. It has been, at least aspirationally, meant to be a place where you can pull for the incumbent if your family is doing well, and for the other guy if things are looking bad. Our federal system is not a direct democracy. Citizenship is not meant to be exercised primarily at the federal level. For ordinary Americans, elections are meant to be a minimal check-in while we do the important American stuff high and low, such as worshipping God as we feel called or spending ridiculous amounts of money.
This was, however, more theory than practice. The federal government has accumulated client classes all over the century. Its regulations have made it impossible for ordinary citizens to live their lives without them. To limit their interaction to a couple of years and to focus on spirituality and material health, they have created regulations. From square deals to new deals through great society, remnants of this relationship between citizens, and feds, and even though we all care about the traditional American, non-regime, “liberal democracy”, we still see an emphasis on quality, law, order, and material abundance. This is good because it means that more people won’t be hungry or cold.
It is important to note that American voters are not uncommon and actually right in the system’s terms. They care about crime, energy, inflation, and energy going into the midterm elections. Liberal internationalists have declared November a referendum on Ukraine, not the United States Congress. This is a ridiculous and inexplicable attempt to morally blackmail every American by an influential federal client group. It should be acknowledged and rejected, even though it’s transparent. Unctuous pigs nipping at the U.S. defense budget demand that their fellow citizens pay more attention to “democracy abroad” than they do to their children at home.
The Washington Post opinion Page might have a closer relationship than any other with the military-industrial complex, and its ideological emanations. There were a few doozies this week from the “it’s very nearly fascism not to care about how much gas costs” crowd. Greg Sargent, a columnist was interviewed by an expert who said Vladimir Putin wants the GOP to win next month. (subtext: So you had better not, but what does that mean?). It’s even more surprising that Max Boot, who–alongside Samantha Power, Victoria Nuland and let’s not forget Chad Wolf–reminds us of the fact that nominative determination is very real in D.C.
Sargent spoke with Timothy Snyder, a European historian who became one of the leading thinkers about the rise of authoritarianism. It is unclear how this will help the reader navigate American party politics or the future needs of the United States. These are not the stakes Snyder or Sargent seem to care about. Synder says that democracy around the globe depends on Ukrainians winning the war.
This pessimism about democracy shouldn’t be surprising, given that November is a democratic election. These fundamentalists can be a little sloppy when they argue that Iran is providing Russia with drones. The Ukrainians are “shooting down Iranian drones” (forcing Russia more). “That’s why you should support Ukraine,” says one of them.
Sign up today
Receive weekly emails to your inbox
Boot, who is always ready to explain what others don’t suggest, starts by dismissing Americans concerned about the economy. He writes that polls are irrelevant because “a lot of people miss the point.” These elections are a referendum on your support for democracy in America and Ukraine. Boot fears that polls show Americans are more inclined to elect the wrong type of representative democratically. The wrong kind is those who don’t want to risk a general nuclear war in Central Europe. Boot sees the nuclear risk as metaphorical, even though the geography is similar. He writes that the fallout of a red wave here at the U.S. midterm could reach all the way to Ukraine.
McCarthy, a Californian warmonger, is subject to particular resentment because McCarthy, as an elected representative, would prefer to listen to his constituents. McCarthy has stated, and it is sensible enough to say that if McCarthy was faced with a choice between losing his speakership or losing Ukraine, one can guess which he would choose.
Since the beginning, Democrats have been the party for federal client classes. When they run out of clients, they create new classes that are subject to their patronage. It was only a matter of time before the military-industrial complicated President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned America–having acknowledged itself as a federal client-class par excellence–would decide which party would ensure its bread stayed warm. Many Republicans want to see the “liberal democracy” strengthened in Ukraine and other countries. However, Boot, Sargent, Snyder, and McCarthy all have it right: ordinary Americans want change in times of domestic turmoil and poor economic prospects.
