Sunday, January 24, 2016

"I Am Most Seriously Displeased"

Nine days from the Iowa caucuses – and barely two weeks before the New Hampshire primary – the Establishment is most seriously displeased.

Despite repeated scoldings, the American people seem increasingly inclined to nominate a couple of rank outsiders – Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump – as the candidates of two parties whose elites regard them as entirely unsuitable.    

Yet, for Democratic voters at least, the scoldings go on.

The media wing of the Establishment has tried radically different strategies to quell the Sanders and Trump insurgencies.

With Mr. Trump, it tried over-exposure, providing him with a level of coverage an incumbent President could envy.  Every boast, every insult, every politically-incorrect utterance was broadcast and rebroadcast – presumably in hopes that Mr. Trump’s supporters would see their folly and repent. 

Thus far, of course, the blanket coverage has only saved Mr. Trump from having to dip into his personal billions to buy advertising.  The Establishment media have provided him with a king’s ransom in free PR, and his numbers have grown steadily as a result.

The Establishment media tried the opposite tack with Senator Sanders.  Focusing on the “inevitability” of Hillary Clinton, they tried to ignore Sanders’ growing crowds.  As small-dollar contributions rolled in from hundreds of thousands of Bernie supporters, they sought to ignore that, too.

For as long as they could, they ignored polls showing that Bernie was catching up to Hillary in New Hampshire – then in Iowa.  Once those polls became impossible to ignore, they began trying to minimize the importance of the first two states, characterizing them as “too liberal” and “too white” to reflect the real Democratic Party.

Finally, when nothing else seemed to work, the media Establishment largely gave up on Mr. Trump.  They still cover him, of course, but without much apparent expectation that the Republican core voter will repent.  That voter doesn’t much care for the mainstream media, and not even the sternest lecture seems likely to deter him or her from anointing the Donald as winner in the first two contests.

On the Democratic side, the Establishment has redoubled its efforts to save the faltering campaign of Mrs. Clinton.  Having tried everything else, the Establishment has adopted the strategy best exemplified by Jane Austen’s creation, Lady Catherine de Bourgh.

For those a bit rusty on their Pride and Prejudice, Lady Catherine is a domineering old dowager who is determined to prevent the rumored engagement of her aristocratic nephew, Mr. Darcy, with the spunky, middle-class Elizabeth Bennet.

Her strategy involves paying a surprise visit to the Bennet home, where she confronts Elizabeth and insists that she give up all pretensions to marrying the very eligible Mr. Darcy. 

To relish the brilliance of this delicious scene, I refer the reader to Chapter 56 – or, if he or she has thus far neglected it, to the entirety of Pride and Prejudice.  But for a taste of Lady Catherine’s tactics, please sample the following:

“Obstinate, headstrong girl!  I am ashamed of you!  Is this your gratitude for my attentions to you last spring?  Is nothing due to me on that score? … You are to understand, Miss Bennet, that I came here with the determined resolution of carrying my purpose; nor will I be dissuaded from it.  I have not been used to submit to any person’s whims.  I have not been in the habit of brooking disappointment.”

Having thus begun, Lady Catherine goes on to alternate between insulting Elizabeth’s modest rank in society, and urging her to consult her own best interests by not antagonizing Mr. Darcy’s class-conscious friends and relations.

The result, of course, is the opposite of what Lady Catherine intends.  Elizabeth, who has given up the dream of Mr. Darcy, is encouraged to hope.  And when Darcy hears of her stubborn refusal to renounce him, he makes up his mind to propose. 

The Establishment media – bolstered by the political science establishment – are now engaged in precisely the tactics embraced by Lady Catherine de Bourgh.  With ill-disguised hauteur, they are warning those considering a vote for Bernie Sanders not to presume too far.  

The key word in the Establishment's arsenal is “pragmatic”.  Like Elizabeth Bennet, Americans are scolded not to hope for too much.  Universal health care, affordable college education, a living minimum wage, guaranteed parental leave, serious legislation to curb carbon emissions – these demands are not possible in the Establishment’s version of reality.

Tut-tut!   Remember your place.  Be patient.  Be pragmatic.  Trust the Establishment.  Accept incremental progress.  

Above all, listen to your betters.  This Sanders business has been all very well, but don’t even think about nominating him.

In departing from the unyielding Miss Bennet, Lady Catherine fired this Parthian shot.  “I am most seriously displeased.”

Do the American people dare to risk the serious displeasure of the Establishment?

Stay tuned.

4 comments:

sunt_lacrimae_rerum said...

Vary nice. I've spotted John Thorpe, Sir Walter Elliot, Henry Crawford, and Wickham amongst the candidates.

Anonymous said...

I think many Democratic voters know we're not going to get the things we want with Republicans controlling (at least) the House. The question is what will the next President fight for in a long rearguard action? As I see it, Clinton will hold the line on race and gender but will deal with Big Money and the Military Industrial Complex. Sanders will do his best to avoid military entanglements and to slow the takeover of the country by moneyed interests but will not have access to Clinton's network of business, government and diplomatic connections and his executive branch may not work for him. Neither will get us the things we want, neither is a bad choice in the circumstances, whatever the Establishment may say.

- Doug Hill

'Rick Gray said...

I've posted your comments, Doug, out of my great respect for you. But please note, I am not a "Democratic voter". After a long life, alternating between being inside and outside of the political world, I have reached the conclusion that the problem with American politics is not the Left or the Right - not one party or the other - but the whole narrow "political science" paradigm which seeks to reduce all questions and answers to a two-dimensional "spectrum". This perspective virtually guarantees deadlock - two opposing vectors meeting square-on, producing a great deal of heat, but rather little light.

And no solutions.

So I will support and vote for Bernie - who is really an independent. And I will work for a third party. But I will not vote for Hillary, if she's the nominee, nor for any other Democrat for Congress or the Senate.

I'm not interested in rear-guard actions, or even slogging advances. Our political system reminds me of the Western Front between 1914 and 1917. Or the game of football before someone decided to throw a forward pass.

And I'm not playing any more.

Anonymous said...

Rick, I've been reading your work for a while and you've been very consistent in this respect. I'm sorry I failed to note that I didn't include you as one of us.

The best I expect is muddling through, but I'll cheer the pass if I recognize it. Probably change will come in a form I'm slow to pick up on.

No need to publish this.

- Doug