Harold Meyerson

Harold Meyerson is executive editor of The American Prospect. His email is hmeyerson@prospect.org.

Recent Articles

Want a Democrat in the White House? Reform the Primaries

This article originally appeared at The Los Angeles Times. Subscribe here . The Democrats are flying high right now, but they’re headed for a crash. Fifteen or 20 or, good God, maybe even 30 of them are lining up to run for president two years hence, and the party—and the American electoral process more generally—has no good way to select a nominee when so many aspirants split the vote. In a field of 10 or 12 candidates, it doesn’t take much to come out on top. The winner of the first contests, before the field has been winnowed, will be anointed as the frontrunner, with all the electoral advantages that conveys, even though in a field that crowded, he or she may have won only 15 percent of the vote. Say, for instance, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who can easily spend billions on his campaign, takes the early contests with that 15 percent, while Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Sherrod Brown lag narrowly behind...

Why Would Progressives Back a Right-Wing Challenge to Nancy Pelosi?

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi arrives to face reporters at a news conference at the Capitol. Look at a list of the Democratic House members who’ve said they’re not going to vote for Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker, and you’ll find a group of Democrats who either represent districts they’ve barely won, or Democrats who want to shift the party in a rightward direction. Some, like Michigan’s Elissa Slotkin and Virginia’s Abigail Spanberger, are newcomers who narrowly defeated Republican incumbents in districts where right-wing media’s two decades of Pelosi demonization had taken a toll. Some are current members who’ve opposed Pelosi for being too liberal on social issues, like Ohio’s Tim Ryan, and Stephen Lynch and Seth Moulton of Massachusetts. Moulton’s PAC, which donated funds to a number of centrist Democrats this fall, was able to raise its funds “thanks to a network of donors rooted in...

What Each Side Won Yesterday

The clearest takeaway from yesterday’s election is that we’re essentially indistinguishable from Poland. Poland, it turns out, just held elections for municipal and provincial governments. In full revolt against the country’s xenophobic and semi-authoritarian Law and Justice Party, which controls the national government and has sought to abolish the country’s independent judiciary, the more liberal and cosmopolitan opposition parties won 103 of the nation’s 107 mayoral races over the past week. On the other hand, Law and Justice won pluralities in nine of the 16 provincial legislatures, and outright majorities in six of them. Which is to say, Poland’s Trumpies got clobbered in the burgs, but turned out enough votes in the sticks to do well at the regional level. Sound familiar? Here in the states, there wasn’t a major metropolitan area last night that Democratic statewide candidates—both the winners and the losers—failed to carry,...

About Those (Not Quite so Great) Wage Increases

As America goes to the polls, Republicans claim one talking point that isn’t racist as such: Wages are going up. For the most part, of course, they don’t claim it. The vast majority of Republican candidates have fallen in behind Donald Trump in making their closing pitch an attack on immigrants. They’ve largely ignored the headline stories in last Saturday’s papers: that wages in October were 3.1 percent higher than they were in October 2017. That increase is largely the result of the low unemployment rate, which remained at 3.7 percent. But that increase isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be: So if you’re in line at your polling place next to a prospective voter who effuses about that wage increase, you might suggest that this effusive prospective voter consider this: That 3.1 percent increase doesn’t take into effect the rise in the cost of living since last year. Were it to do that, the wage increase—the actual wage increase...

Trump and the Political Hysteria of Rural Life

Just for a moment, let’s ponder President Trump’s claim that the caravan of 5,000 Hondurans embarked on an epochal walk to the United States contains “unknown Middle Easterners” and other presumably would-be terrorists.

There is, of course, no factual basis for Trump’s claim. Even as a hypothetical, though, it doesn’t make sense. Terrorist wannabes should want to slip across our borders undetected. Coming in a caravan of 5,000, subjected to the relentless eye of the media, doesn’t seem the way to do that. Should the caravan actually make it to the border, it will definitely be detected and then some—its members all locked up and investigated, if not sent back to Honduras immediately.

But then, Trump isn’t particularly concerned with the accuracy of his characterizations, or even the plausibility of his hypotheticals. He has Fox News and his fellow Republicans to bolster his charges by sheer dint of repetitions and variations on his theme. Newt Gingrich, for one, has termed the march an “invasion.”

With the Kavanaugh passions fading, the Republicans have decided to crank up this xenophobic echo chamber as the best way to turn out their base come Election Day. If that’s what it takes to get their targeted voters—insulated from facts, drenched in Goebbelsesque fake news, disproportionately white, elderly, and rural—to go to the polls in sufficient numbers, so be it.

And this strategy is hardly peculiar to American Republicans. The electoral divide in nations too numerous to quickly count now runs along the same lines. On Sunday, Poles went to the polls to elect their local governments, and while urban Poles soundly defeated candidates from the nation’s virulently xenophobic and increasingly authoritarian ruling party, rural Poles conferred victory after victory on such candidates in one small town after another.

Marx famously bemoaned “the idiocy of rural life,” while counting on the urban proletariat to wage socialist revolutions. In the period in which he wrote, however, most proletarians had only recently relocated from farms to factory towns and cities, a transformation with which he was fully acquainted. He didn’t write or mean, therefore, that people in rural areas were themselves idiots; he meant that the conditions of rural life—in which workers were dispersed and didn’t come together as workers in factories were compelled to do—weren’t conducive to building class consciousness.

Today, the distinctive political consciousness of white rural and small town life in many nations appears to have less to do with Marxian class consciousness or the absence thereof, and more to do with a sense of cultural, racial, religious, and (only then) economic distance from, apprehension about, and anger toward increasingly diverse and cosmopolitan cities. It’s about those residents’ perception that they’ve been dropped from their once honored place in their respective national narratives, replaced—worse yet—by other races with other religions and other values.

Such sensibilities may or may not emerge spontaneously, but to rise to the level of electoral majorities, they need to be whipped up. Right-wing parties and media do all they can to increase their potential voters’ sense of victimization, of being cast aside, of being imperiled by alien hordes, helping foster a collective consciousness more successfully than Marxian proletarianization ever did. West Virginia, the state that gave Trump his biggest margin in 2016, has virtually no foreign-born residents; in such a state, it takes a media echo-system and ecosystem to create a sufficiently intense and widespread fear of immigrants and cosmopolitanism. There is no idiocy of rural life; increasingly, there is, if properly stoked, a distinctive hysteria.