Talking About the New World

While rambling around the politiverse online, I ran across an article - and a broad shift in perspective - that nudged me toward consideration of the title of this journal:  The New World II.  Initially, as you remember from the first few posts, and especially this one, my attitude toward the new world referenced by this journal's title has been "the new world - worse than the old world."  For a long time, it looked like that, probably because four years looked like forever, and damage was being done that looked permanent.

But in the last month or so, we have been seeing a lot more commentary about the new world, and the great responsibility and opportunity that we need to prepare for.  "The New World" can be discussed in terms of post-January 2027, when a Democratic House is sworn in, or post-2029, when - if - a new Democratic president is sworn in.  

It's encouraging, to say the least, to see more and more discussion about what the post-Trump world will look like.  Just seeing "post-Trump" in writing is jarring - it's been a long time since any of us has been able to see beyond the current apocalypse.

And, of course, these conversations are about A New World, and as such, I welcome them to The New World II.    

I hope there will be many more posts about The New World, as that world approaches, slowly or quickly.  Today's thoughts have been stirred up by an article in the NY Times called What Is the Left’s Theory of Power?, and it's a little chilling to realize that some of the earliest talk about the post-whatever-this-is world include discussing, and deciding on, where power comes from in America, and how it should be expressed.  We thought we had this settled 250 years ago, but the last ten years have, among other things, shown us, rather clearly, that power - where it comes from, and how it is used - is much more complex than that.  The Constitution, it turns out, actually is a collection of recommendations.  Power is crafted by the powerful.

The Times article is actually a kind of summary and analysis of a post at the Law and Political Economy Project blog, by Beau J. Baumann, but we'll stick with the summary.  Some examples of how power has been wielded:

• In the Age of Jackson it was a "racially circumscribed polity of white men, whether landowners or laborers, represented by a broad-based political party whose leader — Jackson — could act as the embodiment of their will."
• During Reconstruction, it was "an almost imperial Congress, which wrote the political and ideological settlement of the Civil War into the constitutional order."
• During the New Deal it was "a quasi-independent administrative state and a vastly empowered managerial presidency, which also sought to represent the will of the whole people."

MAGA, on the other hand, has chosen to “treat the presidency as the authentic embodiment of popular will, work systematically to sideline Congress, selectively weaken administrative capacity and subordinate the bureaucracy to executive control.”

So you have the locus of power - usually the President, less frequently the Congress (Reconstruction) - and the embodiment of the popular will - the person or group of persons which, according to the reigning theory, represent the will and the power of the people, whether they actually do or not.

Lots to unpack here, and to repack after times change.  More to come on that, maybe.  But the focus of the article is clearly expressed in it's title:  what will be the left's theory of power when, if, it returns to power after the trifecta and/or Trump himself is gone?  

What is our preferred locus of power?  How do we embody the will of the people?  Baumann, and Jamelle Bouie, who wrote the Times summary, agree that the locus should be the Congress: 

...a legislature that claims the full suite of powers and prerogatives granted to it under the Constitution.  This would be a Congress that could radically reshape the executive branch, seizing power back from the president. A Congress that could curb, curtail and discipline the Supreme Court. It could marshal public support behind a broad-based political and economic agenda and take a leading role in governing the nation.

This sounds good:  the representatives of the people, assembled, working in good faith on an agenda which serves the needs that the people have clearly outlined.  The President as the administrator who makes the agenda happen, who administrates the legislation that Congress has passed - the CEO beholden to the Board; the school Superintendent who serves at the pleasure of the Board of Education.  

Bouie lists some significant obstacles to this shift to a more representative and responsive power base - real obstacles requiring real reform and institutional change - but it seems that this kind of thing has happened before.  The last change was powered by charisma, fear and anger.  The post-Trump power shift will require intelligent planning, wide-ranging policy discussion and development, and a real connection with the voters.

Right now, this is just talk.  But  if we can do this, and be ready for what's coming, we can make a New World that's better than the one in which we currently struggle.