In his Wall Street Journal column William Galston counsels that unifying the country will be a daunting chore:
If President-elect Biden is serious about healing a divided nation, he will have to take steps that won’t be popular in his own party. For example, he won’t encourage the Justice Department to open investigations that could lead to the prosecution of Mr. Trump. If Mr. Trump’s infamous “lock her up†chant is met with calls to “lock him up,†the country will have taken another step toward the criminalization of political conflict—a hallmark of banana republics.
A Biden presidency that puts healing first will govern from the center, as Ford did. Mr. Biden should lead off his legislative agenda on areas where bipartisan agreement should be possible, such as a national plan to ensure speedy vaccine distribution and adequate supplies of personal protective equipment. He should resist promoting steps, such as a national mask mandate, that are bound to provoke political controversy and constitutional challenges. He can instead work with the National Governors Association and set out constitutionally permissible conditions on states receiving federal funds.
Above all, a healing presidency will regard compromise not as a disagreeable necessity but as an opportunity to acknowledge the legitimacy of competing opinions, interests and principles in a large, pluralistic republic. Legal status for the “Dreamers†is important, and so is border security. Reforming police practices and the criminal-justice system is essential; so is the enforcement of the law against those who destroy property and commit violence, whatever their motives. Equality for all Americans without regard to race is a moral imperative, but Americans can disagree in good faith about the best means for making this equality a reality. A president who seeks compromise will do his best to respect his opponents’ red lines, even if he disagrees with them.
A lot depends on your operative definitions of “the country” and “unify”. For the last 25 years of Washington history punishing your political opponents has been at least as important as enacting your own policies and sometimes even more so. If by “the country” you mean “the party” and by “unify” you mean silence your opposition, it won’t be that hard but it will also provoke retaliation. We’ve been going down that road for a long time.
Some of those who voted for Joe Biden believe that punishing the Republicans and making it impossible for them to wield power in the future is the sine qua non of a successful Biden Administration. Can President Biden reject their calls and embrace some of those who voted against him? Stay tuned.
ANY healing has to start with the prosecution of Trump, his family, and numerous GOP senators and representatives, at the very least for the wrongful death of what is today approximately 250,000 americans. If only to deter anyone from attempting a similar hijacking of our democracy in the future. On another note, David, do you read any other news source outside of the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch and whose opinion pages are about as credible as Fox News?
On a daily basis I read the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune, the Sun-Times, and various other opinion and news journals. I pay no attention at all to Fox.
Both NYT news and opinion is biased—something between center-left to far left. WaPo’s news reporting is unbiased while its opinion pieces tend to be center-left. Actually, it reflects the Washington consensus more than anything else. The WSJ’s news reporting is impartial while its opinion page varies from center to center-right. It is more pro-business than pro-Republican and it’s certainly not pro-Trump.
“and it’s certainly not pro-Trump.”
Yet fervently anti- Democrat and pro-Republican.
Steve
Look more closely, steve. The columnists from the WSJ I cite most frequently are William Galston and Jason Riley. Galston is a Democrat while I’m not quite sure whether Riley is a conservative or a libertarian. He might be a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent.
I presume most of the WSJ’s editorials are written by Paul Gigot. Is he a Republican or an independent? I think he’s an independent. He’s certainly criticized conservative darlings frequently enough. Not being pro-Democrat and being pro-Republican are not the same thing.
I tend to avoid the other columnists. They’re too rightwing for me.
In the WaPo the columnists I quote most frequently are Megan McArdle and David Ignatius followed by Ruth Marcus. I’m acquainted with Megan. She’s a libertarian. Ignatius is the voice of the DC prevailing wisdom; Ruth Marcus is what used to be called a “regular Democrat”.
In the NYT the columnists I quote most frequently are David Brooks, what passes for a moderate at the NYT, Tom Friedman with whose views of foreign policy I disagree ardently, and Nikolas Kristof. I think that Mr. Kristof is reasonable and well-intentioned but naive.
IMO the preponderance of the evidence supports the view that I am non-ideological, a pragmatist, and cynical about politics. On an annual basis I take my own temperature by taking the quiz at Political Compass. I am consistently right in the center; generally ever so slightly to the right and very slightly libertarian but drifting around the center—just never authoritarian.
If David Brooks is your idea of a moderate I’d love to see your idea of an extreme right-winger. Ross Douthat? Also IMO there is no such thing as a libertarian. A so-called libertarian is just a conservative who doesn’t give a Rats ass about anyone. Oh wait….that’s what passes for a conservative since Newt Gingrich.