Yuval Levin on Maintaining Political Peace

Russ Roberts and Yuval Levin on national unity; Scott Yenor on Levin's latest book; William Galston on Mr. Trump's expansive ideas for using executive power; and my feeling of being under siege

(Reminder: Zoom event with Moses Sternstein, for paid subscribers, is this evening at 8 PM New York time.)

In a conversation with Russ Roberts, Yuval Levin says,

unity does not mean thinking alike. Unity means acting together. And, it is not only possible but necessary to act together when we don't think alike.

And the question that raises--the simple question of how can we possibly act together when we don't think alike--is the question that the American Constitution means to answer. And, I think it's really the question that any organized regime tries to answer. Given the fact of disagreement and the need for common action, how can we act together when we don't think alike?

A society with a solid structure of institutions has a clearly articulated way to tell itself how we go about this process. And, a lot of what is most mysterious now to Americans and what is most frustrating to Americans about the Constitution is a function of the fact that it's answer to that question. That it's intended to help us act together even when we don't think alike.

And also,

The stakes of our elections are not nearly as high as we imagine.

But we live in a moment of very, very narrow majorities that are persuaded that everything is at stake. I think that is a very broken political culture.

Reviewing Levin’s American Covenant, Scott Yenor writes,

the agenda Levin, mostly, would have conservatives get behind looks more like surrender to an imperial power than a viable political platform to restore a viable constitutional order.

There also are reviews by John Grove and Charles C.W. Cooke.

I have not read Levin’s book. But he seems to regard the old Constitutional order as a way to enable our country to function in spite of our political differences. Yenor seems skeptical that the left would accept that as a solution, because it would mean giving up its institutional hegemony within important institutions, especially the administrative state.

I gather that Levin’s main thesis is that democracy promotes unity when policy changes require substantial majorities. That leads to bargaining and win-win solutions. The filibuster rule helps accomplish this. So does federalism and the separation of powers.

Instead, if a narrow majority is able to force through a policy change, then an election becomes an apocalyptic battle. Each side feels threatened by the other.

If a substantial majority is required in order to pass legislation, then the winners in an election must still work to persuade and bargain with the other side. Politics resembles negotiation rather than combat.

Is there any hope for recovering this constitutional order? Progressive ideology does not favor it, because progressives believe that government should get things done. They see nothing wrong with Obamacare passing with a narrow majority.

Contemporary conservatives also are in a combative mood. They want to get things done in the other direction. William Galston writes,

Donald Trump is planning a massive expansion of executive power if he returns to the Oval Office…

…he will end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants….

…He argued in a video issued last June that the president has the power to “impound”—decline to spend—funds that Congress has appropriated for a specific purpose.

…Mr. Trump in a video last April said: “I will bring the independent regulatory agencies, such as the FCC and FTC”—the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission—“back under presidential authority, as the Constitution demands. These agencies do not get to become a fourth branch of government, issuing rules and edicts all by themselves.” He said that independent agencies will have to submit regulations they’re considering for White House review.

There is a lot of sentiment on the right these days to jettison a cautious, consensus-building approach and instead use political power to achieve significant change. Otherwise, the argument runs, conservatives end up conserving every turn of the progressive ratchet.

Again, I have not read Levin’s book. His view of how politics ought to be conducted is not wrong. But it does not sit well with my mood.

To describe my mood, the phrase that comes to my mind is “under siege.” I empathize with Israel, under siege from the North by Hezbollah, from the South by Hamas, and from the Red Sea by the Houthis. Ultimately under siege from Iran. I see Jewish students at elite universities under siege by the progressive/pro-Hamas alliance and by a DEI apparatus that is unsympathetic at best and hostile at worst.

I see Hamas launching its heinous attack last October, then putting its fighters, weapons, and hostages in schools, hospitals and other civilian areas, and having the chutzpah to call attention to civilian deaths. And winning sympathy that way!

I see European countries under siege from their surge of Muslim immigrants. I see America under siege from social justice activists, with the center-left unwilling or unable to tell them to get lost.

The way I see it, the center-left has its fears misplaced. It sees conservatives as a threat to our way of life and it sees social justice activists as well-meaning kids.

To me, this is backwards. I think that if you look inside the “basket of deplorables,” you will find people you can fit into a pretty decent society. If you look inside the pro-Hamas protest movement, you won’t.