Publisher's Note — November 11, 2019, 2:34 pm

A Fatal Rift

“In her quest for her party’s nomination, has Warren concluded a non-aggression pact with Hillary Clinton?”

A version of this column originally ran in Le Devoir on November 4, 2019. Translated from the French by John Cullen.

Donald Trump exhibits such vileness, such putrescence, that his decay can obscure other, equally harmful instances of rot among those so-called decent people who oppose the president. Although anti-Trump media outlets proclaim their disgust at each new revelation about Trump’s effort to manipulate Ukraine—an affair that likewise makes obvious the corruption in the Republican Party—a violent drama that may prolong the Trumpian nightmare is occurring within the Democratic Party.

This drama is surfacing, oddly, on the left, a segment of the political and ideological spectrum generally ignored in the United States. If you’re on the left in American politics, it’s usually seen as an admission that you’re not serious—that you take positions on principle and not in the hope of actually coming to power. Save for Communist support for the New Deal in the mid-1930s, there has never been a sustained Popular Front in American history, no Léon Blum or Jean Jaurès (as in France), no Ernest Bevin or even a Harold Wilson (as in England). Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt were sometime leftists, but they were leftists of necessity not of philosophy.

However, the breakthrough of two overtly left-wing presidential candidates, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, has ignited a furious conflict in a party that claims to be on the side of workers but, for the past twenty-five years, has been dominated by the interests of Wall Street and large corporations. So far, the Democratic Party barons haven’t dared to confront Sanders directly, for fear of offending his supporters. But behold Hillary Clinton, doyenne of the old regime, who has just declared war on the insurgent faction in her party with an attack against Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Hawaii and also a candidate for the presidency. Mrs. Clinton’s accusation, announced on a podcast, seems surprising, not to say absurd. Gabbard, according to Clinton, is a “favorite of the Russians” whom the Republicans “are grooming . . . to be the third-party candidate” in 2020 in order to again destabilize our election and thus hand Trump a second term. Clinton wants people believe that she was beaten in 2016 because of Russian interference rather than for the more obvious reason that blue-collar workers in the Midwest were disappointed in the Democratic Party generally—and in Clintonian neoliberalism especially.

Although Gabbard is a marginal candidate, Clinton’s tactics are, upon consideration, understandable. Gabbard (a major in the Army who served in Iraq, which Clinton voted to invade) is very much opposed to military intervention and supported Sanders’s 2016 candidacy against Clinton and the Democratic oligarchy; Clinton seems to be trying both to settle accounts with Gabbard and to damage Sanders. But the story is still more complicated, for the left isn’t in complete solidarity. Gabbard responded frankly to Clinton’s attack: “Thank you @Hillary Clinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.” For his part, Sanders defended his onetime ally: “It is outrageous for anyone to suggest that Tulsi is a foreign asset.” On the other hand, Elizabeth Warren, considered by some to be Sanders’s ideological replica, hasn’t said a word about the Clinton–Gabbard quarrel. And it’s here that the seeds of failure in the crusade against Trump have been sown, seeds that could blossom into a full-scale war between Democratic Party apparatchiks and reformers.

In 2015, while the search was on for a progressive candidate to stymie Clinton’s candidacy and to succeed the excessively calm Barack Obama, Warren refused the invitation. When Sanders launched his fairly implausible, audacious candidacy against Clinton, the senator from Massachusetts refrained from taking sides, refusing to support either Sanders or Clinton until Sanders conceded, in June 2016. At the time, it was a spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, Lindsay Walters, who commented on the irony of Warren’s offering Clinton her support: “By endorsing Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren has shown herself to be a sellout. Whether it’s the Wall Street speech transcripts she refuses to release, her ties to the fossil fuel industry, or coziness with big banks, Hillary Clinton represents everything Elizabeth Warren supposedly stands against.” Walters was stating what many in the Sanders camp thought but wouldn’t say aloud.

