The Democratic Party is Not the Party of Liberal Politics

Glenn Greenwald, a journalist and constitutional lawyer whom I greatly admire, makes the error of treating liberalism not as a set of economic, ethical, philosophical, and political principles but as an ideological position accurately capturing the standpoint of progressive Democrats. This error occurs in a criticism of a FoxNews interview of Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney (former Vice-President Dick Cheney’s daughter) embedded in an article in The Daily Beast. I share the tweet below.

Before moving to that critique, I want to stress how much I admire Greenwald and clarify that my criticism issues from a desire to strengthen the populist democratic movement against transnational corporate power and the authoritarian designs of its political establishment. I believe Greenwald has a big role to play in that movement. However, much like Thomas Frank, Jimmy Dore, Aaron Mate, and Max Blumenthal, he has yet to finish stepping over the populist threshold. Okay, on to the critique.

Greenwald gets this right in his critique of the interview (conducted by Chris Wallace): “The Cheney family’s primary tactic for four decades has been to brand everyone who disagrees with them as ‘un-American.’” I was myself smeared with this label first back in 2003 and for some years after when I exposed the reasons the United States under George Bush and Dick Cheney was invading and occupying Iraq before and after the invasion in speeches and essays (see, e.g., War Hawks and the Ugly American: The Origins of Bush’s Middle East Policy; Christian Neo-Fundamentalism and US Foreign Policy). Greenwald is also right that Cheney’s function in all this—part of which was pressing the impeachment of President Donald Trump on bogus charges of “insurrection”—is to make the politics of the Democratic Party look other that what they truly are “vile and toxic.

Journalist and constitutionalist Glenn Greenwald

But Greenwald is wrong to include liberal politics in this tweet. (I touch on this in The Problem of the Weakly Principled. I stress that the title and the essay has to do with people other than Greenwald.) The Democratic Party does not practice liberal politics and this becomes obvious when you treat liberalism not as a party ideology but as a set of economic, ethical, philosophical, and political principles that stand for individualism and liberty.

What is liberalism? Liberalism is the politics of assembly (for all sides, not just Antifa and BLM rioters), bodily autonomy and personal sovereignty (not just for women seeking abortions), free association (not just for blacks who seek black-only spaces), free speech and expression (not just for those who change their genders), humanism, privacy, and secularism. Liberalism is also the politics of private property and limited government. When people deviate from these principles the question of their liberal bonafides may be thrown into question. It depends on how great is the deviation (and there is a contradiction between private ownership of the means of production and the realization of other liberal rights). However, when a liberal turns authoritarian, he does not bring liberalism with him. Instead, he leaves liberalism behind.

You don’t have to step back very far to see that the Democratic Party does not resemble these politics. Quite the contrary, in fact. The Democratic Party is the party of bullying, censorship and deplatforming, mandates and passports, double-standards (and doublethink), surveillance, religious zealotry, and big intrusive government. I have written numerous articles over the last several years documenting the Party’s transformation. The Party is now fully anti-humanist and illiberal. In a word, the Party is authoritarian and its rank-and-file has become reactionary. This explains why progressive Democrats and establishment Republicans like Liz Cheney have become allies in an elite war against the people: anti-democratic desire and sentiment bring them together around the imperatives of corporate state power.

What Greenwald means to say (and I apologize for attempting to speak for him, as he is so eloquent) is that progressivism (a term I believe he—like Jimmy Dore, Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mate, and others—desperately wants to reserve for those with his politics) is what is actually aligning with neoconservatism and especially neoliberalism and that these latter policy orientations are the priorities of both the Democratic Party and the corporate wing of the Republican Party, even if the latter would never speak the rhetoric of progressivism.

The alliance I am describing is not new. It became an open alliance in 1994 in the wake of the Republicans takeover of Congress (“Contract with America”) after forty years of progressive Democrat control over that branch of government. Clinton invited the alliance with his “New Democrat” politics, articulated by the Democratic Leadership Council and the Progressive Policy Institute. The alliance was reinforced during the Bush-Cheney years, as establishment Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, supported the war effort (which killed upwards of a million Iraqis in the first 3-5 years) and the construction of a vast surveillance apparatus (the PATRIOT Act). The Obama-Biden administration was a continuation of the alliance.

Mrs. Clinton was to keep things going when populist-nationalism threw a monkey wrench into the machinery named Donald Trump, who rose to power by blowing up the Establishment narrative. Thus began the long coup completed on January 20, 2021 with the installation of the decrepit former Vice-President Joe Biden in the White House, a ventriloquist dummy for the Establishment. The January 6 Commission is a concerted effort to prevent the return of Trump or one of his ilk to political power.

