With this Congress, "should" is a waste of a good verb

In his commemoration of Selma, E.J. Dionne cites Martin Luther King's twin themes of struggle and justice, and asks, "Where do we go from here?" His answer, in part, is that "At a minimum, Congress should honor Selma by restoring an effective Voting Rights Act, once a bipartisan cause. Why should Republicans walk away from their party’s most commendable traditions?"

The realist in me rebels. I respect Dionne and admire his progressive optimism, but what is he thinking when advancing such a particular "should"? Of course Congress, which is to say, Republicans, should restore effective voting rights. They should also, at least from time to time, give some thought to the nation's actual ills rather than obsessing over phantom tyrannies of Obamian origin, and in general cease their uncommon buffoonery. Yes, they should. They really should.

And today I should oil the squeak in the chair in which I'm presently sitting that's been annoying me for 16 years.

As some of you already know, in heart, mind and conviction I'm a democratic socialist. I rarely mention this here, and even more rarely do I champion socialism's philosophical merits, because … well, I come back to the realist in me. The "struggle" is one of quotidian effort and, at best, incremental victories — and at the moment merely preserving the socialist progress this country has made from the reactionary ravages of you-know-who is quite enough. There's scarcely a humane, social program modern Republicans don't wish to dismantle; thus modern progressivism has been transformed into Burkean conservatism. Battling the right's ideological (or whatever it is) assaults on that which has achieved some respectable measure of national progress is a full-time job.

Although incremental gains may still be had through executive order, the left today is but a rearguard force in the service of sociopolitical sanity. Merely obstructing the congressional right's nihilistic madness is the most that can be realistically hoped for, or accomplished.

I am bemused, then, when I read progressive exhortations about the manifestly impossible: viz., that this Congress would ever restore effective voting rights. Dionne might as well ask that it also pass single-payer and nationalize Koch Industries. Why bother?

 

Comments

[Peter G]

I would suggest that what is happening is more subtle than merely a Burkean defense of social programs although that is manifestly true with regard to the ideology of the right. There has been a fundamental failure on the left to properly assess what is progressive and to address the economic evolution that is taking place before our eyes. The Democratic party is in the unenviable position of trying to promote policies that ostensibly benefit a broad range of Americans, the poor and the middle class, but actually pit their interests against each other. If they cannot come to terms with the fact that they must balance those needs and persist in trying to convince the various factions that form their base that they have policies where everyone wins they will themselves lose. I think the realization is dawning but slowly.

[shsavage]

Meanwhile, the only "should" that pertains to the contemporary GOP is, "We should go back to the country we had before the War of Northern Aggression."