Skip to main content

Getting In Touch With Your Negative Partisanship

 Our country is in a dark place. How dark it ultimately gets remains to be seen, but optimism would be foolish. So would despair, which can be incapacitating.

Yes, RBG’s death is a kick in the teeth, but it’s also an enormous distraction. All the machinations to replace her — when, how, and by whom — are going to play out in their own time, no matter what we do. The only certainty is that Mitch McConnell will do what he thinks best for him.

Dwelling on the possible scenarios will only make us crazy, and our influence over events is limited. There are plenty of shiny objects demanding our attention, so let’s not chase too many.

Because this is still, above all, about the election. No matter what we do, say, think, or fight about, this is the prize we absolutely must keep our eyes on.

If Democrats can take over the Congress and the presidency, much of what’s happening now can be mitigated. But right now, the only thing that matters is removing these criminals from office.

And to do this, I’m afraid we’ll need to let hate into our hearts. If it’s not there already.

The prime motivator of the current electorate is what Rachel Bitecofer calls “negative partisanship.” But she’s being scholarly and polite. The real word for it is hate.  

Ms. Bitecofer is a political scientist with serious analytical chops, who has become, in recent months, one of the go-to people for electoral analysis. She has parsed most of the available data from the 2018 mid-terms, and called bullshit on the conventional wisdom.

That wisdom says it was the Democratic strategy — ignoring Trump, while focusing exclusively on healthcare and “kitchen table” issues — that drove record turnout, which swept Democrats into power on a righteous blue wave.

Bitecofer shows that the wave came in spite of that strategy, not because of it. That the record turnout — on both sides — was the whole point. And that the turnout was driven, not by issues, but by negative partisanship. Each side felt the other was destroying their way of life. They still do.

Wave elections don’t come along that often, but when they do, they’re always fueled by extreme negative partisanship.

In other words, it was all about Trump. Hate him or love him. There were few shades of gray. Yes, healthcare was on our minds, but it was Trump-hate that turned us out to vote.

In recent history, Democrats have usually had the numbers to win, but they turn out too sporadically for their own good. Republicans have fewer numbers, but they turn out religiously. And yes, Republicans had their own record turnout in 2018, just not enough to overcome the wave of Democrats.

So if the mid-terms are a guide — and there’s every reason to think this next wave will be even bigger — Bitecofer says:

“The 2020 election will be a battle of the bases, with nothing less than the country’s survival as a functional democracy on the ballot. Partisanship is a hell of a drug—especially when it’s cut with a heavy dose of existential fear.”

I know that drug. I know how it got me going in 2018. Yes, I was concerned about all the life-altering issues at stake. But with the benefit of hindsight, I can see they were secondary to my fear and loathing of Trump. And if I thought I hated him two years ago, I look back now and I’m appalled by my naivete. The drug is kicking in right now.

Republican voters are similarly driven. They have been conditioned to think of Democrats as godless pedophiles who will turn this country over to hordes of immigrant rapists and rampaging minorities, all of them invading the suburbs.

We can’t change their minds, so don’t even try. But we can learn from their hate.

Democrats don’t do hate very well. Hate embarrasses us. It’s too extreme, too visceral, and we’re generally people of moderation.

Real hate is as intense as love. Both live in the gut, both can cause gastric distress. Both can motivate.

The implication of Bitecofer’s work is that the only issue on the table is Trump, and it’s folly to focus on anything else. There is no better strategy we can come up with than a stomach-churning hatred of Donald Trump. We have no recourse but to embrace that hate and channel it. To use every weapon available to us to make him go away.

Each of us needs to figure out how to put the hate to constructive use. At a bare minimum, we need to give our own votes the best possible chance of being counted.

This is not a given. This is the first election, certainly in my lifetime, where the actual voting is not a no-brainer. Between the virus, the election chaos, and the breakdown of our system of government, there’s real work involved.

We each need to assess the options available in our state, understand the rules, and consider the risks both to our vote and to our health. We each need to weigh the odds and plan accordingly.

Because overwhelming turnout is mandatory. You don’t need to stress about issues. You don’t need to obsess on the Supreme Court. You don’t need to binge-watch MSNBC. You already know what you need to know.

As the Beatles might have said under these circumstances, all you need is loathe.

 

Berkley MI

Friday 09/25/20

Comments

  1. For at least six months my slogan has been, "hate Trump OUT LOUD at least once a day." It is helpful. Give it a try.
    Nice piece today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have plenty of "loathe" and I wake up pissed off every day by default, so I think I'm good to go. Thanks for the words of encouragement.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So when Elise Stefanik was given several thousand words in two major papers, my curiosity was duly piqued. The two pieces ( here and here ) are similar profiles of Stefanik, age 38, and her remarkable transformation from Harvard-educated “moderate” Republican, to ultra-MAGA ideologue. The subhead of the Times article states the theme of both: To rise through the Trump-era G.O.P., a young congresswoman gave up her friends, her mentors and her ideals. So how does a double feature like this happen, especially when there’s no immediate news driving it? Stefanik was not in the spotlight, though it was clear she would soon be taking a leading role in the new GOP House majority. So it could just be the coincidence of two reporters intuitively seizing on the same story. It happens. But it could also be that Stefanik herself, working with a clever publicist, set o

The Trump-Putin Bromance is Getting Another Look

The arrest last week of Charles McGonigal, former head of counterintelligence for the FBI, may or may not prove to be a watershed moment in our understanding of the Trump-Putin conspiracy. It’s still early, and the depths of the story have yet to be plumbed. So I’m not going to weigh in on that (you can read about it here ), except to note that people who’ve been watching the Trump-Russia show for over a decade are now going back to their notes and timelines, looking at old events in light of new information. And the more we all look, the more the miasma of Russian subterfuge stinks up every narrative. If a murderous oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, could actually recruit the FBI agent who’d investigated him — which the McGonigal affair will apparently show — who knows what else was going on? There is, I think, the need for some sort of “unified field theory” of the Trump-Putin relationship. There is much that we’re missing on at least three separate tracks of that bizarre bromance: Tru

Another Rousing Comeback for Antisemitism

I was in my late twenties in the late seventies, a single man sitting in a piano bar on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It was St. Patrick’s Day, and I was in friendly conversation with an older Irish couple, there to celebrate their history. He wore a green tie, she a green blouse. Alcohol was involved. The conversation was free flowing, as random encounters with amiable strangers can be. When the talk turned to history, which can happen on St. Patrick’s Day, I put forth the notion — stolen, I think, from a Leon Uris novel I’d recently read — that the Irish and the Jews had much in common, that their shared history of oppression bonded them, that their experience of suffering and privation was deeply imbued in both their cultures. Not an especially profound insight, but the husband — to the surprise not just of me, but of his wife as well — was having none of it. In his sloshed but strident state, he insisted that the suffering of Jews couldn’t possibly be compared to what the I