by liberal japonicus
This started as thinking about pundits but has overflowed into a lot of other news. I had in mind the categories fellow travelers and useful idiots. These are pretty radioactive terms, and I welcome some alternatives, but absent any substitutes, I have to trudge on. As I understand it, fellow traveler was a term denoting people sympathetic to Communist thought in the 20s and 30s, but not officially part of the party. A useful idiot, on the other hand, is often posited to be from Lenin, but the OED traces it back the NYT in 1948. Wikipedia says "a pejorative description of a person, suggesting that the person thinks they are fighting for a cause without fully comprehending the consequences of their actions, and who does not realize they are being cynically manipulated by the cause's leaders or by other political players." Another thing that is interesting is that it seems like useful idiot is harsher than fellow traveler, at least to my ears.
As a first pass, NYT having a Gang of Four palaver about what's been happening, consisting of Ross Douthat, David French, Michelle Goldberg and Lydia Polgreen provides some data. Taking them in order, with some quotes,
Douthat
It’s a mistake to go all in on Harris, obviously, because she’s still the exceptionally weak candidate whose weaknesses made President Biden so loath to quit the field for her. Potential rivals like Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan are throwing away an unusual opportunity because they imagine some future opening for themselves — in 2028 and beyond — that may never materialize. And the party clearly has an interest in having a better-situated nominee: A swing-state governor who isn’t tied directly to an unpopular administration would be a much, much better choice for a high-stakes but still winnable race than a liberal Californian machine politician with zero track record of winning over moderate to conservative voters.
Fellow traveler vibes. How about David French?
It’s a gamble either way. Do you gamble that Harris is a better candidate than she was before and that, on balance, it’s better to unify now and go with the person who’s poised to take over? Or do you gamble that you can initiate a divisive and potentially chaotic selection process, unify immediately afterward and then make the new candidate a household name in three short months?
Useful idiot? This exchange between Polgreen and Douthat is comedy gold.
Polgreen: It is puzzling to see Ross increasingly appeal to moderation, because Harris is a moderate. This was one of the reasons her primary campaign failed. I’d love to know what she has to do to prove to anti-Trump conservatives that she is a moderate and why someone like Whitmer or Shapiro is assumed to be more moderate. A great example of this is Harris’s incredibly convoluted student loan forgiveness program in the primary campaign — just classic moderate, technocratic, means-tested stuff. Much more moderate than where Biden ultimately landed. I am guessing that she sensed that this issue was a political loser.
Douthat: I will concede that Harris is relatively moderate by the standards of the 2020 Democratic primaries, in which the various candidates competed to take the most gonzo left-wing stances possible. By the standards of broader American political alignments, she is a doctrinaire liberal, several ticks to the left of her boss, boasting exactly zero experience in appealing to a non-Californian electorate. And also currently trailing Trump, I would add, in most available polling. I think the case for her staking out some heterodox positions in those circumstances is obvious.
And here is Douthat on the lack of an Obama endorsement and why he's really right, it's only because there are no people challenging Harris that you can't see his blinding insight.
Douthat: The absence of an immediate Obama endorsement suggests that there is at least some appetite for a contest among Democratic power brokers. But you would need an actual rival candidate to make one happen, and instead we’re already reduced to Joe Manchin floating a trial balloon and then puncturing it himself, going on TV and wringing his hands about how it would be nice if someone would go up against Harris but insisting that it won’t be him.
Wondering why Obama hasn't immediately jumped up and endorsed Harris, Glenn Thrush explains in a link that is now unfortunately behind a paywall, that Obama didn't want to be accused of being a puppeteer. Which seems logical to me, but I guess that's why Douthat gets paid so much.
I had set this aside, but John Oliver's Last Week tonight devoted a sizable portion of his program to RFK Jr. It came out before he revealed his fascination with the Bear Necessities and I'm wondering how Oliver would have put that in the mix. Oliver's point about He who runs with Bear Cubs, that he could throw the election to Trump, makes me wonder if he transcends our fellow traveler/useful idiot categories.
Keeping up with the fellow travelers/useful idiots, I find myself wondering about the leadership candidates for the Tories. I've often heard about the diversity in the race, with Kemi Badenoch (immigrant from Nigeria), Priti Patel (daughter of Ugandan/India immigrants), Suella Braverman (withdrew, but was initially in the race, daughter of Indian immigrants), James Cleverly (son of Jamaican father and Sierra Leonean mother), in addition to the woefully underrepresented White male demographic (Tom Tugendhat, Mel Stride, and Robert 'Generic' Jenrick). It's diverse, but given my political leanings, I feel like it just shows how diverse the categories of fellow traveler/useful idiot are. I realize that I could be accused of only wanting diversity if the people agree with me, but I'd say it brings to mind the take on the nomination of Carswell to the USSC. "Even if he [Carswell] were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises and Frankfurters and Cardozos."
I think the Tory leadership race is an interesting contrast with the US, in that I'm hard-pressed to think of a Black republican other than Tim Scott. Though this Guardian article about the governor of NC withdrawing as a VP candidate brings up another candidate.
The Democratic governor of North Carolina, Roy Cooper, withdrew from consideration for Kamala Harris’s vice-presidential pick in part because he feared his extremist Republican lieutenant governor could try to seize power – or at least the spotlight – in his absence.
“Mark Robinson, the Republican nominee for governor, is the most extreme statewide candidate in the country right now,” Cooper told Politico in an article published on Saturday, as Harris prepared to name her choice to take on Donald Trump and JD Vance. Harris’s decision is expected before a rally in Philadelphia on Tuesday.
“If I were to be out of state at a campaign event, if I had been the vice-presidential nominee, he could claim he was acting governor,” Cooper said.
Robinson is a polarising figure who has wielded pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ+ and antisemitic rhetoric, including quoting the Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler, a choice he has defended.
Here's an older article with more details. Fellow Traveler? Useful Idiot? Or something else altogether? Discuss in the comments.
Recent Comments