I’m pleased to welcome Bob Bauer to the ELB Book Corner, writing about his new book, The Unraveling. Here is the first of three guest posts:
Since the publication of my book, The Unraveling, I have been asked why, during this norm crushing experience with Donald Trump, I chose to ground my reflection in a fair degree of professional self-criticism. The objection goes something like this: whatever second thoughts you have had on positions taken or advice given, your sins and those associated with Trump’s brand of politics must be weighed on different scales.
I note, first, that my self-examination only goes so far. There are controversial positions I’ve taken, say, on money and politics, which have not changed radically over the years. I continue to believe that continued reliance on the post-Watergate model of campaign finance regulation is mistaken (and futile).
However, on other topics, it seems to me that if we are going to have a productive debate about reviving the norms of democratic politics the conversation should open with some show of humility. When will-to- win becomes overpowering, because the issues are deemed existential, ends are soon supposed to justify the means. Both parties can fall into this trap, though one of them—Trump’s—sees this not as a trap but as the portal through which to march to political dominance.
I suggest in the book that norms are upheld or weakened as a result of individual choices that all those in political or government positions make. A norm is an abstraction, made meaningful by what an actor chooses to do in particular circumstances. How actors make these choices defines an ethical politics, and a politics devoid of ethics is not really “democratic politics.” I share the view expressed by the political theorist Bernard Crick in his “defense of politics: that “to act morally in politics is to consider the results of one’s actions,” and that “however convinced [men and women are] of the rightness of their party, they must compromise its claims to the needs of some electoral and legal framework.”
I offer the example from early in my career of the Democrats making a run at bringing the Internal Revenue Service into the business of containing “negative” campaign speech for which then-available tax credits would be denied. They did not care for negative campaigning, in large part because they did not care for the success of these attacks in the Republican resurgence culminating in the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan. Putting the IRS in the middle of judging the ‘negative” quality of campaign speech was a dreadful idea. The proposal went nowhere but my advocacy of this proposal reflected ethical tone deafness. And— with qualifications—the same goes for the use of the RICO statute to undermine then majority whip Tom DeLay’s plans to spend massive “soft” money to retain Republican control of the body.
To address these issues forthrightly is not by any means to engage in “moral equivalency.” I am second to none in my disgust with Trumpist political attacks on democratic norms and institutions. But the book looks to the common ground that Democrats and Republicans can find to resist the worst of what this kind of politics, and an unethical politics more generally, portends for the health of the democracy. In The Unraveling, I address urgently needed short-term and longer-term responses to the currently troubled state of democratic self-governance, including presidential abuse of power, the controversies over the Supreme Court, the rise in the resort to the impeachment process, and the challenge to professional, nonpartisan election administration. I describe my involvement in those projects, working with any and all who share these concerns, while remaining a very committed Democrat.
