Both Parties Are Asking Big Concessions of Non-Base Voters

Voter discontent isn't anything new. We've heard the old voting advice of "holding your nose" and choosing the "lesser of two evils" for decades, and most people accept that the perfect candidate for an important position of public leadership is extremely rare (if such a person even exists). Bet never (at least in my lifetime) have the two major political parties in this country made the decision of supporting them as extraordinarily difficult as they have in the last two presidential cycles.

There's no point in commiserating over 2016 again. We all remember how bad it was, and that Trump and Clinton were (for good reason) two of the most disliked party nominees ever. So let's move on to 2020 where we are similarly being beaten over the head with just how troubling our political landscape is.

Every day seems to invite a fresh level of stupidity, whether it be Trump engaging in an overly personal battle with a perceived opponent or issuing a ridiculous threat, the latest example of identity politics or political correctness run amok, or a Democratic candidate unveiling a social justice policy that sounds like it was dreamed up by a third-grader.

It's as if both parties get some secret thrill out of taunting us with their binary-choice enabled viability.

Online commentator Drew McCoy recently referred to this masochistic conundrum as "The Big Ask Election." He argues that successful politics consists of making the "ask" of the American people as small as possible (to win over their support), and yet both parties, headed into 2020, are demanding enormous asks from "non-base" voters.

Here's how he broke it down:

Democrats look like they are going to ask non-committed voters to vote against Trump at the cost of their private health insurance, higher taxes, de facto open borders and changing the President in a strong economy.

That's a big ask. — Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) July 15, 2019

Republicans are going to ask a lot of non-committed Trump voters to double down on Trump for another four years at the cost of tweets, tone, general chaos, and some policies (think family separation) they don't like at all.

That's going to be a big ask for a lot of people. — Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) July 15, 2019

He's absolutely right, even though fierce partisans on both sides of the aisle contend that joining their crew, come voting time, is not only the obvious choice, but also a painless one. That's not to say that some within the rank and file aren't up for trying to convince the undecideds of such, but their methods aren't what you would expect. Rather than tapping into the reasoned sensibilities of those who aren't reflexively partisan, many aggressively rationalize and normalize the worst tribal rancor and absurdities within their own ranks.

For example, Fox News's Greg Gutfeld insisted the other day that the not-so-subtle bigotry in President Trump's tweets from last Sunday was just one big misunderstanding — a wide-scale reading comprehension problem, in fact, by the news media and others who weirdly believed their lying eyes.

For reference, here's the tweet storm in question from our president:

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019

....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019

....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019

As everyone understands by now, three of the four minority congresswomen Trump was referring to were born right here in the United States, and all of them are, of course, American citizens (even if they don't always have good things to say about America).

Deciding that dark-skinned Americans with exotic sounding names were born in foreign lands, and that they should "go back" to those places, is a pretty clear example of bigotry (even if you don't think the president is a hardened bigot). People can quibble over whether or not what Trump tweeted meets the dictionary definition of "racist," but it was undeniably ethnic bigotry (which for all intents and purposes is the same thing). Few would argue otherwise if the rhetoric had fallen outside of the umbrella of politics. But because we are indeed dealing with politics, Gutfeld (a reliable Trump defender since the president's inauguration) was up for the task.

Impressive in his creativity, Gutfeld focused on two words in Trump's second tweet: "come back."

"How many racists say 'leave, then please come back and help us?'" asked Gutfeld (with a straight face) during an opening monologue on The Five. "I'd say probably zero, but Trump messes with the media's reading comprehension, so they only digest half."

Of course, Gutfeld also only digested half — the half, as one of his co-hosts pointed out, that really had nothing to do with Trump's point. But since that half wasn't the bigoted part, we'll just pretend the first part never happened. Right?

It was a preposterous argument for Gutfeld to make, but there's unfortunately a surplus of preposterous arguments right now.... like the notion that open borders aren't really open borders if the person proposing them doesn't specifically refer to them as "open borders."

Confusing, I know, but this is an actual argument being made by a number of liberals right now, in defense of some immigration ideas being put forth and supported by Democrats.

Case in point, top-tier Democratic presidential candidate, Elizabeth Warren, has been receiving party accolades for a "comprehensive" immigration plan she recently produced. The plan — among other things — decriminalizes illegal immigration, separates law enforcement from CBP and ICE, reduces immigrant detention, and effectively ends deportation (with the possible exception being hardcore criminals). What doesn't it do? Strengthen border security in any way, shape, or form. It also doesn't include anything about E-Verify.

Julian Castro has produced a similar plan, and has been applauded for his efforts as well. Bea Bischoff from the liberal website, Slate, said the plan is "as radical as it is excellent." He added that "decriminalizing unauthorized entry" is a "great starting point," and pointed out that Democratic presidential candidate Tim Ryan is open to the idea as well.

Yet, a lot of liberals (including in the media) find it absolutely outrageous whenever President Trump and other Republicans say that the Democrats want open borders. They've largely dismissed the GOP's criticism as a right-wing talking point, and insist the critique to be unfair. Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley from Oregon even called the charge a "myth."

But if it's a myth, why are serious candidates like Warren running on it?

Even Kevin Drum of the left-leaning website, Mother Jones, is puzzled. In a piece titled "Are Democrats Now the Party of Open Borders?", Drum did what Gutfeld wouldn't: call out the political asininity for what it is:

"...I have to admit that it’s hard to see much daylight between Warren’s plan and de facto open borders. As near as I can tell, CBP will be retasked away from patrolling the border looking for illegal crossings; if border officers happen to apprehend someone, they’ll be released almost immediately; if they bother to show up for their court date, they’ll have a lawyer appointed for them; and employers will have no particular reason to fear giving them a job.

Am I missing something here? Does Warren’s plan explicitly make it vanishingly unlikely that anyone crossing our border will ever be caught and sent back?"

What we're seeing is what happens when political bases abandon principles and values, in favor of populism and personalities. The tribes that result from such a shift become smaller and more exclusive. They're no longer maintained by the broad appeal of a common set of interests, but rather the passion of collectivist identity. Voices of reason and persuasion soon fall by the wayside... and with them, internal accountability.

Generating outside support in such an environment becomes increasingly difficult because non-base individuals are asked to sacrifice far more than they're comfortable with. Holding one's nose when voting is one thing. Giving up something genuinely important and personal, while being told you have no other viable choice, is another. When the leaders of tribes refuse to even attempt to address the concerns of uncommitted voters, the pressure falls on their foot soldiers to do their very best to rationalize and normalize the offenses and absurdities, while promoting the notion that the situation is simply too dire to adhere to the old standards.

It's a demeaning process for the salespeople, and a demoralizing one for those subjected to it. But in a political landscape as shallow as the one we find ourselves in, it's all that's left.

—