In fact, Elizabeth Warren has always chosen prudence over confrontation in her relations with the Democratic machine. A person who is ultra-respectful of party protocols, she even signed (according to the New York Times) a promise, demanded by the official Democratic committees in each of the fifty states, that she would not create a parallel political organization—would not, that is, do any poaching on the rich terrain of party patronage. The official Democratic Party—sustained by a wealthy sector that is nonetheless “progressive” on questions of morals, race, and gender—detests Sanders in part because he has created a pressure group, Our Revolution, that operates in direct competition with the Democratic National Committee. Sanders obviously wants to overthrow the party aristocracy, which has a clear preference for Joe Biden, or even for Warren, should Biden continue to stumble.

In her quest for her party’s nomination, has Warren concluded a non-aggression pact with Hillary Clinton? NBC News reports that the two women frequently converse by telephone; Warren’s silence on the subject of Tulsi Gabbard indicates at least an entente cordiale. If Warren doesn’t take a clear stand in favor of the militants on the left, her maneuverings will appear to be a betrayal of Sanders and of reform. And as in 2016, the blood will flow, to Trump’s advantage.

Share
Single Page

More from John R. MacArthur:

Publisher's Note February 14, 2020, 9:28 pm

The “Affair”

“I was immediately struck by the fundamental difference between the ‘seventh art’ and literature.”

Publisher's Note February 12, 2020, 10:47 am

On Book Events

Publisher's Note December 13, 2019, 5:40 pm

The Art of Persuasion

“Making fun of the negative interest rates offered by some European banks, Trump sniggered, ‘Give me some of that…I want some of that money.’ In my corner of the hall, around table 121, several merry-faced brokers and accountants applauded.”

Get access to 169 years of
Harper’s for only $23.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

March 2020

The Old Normal

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Out of Africa

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Waiting for the End of the World

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In Harm’s Way

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Fifth Step

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

A View to a Krill

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Old Normal·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Addressing the graduating cadets at West Point in May 1942, General George C. Marshall, then the Army chief of staff, reduced the nation’s purpose in the global war it had recently joined to a single emphatic sentence. “We are determined,” he remarked, “that before the sun sets on this terrible struggle, our flag will be recognized throughout the world as a symbol of freedom on the one hand and of overwhelming force on the other.”

At the time Marshall spoke, mere months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, U.S. forces had sustained a string of painful setbacks and had yet to win a major battle. Eventual victory over Japan and Germany seemed anything but assured. Yet Marshall was already looking beyond the immediate challenges to define what that victory, when ultimately— and, in his view, inevitably—achieved, was going to signify.

This second world war of the twentieth century, Marshall understood, was going to be immense and immensely destructive. But if vast in scope, it would be limited in duration. The sun would set; the war would end. Today no such expectation exists. Marshall’s successors have come to view armed conflict as an open-ended proposition. The alarming turn in U.S.–Iranian relations is another reminder that war has become normal for the United States.

Article
Waiting for the End of the World·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

1.

A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he.

I rose long before dawn, too thrilled to sleep, and set off to find my tribe. North from Greenville in the dark, past towns with names like Sans Souci and Travelers Rest, over the border into North Carolina, through land so choked by kudzu that the overgrown trees in the dark looked like great creatures petrified in mid-flight. The weirdness of this scene would, by the end of the weekend, show itself to be appropriate: my trip would be all about romanticism, and romanticism is a human collision with place that results, as Baudelaire put it, “neither in choice of subject nor exact truth, but in a way of feeling.” My rental car’s engine whined as it climbed the mountains. Day was just breaking when I nosed down a hill to Orchard Lake Campground, where tents were still being erected in the dimness.

Article
The Fifth Step·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Harold Jamieson, once chief engineer of New York City’s sanitation department, enjoyed retirement. He knew from his small circle of friends that some didn’t, so he considered himself lucky. He had an acre of garden in Queens that he shared with several like-minded horticulturists, he had discovered Netflix, and he was making inroads in the books he’d always meant to read. He still missed his wife—a victim of breast cancer five years previous—but aside from that persistent ache, his life was quite full. Before rising every morning, he reminded himself to enjoy the day. At sixty-eight, he liked to think he had a fair amount of road left, but there was no denying it had begun to narrow.