I understand why Greenwald is having trouble with all this. Like Thomas Frank, Naomi Wolf, Tulsi Gabbard, and others who are coming around to the realization, the politics they are instinctively drawn towards are presently represented by right-wing pundits and politicians and political organizations and parties across the trans-Atlantic space. There is a visceral reaction to the political rightwing among liberals, and so there is a degree of denial and rationalization. But the political right is where democratic populism is finding its fullest and most principled expression. I see in this an opportunity for coalition building. Wolf and Gabbard do, as well. Indeed, a growing number of liberals are appearing on the populist scene standing alongside such rightwing figures as Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro.

This has been a long time in coming. In a 2006 City Journal essay “Facing the Islamic Menace,” Christopher Hitchens notes that the character of the politics that gets the problem facing Europe, for example, religious extremism among mass immigration, is rightwing in character. In the essay, Hitchens recognizes the significance of Sam Harris’ observation in a Los Angeles Times column that ethnonationalism in Europe is at the forefront of recognizing what Hitchens calls “Fascism with an Islamic face.” This is no doubt a sticking point for Greenwald who has made his animosity towards Hitchens explicit.

I will explain Greenwald’s dilemma in a moment, but I need to elaborate Hitchens’ position so it is not unnecessarily misconstrued. What Harris writes in that essay is troubling: “The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.” Hitchens characterizes Harris’ words as “alarming” and “irresponsible.” At the same time, he grasps their significance, ending his City Journal essay by remarking “Not while I’m alive, they won’t.”

Hitchens’ remark was a call to the left to come home to democratic population and civic nationalism and defend their countries from the disorganizing force of theocratic desire. In the meantime, right-wing politics in Europe has moved away from the fascistic style towards a more libertarian populist-nationalism. No longer do racialist politics animate the European right. Indeed, populist-nationalist sentiment is, as we see also in the United States, rapidly spreading across racial groups, while progressives have constructed an elaborate racist ideology that is infecting major institutions in both public and private sectors.

Like Chris Hedges, Greenwald still clings to a politics of Muslim apologetics and the Chomsky-style rhetoric of anti-imperialism. I get it. Greenwald was politicized during this period. Chomsky fashioned his worldview. He admits it. Hitchens’ alignment with neoconservative policy under Bush and Cheney makes it difficult if not impossible for many of those who might otherwise admire Hitchens-style of populism and nationalism to avoid rejecting the corpus of Hitchens’ work for that reason. While I do not share that difficulty, I was as well very disappointed by Hitchens support for the war effort and publicly criticized him for it (while having to admit that his argument for war and occupation was the most compelling of the lot).

The difficulty Greenwald has with all this was evidenced only days ago by a reluctance to bring himself to condemn Chomsky for a truly hateful and authoritarian diatribe aimed at those who resist the COVID-19 vaccine (see Noam Chomsky is an Authoritarian). Hitchens recognized Chomsky’s growing derangement years before his death. We can only hope a man as passionate and as talented as Greenwald can also turn that corner.

This is the realization that inspired me to distance myself from the progressive Democratic establishment (as a college teacher, it surrounds me) and recheck my beliefs to make sure I was actually supporting a politics that reflected my values. My beliefs checked out.

Cheney and her ilk and the Democratic Party are the political functionaries of transnationalism. They are globalists, technocrats operating the administrative state that serves transnational corporate interests. They’re overseeing the managed decline of the American republic and, more generally, the nation-state. To their minds, no assembly could be more dangerous than that which gathered in Washington DC on January 6, 2021 to seek a redress of grievances.

When you listen to the substance of Greenwald’s arguments you can see that he is already a populist. Frank is, as well—he just needs to stop conflating populism with progressivism. These standpoints are, in fact, opposites, as the brilliant Richard Grossman pointed out so long ago. As I note above, Wolf and Gabbard are almost all the way there. Again, I understand why it’s hard to make the leap—or at least what feels like a leap given perception. People have been for so long gaslit over populism and nationalism that they have difficulty overcoming the internal resistance to the labels. That’s why Greenwald gets hung up over the label liberal. But Greenwald is a liberal. He shouldn’t let authoritarians steal the label.

The sooner those on the left and right understand their shared values the sooner they can come together and form a coalition against transnationalism. Such a coalition is necessary if we are to successfully resist the destruction of the Westphalian system and the Enlightenment values that sustain freedom and human rights. The character of populism is not fascist. It is the character that founded the American republic.

Published by

Andrew Austin

Andrew Austin is on the faculty of Democracy and Justice Studies and Sociology at the University of Wisconsin—Green Bay. He has published numerous articles, essays, and reviews in books, encyclopedia, journals, and newspapers.

9 thoughts on “The Democratic Party is Not the Party of Liberal Politics”

  1. Forgive me, I am having a brainwave.

    The problem is that commercial greed is global, but the democracies we hope will govern that greed, and save us from depletion and annihilation are national.
    The artificiality of our national boundaries are also shown up by our inability to deal with climate induced migration.
    The only solution to global climate destruction will be global government.
    How can we achieve that?

