Publisher's Note — December 10, 2018, 3:23 pm

A New Day?

“The Democratic Party is best understood as an assemblage of baronies, the three most important of which—California, New York, and Illinois—dole out the most patronage and political favors in return for filling the party’s coffers and guaranteeing the reelection of its most cherished adherents.”

A version of this column originally ran in Le Devoir on December 3, 2018. Translated from the French by John Cullen.

Now that the midterm elections are over, one wonders: What is the Democratic Party? Having regained a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, the Democrats—supposedly the party of the people—are quite pleased with themselves for breaking the thuggish president’s stranglehold on the Constitution and American democracy. On election night, Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats’ leader in the House, declared, “Tomorrow will be a new day in America.” The militantly Democratic television hosts Chris Cuomo (CNN) and Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) were downright merry, and since the midterms, their denunciations of Trump have sounded more and more confident, as if his destruction were imminent.

In fact, we’re still in the shadowlands: Trump remains president, the Republicans have increased their majority in the Senate, and the country is divided between warring camps that are more acrimonious than ever. But the most piercing post-election irony is that the “opposition party” continues to be led by a pair of oligarchs. Nancy Pelosi has headed the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives for the past fifteen years; in the upper chamber, Senator Charles Schumer has faithfully served the party machine’s interests since 1999. In short, the nation’s “new day” will be presided over by two veteran politicians who, together with the Clintons and Barack Obama, share much of the blame for Donald Trump’s accession to power.

It’s true that Pelosi voted against the invasion of Iraq in 2002, and that Schumer, while still a congressman representing New York’s 9th District, voted against NAFTA in 1993. Nevertheless, these liberal gestures figure among the very rare occasions when the two demonstrated anything like independence of thought vis-à-vis the diktats of their party’s dominant faction. For the most part military interventionists and supporters of deregulation for Wall Street and the big banks, Pelosi and Schumer are anything but left-wing reformers. On the other hand, in the sphere that counts the most—the funding of Democratic election campaigns by the financial sector and Silicon Valley—their conduct has been impeccable.

One has to hope that a trio of senators (Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Sherrod Brown) will advance a program that’s fairer to workers, who have lost so much since the 1980s, while the rich have grown steadily richer, thanks in part to the entente cordiale between two Democratic presidents and their Republican counterparts. However, the Democratic Party is best understood as an assemblage of baronies, the three most important of which—California, New York, and Illinois—dole out the most patronage and political favors in return for filling the party’s coffers and guaranteeing the reelection of its most cherished adherents. With the dramatic decline of unions—accelerated by the Democratic-sponsored relocation of American industry to foreign countries—the Democrats’ relationship with the financial powers becomes more and more important.

New York is a clear example of this trade-off. Last month, Amazon, the gigantic business enterprise headed by the world’s richest man, announced plans to construct a new satellite headquarters in Long Island City, a neighborhood that forms part of the borough of Queens in New York City. This announcement was the result of a supposed competition, which required each of the competing cities to offer as incentives financial contributions—tax credits, infrastructure investments, publicly funded executive training, etc. The whole affair was conducted in the greatest secrecy in order to keep taxpayers in the dark about the expenses/expenditures being proposed in their name. And now we learn that New York State and New York City agreed to spend more than two billion dollars by way of encouraging Amazon to build there.

Malicious tongues are calling into question the appropriateness of offering bribes to a colossus already stuffed with cash, a colossus that moreover stands to profit handsomely from a well-trained labor force already firmly established in New York. At the same time, the residents of Long Island City, especially the poorest of them—mostly blacks and Hispanics living in low-cost public housing—wonder how they can get jobs paying $150,000 a year while hundreds of thousands of white and Asian workers are ready to jump in. Moreover, New York is already overcrowded with humans, vehicles, and enormous buildings, and the subways and the schools are in catastrophic shape.

No matter, say the Democratic heavyweights of New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio. Andrew Cuomo, who is the television journalist Chris Cuomo’s brother, cannot grovel enough before Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and has even declared his willingness to change his name to “Amazon Cuomo.” Bill de Blasio, a self-styled progressive, calls himself “pragmatic” in his sycophancy, so pragmatic that he’s thinking about subcontracting the management of a third of the city’s public housing—which is in a pitiful state at the moment and entangled in a scandal involving lead in its apartment paint—to private landlords.

Perhaps Trump’s real estate company could benefit from the largesse of the Democratic mayor. Why not? After all, it’s a new day in America.

Share
Single Page

More from John R. MacArthur:

Publisher's Note December 20, 2018, 5:05 pm

The Yellow Fault Line

The crisis in France is gnawing away at what’s left of the lower classes’ pride and possessions

Publisher's Note November 3, 2018, 12:02 am

All Bets Are Off

“I recommend neither the assertions of journalists and pollsters nor big headlines about terror attacks, murders, or caravans of desperate people as a basis for predicting the outcome of the midterm elections.”

Publisher's Note October 9, 2018, 11:53 am

Trading on Resentment

“The ‘free trade’ policies championed by US leaders from Reagan to Obama, most definitely including the Clintons, have produced many victims.”

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $23.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2019

“Tell Me How This Ends”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Without a Trace

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

What China Threat?

