Charles Davis recently penned a piece in The Daily Beast, attempting to equate the far-right with the populist-left. Davis’ piece exposes another attempt by political centrists to lump progressives in with the neo-fascist alt-right. The piece contains certain ironies and follows a centrist narrative. His article spreads the myth of an equivalent far-right and the left. He presents a centrist veneer of pragmatism while failing to present nuance on the political visions of those on the right and left. Assumptions seem to ground Davis’ piece, rather than factual analysis.
The Daily Beast article is vague in terms of showing the equivalence between the far-right and populist-left, what Davis refers to as the “syphilitic-left.” His main focus-point in the article was Syria, and the skepticism many on the left have about the official U.S. government narrative. Davis equates the likes of Alex Jones to left-wing skeptics of American foreign policy, contradicting himself in the process of doing so.
Anti-Establishment Skepticism Exists for a Reason
https://flic.kr/p/fMfkoP
It should be said that there is a good reason skepticism around the mainstream narrative of Syria exists. We must not forget that the U.S. has involved itself in major conflicts in the past based on false pretenses. Vietnam and Iraq are good examples of this. While Davis bases his certainty of the narrative in Syria on a UN report claiming Assad was responsible for chemical attacks, he completely misses the point of the skepticism.
The reason many on the left are skeptical of a regime-change narrative against Assad is not because they share ideological common-ground with those on the far-right. Skepticism stems from the fact the U.S. government has lied in the past to get involved in interventionist wars. Whether or not the UN report is correct is irrelevant.
Davis premises his article criticizing anti-establishment sentiment in America. He especially criticizes the notion of “skepticism of all official claims is essential.” Davis scorns at the idea of inherent skepticism of establishment narratives.
He does this without addressing the fact that the D.C. establishment brings much of that skepticism on itself. According to Davis, because many on the left hold this inherent skepticism, it, therefore, makes them as irrational as those on the far-right.
Criticizing the idea of Donald Trump representing populism is valid. Yet, Davis prescribes the wrong lessons from Trump’s election victory. He criticizes those on the populist-left that refused to support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election. This is a tired and ineffectual point. It assumes off-hand that progressives saw Trump as the better option to Clinton, or at the very least stood by and allowed Trump to win.
The reason many on the left viewed Hillary Clinton as the establishment candidate was because she was. Trump was also an establishment candidate, however. The difference being Trump was far savvier in reading the mood of the voters. Trump was able to cast himself as a populist because Clinton allowed him too.
Clinton was a terrible campaigner, and could not shake her establishment label because of this. She assumed that voters would cast ballots for her based on Trump’s buffoonery alone, failing to understand the anxieties of the American people. Very few who consider themselves progressives believed that Trump was a true populist.
False-Equivalence and Contradiction
https://flic.kr/p/9wrEFT
Examples that Davis gives in his article do not do service to his point. He focuses mainly on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as if Assange stands as a representative for the entire populist-left. Davis seems to paint a monolithic picture of the populist-left, which is ironic.
Davis made the point that the establishment is not “monolithic” and is confounded by competing forces. While attempting to seem nuanced, he contradicts one of his main arguments by associating those on the populist-left with Julian Assange.
It’s hard to be consistent in your stance if you contradict a central premise to your argument. The premise assumes that because a small group of people on the left may have held some sympathies to Trump’s populist and anti-interventionist message in 2016, therefore this stands as a common trait shared by most of the populist-left. It is also important to note that Davis attempts to sum up anti-establishment sentiment as a false premise.
"America’s Secret Wars: A Failure of Transparency That Puts National Security at Risk"
It’s worth noting that anti-establishment sentiment runs across the right and the left. Davis seems to use this as another means of comparing the left and the right. Even though the populist-left has a completely different political vision for the country than the far-right, Davis assumes their similarities based on shared distrust of the D.C. establishment. Again, Davis does not emphasize that this distrust was created by those in D.C. RT and the Kremlin didn’t create the anti-establishment sentiment in America, it has been brewing for some time now.
While Davis writes that anti-establishment sentiments are “inaccurate framing” fueled by “pop-political analysis”, he ignores the reality that there are tangible origins of this mistrust in D.C. politics. His false-pragmatism is blind to the reality of the corporate-state. While Trump is certainly a right-wing buffoon, this does not mean Hillary Clinton was politically progressive on many fronts. Davis offers a false dichotomy. Hillary was not entirely progressive and even bragged about her moderate viewpoints. The 2016 election did not offer as stark a choice in candidates as Davis seems to believe. Hillary offered continuity in an election year thirsting for change. Trump offered something in this respect, even if it was insincere.
The framing in Davis’ article is extremely flawed. Assuming that anti-establishment attitudes running across the left and right means moral equivalence ignores the political visions in both camps. It is incorrect that the populist-left sided with Trump in 2016. More Bernie Sanders voters voted for Hillary in the general election than Hillary voters voted for Obama in 2008.
"Jill Stein Taking Hits For Being ‘Weird’ On CNN Townhall But Does It For Our Democracy"
Around 12 percent of Bernie Sanders supporters voted for Trump. This seems like a shocking number. However, compare that to the fact that 25 percent of Clinton supporters voted for John McCain in 2008. Bernie and the populist-left are blamed heavily for Clinton's loss in 2016. Yet, the numbers show that the vast majority of Bernie supporters voted for Clinton. A small percentage of leftists that supported Bernie Sanders voted for Trump. The vast majority of those on the populist-left held their nose and voted for Clinton, despite their anti-establishment sentiment.
Davis, like many centrists, offers vague similarities to define a general principle. Because many on the left and right mistrust the establishment does not mean they are two sides to the same coin, as Davis implies. There are stark differences, and the left is not monolithic as nearly as the right is. The populist-left share very little in common with the far-right. While the populist-left hold many skepticisms of the establishment, their skepticisms derive very different solutions than those on the right.
Establishment media has long tried to craft a left/right equivalence. Associating the populist-left with the far-right is a tactic to discredit progressive movements. Charles Davis, while trying to sound like a pragmatic liberal, exposes one of the primary disdains those on the populist-left hold about the establishment. Painting the left and right as equally irrational fails to do justice to what the left stands for. It also ignores the reality that the D.C. establishment inflicts its own wounds by continually shafting American voters on behalf of their campaign donors.
Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of this, albeit in different ways. Until we have an honest conversation about the sources of anti-establishment sentiments, we will continue to battle false-premises attempting to equate those on the left to neo-fascists on the right.
[Featured image combines images by KellyBDC, and World Can't Wait |manipulated by Jon Mark Draws| CC BY 2.0]