Andrew Sullivan is blind: It’s elitists who helped give rise to America’s neo-fascist movement

[applegrove]

Andrew Sullivan is blind: It’s elitists who helped give rise to America’s neo-fascist movement

Mike Logfren, Bill Moyers at Salon

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/27/andrew_sullivan_is_blind_its_elitists_who_gave_rise_to_trumpism_partner/

"SNIP...............


Sullivan employs the arguments of a profoundly anti-democratic elitist who held that wise philosopher kings ought to rule over the riffraff. But is his specific charge true that too much democracy is responsible for Trump’s Mongol devastation of the Party of Lincoln, allegedly because during the 1970s the parties adopted direct primaries as a substitute for the selection of candidates by party bosses? The evidence is wanting.

Hyperdemocracy or Elective Oligarchy?

Let us suppose our presidential nominees were still chosen for us via the smoke-filled room (a method known in Sullivan’s mother country as the old-boy system). In 2016, on the Democratic side, our nominee would be Hillary Clinton. On the GOP side it would be Jeb Bush, a truly exciting prospect. In reality, of course, we have the direct primary system, but it has hardly given rise to a mob-instigated revolution: for 28 of the last 36 years, a Bush or a Clinton has occupied the presidency or the vice presidency, and we still have in Hillary the thrilling potential for a further eight years of the same dynastic dyad.

The other institutional features of Sullivan’s alleged hyperdemocracy do not strike one as particularly Jacobin. Gerrymandering has achieved such perfection that in many congressional districts it denies a large number of voters fair representation. Wherever they run state governments, Republicans have engaged in shortening voting times, closing DMV offices, requiring onerous identification procedures and other measures to suppress voting by constituencies they dislike. The population of California is 66 times that of Wyoming, and both states elect two US senators. These arrangements do not resemble the systems of highly democratic states like Finland or New Zealand, but they would fit comfortably within the Whig oligarchy of 18th-century England. The Electoral College is an archaic system that inflates the power of small states. The conventional wisdom is that “it has served us well,” but it has not: four times (1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000) it elected the candidate with fewer popular votes.

Sullivan might object that in any case he is not arguing in favor of majoritarian democracy. But would he suggest that the travesty of 2000, when the philosopher kings of the Supreme Court chose a president too stupid and incurious to pay attention to an intelligence briefing warning of imminent attack on the United States, was a better outcome than obeying the will of the people?



...............SNIP"

[tenderfoot]

1. Andrew Sullivan's track record rivals William Kristol for accuracy.

For the life of me - I don't get what people see in him. He's never been right about anything either.

[malaise]

2. +1,000

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Sullivan was an Iraq War proponent and harsh critic of anyone who opposed that invasion

Oh how he attacked everybody who was right while touting every right wing hack starting with Cheney as profoundly skilled and trustworthy people. Later when he had to retract all of that he claimed he was so sorry that he'd never stop apologizing but within a week he was back to pontificating through the hold in his hat and presuming for himself some great authority.
If there was a rule by elites, Sully would not make the cut.

[Fumesucker]

4. What color is Sully's blog this week?