    1. Thanks for the comment. It is not an inability to deal with migration. There is nothing inevitable about migration. Open and lax borders are choices made by people in position to make and enforce policy. The pull factors are by design. It does not follow that our only solution to climate change is global government. The problem is the treadmill of production. The United States can only control what its laws cover. Offshoring is giving up control over components of the treadmill. You don’t fix that problem with more of the same. Transnationalization is not a force of nature. Transnationalism is a choice, as well.

    2. I find you very unimaginative sir.

      How do you intend to deal with global issues;
      Climate Change
      to name a few?

      National politics is to provincial.

    3. The goal of transnationalism is a return to the provincial—a corporate-organized neofeudalist planetary system run by world cities in the global north + China. You have misspecified the problem. The modern nation-state is the emancipatory mechanism in world history that disrupted provincialism and gave rise to the citizen and civil rights. Transnationalism disrupts personal sovereignty (liberty and rights) by returning the individual to subjection. The problem is the managed decline of the modern republic and the integration of persons into state capitalism based on the CCP model. That’s what transnationalism and multiculturalism have been about since the early twentieth century. This is an open project. The power-elite mean to dismantle the Westphalian interstate system. That’s what Build Back Better is about. This is the Great Reset.

    4. I am a beneficiary of the system you describe, but I do not feel emancipated.
      When I see displaced people being “pushed back” I feel complicit, and when I hear reports of the large scale climate chaos across continents, the same climate chaos that I’ve seen on my own island at a smaller scale I despair.
      You refer to the modern nation state, but is it still modern? Does it serve current needs?
      It may be that the nation state can reinvent itself with a new attitude to diplomacy, America could treat China with respect and China could reciprocate, we have nothing to lose, as without bold action all is lost.

    5. Climate is not driving migration in our hemisphere. That’s a progressive talking point. The push factors are failed states around the world and extraordinarily high rates of crime and violence, which is the work of transnationalism. Many of these violent criminals are among the migrants. Indeed, the migration is managed by violent criminal networks. The pull factors are also the work of the transnationalism: corporations are (1) seeking cheap labor; (2) expanding industrial reserve to drive down wages for all workers; (3) undermining the culture that sustains Enlightenment values; (4) disorganizing communities to disrupt civil society. Mass migration is organized by the power elite in conjunction with religious organizations seeking congregants. These religious organizations are working with the cartels to organize caravans to assail the southern border. Migration and offshoring are both part of globalization.

      China is a totalitarian state seeking to take over the world’s supply chains in conjunction with TNCs in order to reconfigure labor markets. China is the contemporary equivalent of Nazi Germany just prior to war. They are pursuing genocide even before the war starts. The Chinese workforce is comprised of serfs manufacturing cheap products for global distribution. You do not respect states with this attitude. You isolate them and aid those forces internal to it in fomenting revolution from below. The fact that you and many others have a confused understanding of the threat China poses is evidence that supports my analysis.

    1. My argument moves on the ground of concrete reality—the actual history of capitalist development and its deformation into corporatism. The TNC is reorganizing the world and reorganization from above is always to benefit the power elite. The modern nation state is a unique moment in history where the middle classes alongside the proletariat and the peasant overthrew the aristocracy and absolutism and established a political order through which Enlightenment values of humanism, liberalism, rational jurisprudence, and secularism flowed. It produced the greatest, most prosperous, and freest civilization in world history. Slavery was abolished. Women were emancipated. And a myriad of other actually progressive achievements realized. All this is being dismantled by transnational corporate power.

      You support the policies that are that dismantling and try to reimagine them as good things. You see the politics that resist the dismantling as bad. The fascist has borrowed deeply in your head and turned reality upside-down.

      Utopia literally means “nowhere.” In a global order, you will be nowhere. You will have no country. You cannot never be a refugee. You will own nothing. You will enjoy no privacy. And, according to the World Economic Forum, you will be happy. That’s utopia. It’s an Orwellian nightmare world. It is already being deployed.

  2. Thank you for this discussion and sorry for my last response, despite my being right, you were winning this debate!
    I came here through an obscure WordPress search so was clearly looking for a fight.
    I don’t see fascism as the chief evil in this time, but something more like complacency. As you say we reap a rich reward for the way our countries and government systems have matured, but we have much to lose. The displaced person shuttled between Turkey and Belarus has nothing to lose and everything to gain, and will most likely die cold and hungry, but perhaps lives, or lived more vividly than us keyboard wariors.
    I identify more with the foreign adventurer than with the worried householder so I am a bit of a misfit.
    I am sorry again if I’ve taken you a little off topic.
    Best wishes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.