Lose Honestly and Gracefully – CounterPunch.org

After electoral defeats, political writers are quick to explain that if only politicians had read My book and follow-up My advice, things would have been different on our side.

My argument is a little different. Please read It’s questionable: speaking authentically about sensitive topicsbut not for a winning electoral strategy.

If candidates opposed to reactionary authoritarian nationalism had defended the positions I support, Trump and like-minded Republicans would still have taken control of all three branches of the U.S. government. But at least Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party, and activists further to the left (the category I place myself in) would have lost gracefully by being more honest.

The book begins with an analysis of contemporary intellectual culture (defined in a non-snobbish way, not just by college graduates, but by the way we think together) before tackling three hot topics in current politics: race and white supremacy, gender. /gender and the trans movement, and the economic implications of an ecological worldview.

On race: I have no qualms about criticizing the jargon and arrogance of some anti-racist activists and acknowledging the failures of many institutionalized DEI programs, arguments that may have resonated with some white people who voted for Trump. But I also argue that the United States remains a white supremacist culture and that we white people have an obligation to change. Such a “message” would not have earned Democrats many blank votes.

On sex/gender: Mainstream feminism in the United States has gone all-in on the demands of the trans movement, even though that movement has never offered a coherent vision of transgender. The Republicans have effectively exploited this inconsistency. For a decade, I have articulated a feminist challenge to transgender ideology, a position that would have made Democrats a more credible voice for women’s rights. But because my analysis is rooted in a radical feminist critique of institutionalized male domination, it is sure to frighten many conservative voters.

On environmentalism: Almost without exception, politicians of all stripes advocate economic growth. The debate generally focuses on which policies are likely to be most effective. When the population increases in the United States, the most common concern is the declining birth rate, not the problem of overpopulation. I argue that human survival depends on “less and less” – a dramatic reduction in population and a dramatic reduction in overall consumption, with measures taken to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth. I don’t know of any politician, regardless of party, who is confronted with the reality that the future of humanity – if there is to be a human future – depends on our ability to shrink the economy, and not to develop it.

I realize that my arguments about race and sex/gender are radioactive in some circles, and that demanding an environmental balance sheet guarantees being ignored by almost everyone in the mainstream. If the unsuccessful center/liberal/left candidates had adopted these positions, they likely would have lost by larger margins than they did. But at least they would have lost gracefully, making principled arguments that might not carry the day politically, but would offer a model for honestly addressing difficult issues.

If I can’t promise near-term electoral success, why should we bother with these critical perspectives? This is a reasonable question, given that electoral success matters. I don’t believe any of today’s politicians can magically solve our problems, but the politicians who set policy today can either reduce the chances of a decent human future or leave a gap of hope.

My only answer: The responses I’ve received to the book tell me that there are people – not a majority, or even a significant minority right now – who are facing difficult questions and want space to explore this kind of politics without fear of being harassed. or insulted. It is possible that from this small group, a more honest and more gracious policy will be possible.