Democratic socialist Francesca Hong lost her bid on Tuesday to be the Democratic nominee in Wisconsin’s gubernatorial race, but it’s not progressives who will be most disappointed by her defeat. It’s conservatives who will feel the pain. They spent millions attacking Hong in ads, calling her “too liberal,” but the messaging seemed clearly designed to generate support for her among Democratic voters, based on the GOP theory that she’d be much easier to beat in the general election than moderate David Crowley.
It almost worked, even though Hong was, to put it mildly, not a good candidate. Democrats should feel an unpleasant, crawling sensation at the base of their collective spine when they contemplate how close they came to having her on the ticket — not just because she’s a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, but because she has a hard-to-explain history of radical pronouncements.
Hong called America “an abundance of suffering.” She said we should “cancel Thanksgiving” and suggested we should “defund then abolish” the police. She publicly wrestled with her “proximity to Whiteness,” in the person of her biracial son. None of this is a good look for someone who wants ordinary people to vote for them.
Before you ask, no, Hong was not at that time some naive college student. She was in her 30s. Her only excuse is that for a few years this sort of thing was normal among sober adults and eminent institutions. It was like watching a clique of teenage mean girls overdosing on extra-strength Robin DiAngelo. The only difference was that many of the mean girls held tenured professorships and senior roles at prestigious publications. With so many luminaries signing up to join the fun, how was Hong to know that it wouldn’t last?
I should clarify that this is not Hong’s explanation for her remarks. But then, Hong couldn’t really give a good explanation. She tried to brush off her police abolitionism. Other tweets were dismissed as “silly” or “jokes.” The best defense came from a more seasoned progressive politician, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), who laughingly told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl that “Woke 1 was crazy!”
Note that I did not say it was a good defense. But it is apparently the best the establishment can muster, the credo of the post-bachelor party hangover: “Whew, things got a little out of hand, but what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, right?”
Well, no, it doesn’t, which is why conservatives pounced on Hong with such glee. She reawakened the rage they felt during those years of speech-policing, social media mobs and peremptory firings.
Their fury will not abate until there’s some reckoning with the cruelty and caprice of that era. The Democratic establishment’s hope that we can all just quietly agree to pretend it never happened is insufferably naive. After all, when President Donald Trump leaves office, and conservatives try to memory-hole his abuses and their shameful complicity, is the left prepared to let bygones be bygones? Because I’m sure not. Years of justifiable outrage will not, and should not, dissipate overnight. And when even AOC is unwilling to defend what happened in those years, I think we have to agree that at least some anger is justified, even if you feel your anger at Trump’s depredations is far more justifiable.
It’s only natural for both sides of the culture wars to long for some justice, not just to satisfy their personal pique but to ensure that there is no Woke 2.0 or Trump sequel. That said, you can want a reckoning without expecting one. And you should be mindful of the cost of trying to bring one about.
Our institutions are now so politically sorted that we cannot expect voluntary contrition; that would be too internally disruptive. Nor can such an accounting be forced, because most Americans just don’t care that much. At best, a backlash may sporadically curb the occasional outrage that catches the public’s attention. But they are not going to muster the sustained focus needed for broad social and institutional change — they simply aren’t that mad about woke excesses or Trump’s election denial; they’re mad about their grocery bills.
Alas, the political class would prefer to focus on its own anger issues.
Republicans run on old tweets and transgender sports and spend too much time in office trying to defund and defang left-coded institutions, rather than solving problems. Democrats run on “saving democracy” and expropriating billionaires, then pour their political hearts into investigations and prosecutions.
This may work in a primary or in places that are very red or very blue, but it’s a lousy strategy in swing states and nationwide elections. For that matter, Hong couldn’t even win her primary, and that same night, election denier Mike Lindell went down in the Minnesota Republican gubernatorial primary.
There’s a ray of hope in that, but only a flicker, since both candidates were unusually inept. The furious bases of the two parties will have more opportunities to nominate passionate ideologues who will at best go on to lose their general elections and at worst further destabilize American politics.
I doubt their anger will ebb soon, and I won’t even argue that it should. Sometimes you have to accept that your anger may be justified, but that doesn’t mean it can be satisfied. And once you figure that out, it’s often best to put it aside and talk about something else.
The post Sorry, conservatives. The ‘cancel Thanksgiving’ candidate lost. appeared first on Washington Post.