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Going to Extremes

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
What China Threat?·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within about fifteen years, China’s economy will surpass America’s and become the largest in the world. As this moment approaches, meanwhile, a consensus has formed in Washington that China poses a significant threat to American interests and well-­being. General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), has said that “China probably poses the greatest threat to our nation by about 2025.” The summary of America’s 2018 National Defense Strategy claims that China and Russia are “revisionist powers” seeking to “shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model—gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions.” Christopher Wray, the FBI director, has said, “One of the things we’re trying to do is view the China threat as not just a whole-­of-­government threat, but a whole-­of-­society threat . . . and I think it’s going to take a whole-­of-­society response by us.” So widespread is this notion that when Donald Trump launched his trade war against China, in January 2018, he received support even from moderate figures such as Democratic senator Chuck Schumer.

Shanghai Broadcasting Building, by Cui Jie (detail) © The artist. Courtesy private collection
Article
Without a Trace·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In December 2015, a twenty-­two-year-­old man named Masood Hotak left his home in Kabul, Afghanistan, and set out for Europe. For several weeks, he made his way through the mountains of Iran and the rolling plateaus of Turkey. When he reached the city of Izmir, on the Turkish coast, Masood sent a text message to his elder brother Javed, saying he was preparing to board a boat to Greece. Since the start of the journey, Javed, who was living in England, had been keeping tabs on his younger brother’s progress. As Masood got closer to the sea, Javed had felt increasingly anxious. Winter weather on the Aegean was unpredictable, and the ramshackle crafts used by the smugglers often sank. Javed had even suggested Masood take the longer, overland route, through Bulgaria, but his brother had dismissed the plan as excessively cautious.

Finally, on January 3, 2016, to Javed’s immense relief, Masood sent a series of celebratory Facebook messages announcing his arrival in Europe. “I reached Greece bro,” he wrote. “Safe. Even my shoes didn’t get wet.” Masood reported that his boat had come ashore on the island of Samos. In a few days, he planned to take a ferry to the Greek mainland, after which he would proceed across the European continent to Germany.

But then, silence. Masood stopped writing. At first, Javed was unworried. His brother, he assumed, was in the island’s detention facility, waiting to be sent to Athens with hundreds of other migrants. Days turned into weeks. Every time Javed tried Masood’s phone, the call went straight to voicemail. After a month passed with no word, it dawned on Javed that his brother was missing.

A screenshot of a December 2015 Facebook post by Masood Hotak (left), in Istanbul
Article
Going to Extremes·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

When Philip Benight awoke on January 26, 2017, he saw a bright glow. “Son of a bitch, there is a light,” he thought. He hoped it meant he had died. His mind turned to his wife, Becky: “Where are you?” he thought. “We have to go to the light.” He hoped Becky had died, too. Then he lost consciousness. When he opened his eyes again, Philip realized he wasn’t seeing heaven but overhead fluorescents at Lancaster General Hospital. He was on a hospital bed, with his arms restrained and a tube down his throat, surrounded by staff telling him to relax. He passed out again. The next time he came to, his arms and legs were free, but a drugged heaviness made it hard to move. A nurse told him that his wife was at another hospital—“for her safety”—even though she was also at Lancaster General. Soon after, two police officers arrived. They wanted to know why Becky was in a coma.

Three days earlier, Philip, who was sixty, tall and lanky, with owlish glasses and mustache, had picked up his wife from an HCR ­ManorCare nursing home. Becky had been admitted to the facility recently at the age of seventy-­two after yet another series of strokes. They drove to Darrenkamp’s grocery store and Philip bought their dinner, a special turkey sandwich for Becky, with the meat shaved extra thin. They ate in the car. Then, like every other night, they got ice cream from Burger King and drove to their home in Conestoga, a sparse hamlet in southern Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Philip parked in the driveway, and they sat in the car looking out at the fields that roll down to the Susquehanna River.

They listened to the radio until there was nothing more to do. Philip went into the house and retrieved a container of Kraft vanilla pudding, which he’d mixed with all the drugs he could find in the house—Valium, Klonopin, Percocet, and so on. He opened the passenger-­side door and knelt beside Becky. He held a spoon, and she guided it to her mouth. When Becky had eaten all the pudding, he got back into the driver’s seat and swallowed a handful of pills. Philip asked her how the pudding tasted. “Like freedom,” she said. As they lost consciousness, the winter chill seeped into their clothes and skin.

Illustration by Leigh Wells (detail)
Article
“Tell Me How This Ends”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

America in the Middle East: learning curves are for pussies.
—Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, June 2, 2015

In January 2017, following Donald Trump’s inauguration, his national security staffers entered their White House offices for the first time. One told me that when he searched for the previous administration’s Middle East policy files, the cupboard was bare. “There wasn’t an overarching strategy document for anywhere in the Middle East,” the senior official, who insisted on anonymity, told me in a coffee shop near the White House. “Not even on the ISIS campaign, so there wasn’t a cross-governmental game plan.”

Syrian Arab Red Crescent vehicles in eastern Ghouta, March 24, 2018 (detail) © Anas Alkharboutli/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Amount Arizona’s Red Feather Lodge offered to pay to reopen the Grand Canyon during the 2013 government shutdown:

$25,000

In England, a flutist stole 299 rare bird skins from an ornithology museum in order to pay for a new flute.

The 70th governor of Ohio was sworn in on nine Bibles, which were held by his wife.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today