October 17, 2024
To me, almost everything that is now happening has happened many times before for logical reasons so, when I watch events, I see a living out of the template I described in my 2021 book Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order. With this perspective, it all makes sense. To help you see things the way I see them, between now and the election, I will be sending several excerpts from my book that explain how these things go and how they relate to what is now happening. You will see how history and the present day “rhyme” and how the templates from the book help to logically explain what is now happening.
The Split in the Democratic Party: The Lina Khan Litmus Case and The Relevant Principles
This is about the internal conflict force.
With the election just 19days away, the risks of how it goes are top of mind. More specifically, we will find out whether there is an orderly transition of power and, if we do have an orderly transition, we will start to discover what the people and ideologies chosen are really like and how they will operate with those of the other side.
Having seen and studied how the hard right and the hard left political parties throughout history have behaved themselves and with those on the other side (i.e. the impact of the great conflict that results) my and many others' big question is how far left will Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party be. Donald Trump and the Republican Party has been clear about his ideology. In this post, I will first give you two principles from my book about populism and the dynamics of changes in power that relate to this case at hand, and then I will tell you what I think about the case itself.
The Principles:
Here are a couple of relevant Principles that drive my thinking.
From page 174 inPrinciples for Dealing with the Changing World Order:
"Populism and Extremism.
Populism is a political and social phenomenon that appeals to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are not being addressed by the elites. It typically develops when there are wealth and opportunity gaps, perceived cultural threats from those with different values both inside and outside the country, and “establishment elites” in positions of power who are not working effectivelyfor most people.
Populists come to power when these conditions create anger among ordinary people who want those with political power to be fighters for them. Populists can be of the right or left, are much more extreme than moderates, and tend to appeal to the emotions of ordinary people. They are typically confrontational rather than collaborative and exclusive rather than inclusive. This leads to a lot of fighting between populists of the left and populists of the right over irreconcilable differences. The extremity of the revolution that occurs under them varies. For example, in the 1930s, populism of the left took the form of communism and that of the right took the form of fascism while nonviolent revolutionary changes took place in the US and the UK. More recently, in the United States, the election of Donald Trump in 2016 was a move to populism of the right while the popularity of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reflects the popularity of populism of the left. There are increased political movements toward populism in a number of countries. It could be said that the election of Joe Biden reflects a desire for less extremism and more moderation, though time will tell."
Watch populism and polarization as markers.
From page 101 in the book:
"Fighting among the winners. History shows us that after the fight for power in which the common enemy is defeated, those who united against the common enemy typically fight among themselves for power and those in the losing party do the same as they plan their next attack. I call this the “purge” state of the balance of power dynamic. It has happened in all cases, with the Reign of Terror in France and the Red Terror in the Soviet Union being the most well-known. In these cases, the people involved were in the same parties until they overthrew their common enemy and then they fought each other viciously. Similarly, the united front of Chinese communists and nationalists that fought the Japanese in the war immediately battled each other for power when the war was over…We should always watch whether the factions within the same parties are inclined to fight each other for control of their parties."
To be clear, while the historical examples in the excerpt are more extreme examples than what I'm saying is the case now, I do think that the dynamic of internal fighting is an important one as there are pretty extreme differences between the moderate and extreme left in the Democratic Party and that voters should know what is being offered to them.
The Case at Hand:
We all know that there is a split in the Democratic Party between those of the moderate left and those of the hard left (the progressives), that there are very big differences between them, and we don't know which side Kamala Harris is on. While this gap was meant to be kept under wraps until after the party got elected, it has come to the surface, which in my opinion is a good thing, because it can help force Kamala Harris to be clear about which ideology she supports.
More specifically Mark Cuban, Reid Hoffman, and several other Democratic Party supporters, who are moderates, came out against Lina Khan (who is now head of the FTC), saying that Khan should be fired because she is so far left that she is damaging to the system. That led Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to post on X, “Let me make this clear, since billionaires have been trying to play footsie with the ticket" and "Anyone goes near [FTC Chair] Lina Khan and there will be an out and out brawl.” Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders made their own statements. To be clear, the brawl that they are talking about is between democrats over control of the Democratic Party and its policies. If there will be a brawl between Democrats, you can imagine how big the fight is likely to between hard right Republicans and hard left Democrats (such as AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and possibly Kamala Harris.)
It would be easy for Kamala Harris to make clear where she stands on this Lina Khan issue (i.e. is she with or against Lina Khan's approach) and to convey whether she is of the moderate left versus hard left (i.e., progressive). Will she answer that question or dodge it? I hope that she will answer it because she owes that to voters, and it would be a demonstration of her integrity. Otherwise, she can once again be accused (justifiably) of not being clear about her positions on critical issues.
These views are my own and not necessarily Bridgewater's.