The best part of those days—assuming it wasn’t raining, snowing, or too cold—was the nine-block walk to Central Park after breakfast. Although he carried a cell phone and used an electronic tablet (had grown dependent on it, in fact), he still preferred the print version of the Times. In the park, he would settle on his favorite bench and spend an hour with it, reading the sections back to front, telling himself he was progressing from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Article
Out of Africa·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

1. In 2014, Deepti Gurdasani, a genetic epidemiologist at the Wellcome Sanger Institute in England, coauthored a paper in Nature on human genetic variation in Africa, from which this image is taken. A recent study had found that DNA from people of European descent made up 96 percent of genetic samples worldwide, reflecting the historical tendency among scientists and doctors to view the male, European body as a global archetype. “There wasn’t very much data available from Africa at all,” Gurdasani told me. To help rectify the imbalance, her research team collected samples from eighteen African ethnolinguistic groups across the continent—such as the Kalenjin of Uganda and the Oromo of Ethiopia—most of whom had not previously been included in genomic research. They analyzed the data using an admixture algorithm, which visualizes the statistical genetic differences among groups by representing them as color clusters. The top chart shows genetic differences among the sampled African populations, in increasing degrees of granularity from top to bottom, and the bottom chart shows how they compare with ethnic groups in the rest of the world. The areas where the colors mix and overlap imply that groups commingled. The Yoruba, for instance, show remarkable homogeneity—their column is almost entirely green and purple—while the Kalenjin seem to have associated with many populations across the continent.

Article
In Harm’s Way·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Ten yards was the nearest we could get to the river. Any closer and the smell was too much to bear. The water was a milky gray color, as if mixed with ashes, and the passage of floating trash was ceaseless. Plastic bags and bottles, coffee lids, yogurt cups, flip-flops, and sodden stuffed animals drifted past, coated in yellow scum. Amid the old tires and mattresses dumped on the riverbank, mounds of rank green weeds gave refuge to birds and grasshoppers, which didn’t seem bothered by the fecal stench.

El Río de los Remedios, or the River of Remedies, runs through the city of Ecatepec, a densely populated satellite of Mexico City. Confined mostly to concrete channels, the river serves as the main drainage line for the vast monochrome barrios that surround the capital. That day, I was standing on a stretch of the canal just north of Ecatepec, with a twenty-three-year-old photographer named Reyna Leynez. Reyna was the one who’d told me about the place and what it represents. This ruined river, this open sewer, is said to be one of the largest mass graves in Mexico.

Cost of renting a giant panda from the Chinese government, per day:

$1,500

A recent earthquake in Chile was found to have shifted the city of Concepción ten feet to the west, shortened Earth’s days by 1.26 microseconds, and shifted the planet’s axis by nearly three inches.

The commissioner of CPB admitted that “leadership just got a little overzealous” when detaining hundreds of U.S. citizens of Iranian descent in the wake of Qassem Soleimani’s assassination.

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

HARPER’S FINEST

Jesus Plus Nothing

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

At Ivanwald, men learn to be leaders by loving their leaders. “They’re so busy loving us,” a brother once explained to me, “but who’s loving them?” We were. The brothers each paid $400 per month for room and board, but we were also the caretakers of The Cedars, cleaning its gutters, mowing its lawns, whacking weeds and blowing leaves and sanding. And we were called to serve on Tuesday mornings, when The Cedars hosted a regular prayer breakfast typically presided over by Ed Meese, the former attorney general. Each week the breakfast brought together a rotating group of ambassadors, businessmen, and American politicians. Three of Ivanwald’s brothers also attended, wearing crisp shirts starched just for the occasion; one would sit at the table while the other two poured coffee. 

Subscribe Today