James W. Lucas: Last Gasp Of The Mensheviks?

Pretty likely so, yeah.

   It's painful to watch even smart, well-meaning, redpilled realio-trulio liberals in denial that our best--and possibly more-or-less last--hope is Donald Trump and the GOP. I know it's not easy. God knows it was painful for me to admit it. It was like losing my religion all over again. I could go on and on. Some of the hardest parts include: realizing that your thinking has been governed by an unjustified, largely unrecognized multiplier applied to all political reasoning according to which the left is good and conservatives are bad. It's a subconscious finger on the scale of every bit of political thinking you do. Also: getting over the fact that you've been seeing Trump voters as bad people at some level. It really is like admitting that you are or ought to be an atheist, but have been staving that move off with dodges and defenses that you have long recognized as dishonest. 

   Anyway. Times have changed. And now an alliance with conservatives is likely the only hope of what remains of American liberalism:

   And personalities are key. No one expects Noam Chomsky to become Irving Kristol. Nonetheless, if the old liberals who signed the letter don’t want to become forgotten footnotes to our current revolutionary moment, they may consider the choices faced by their predecessors in fighting for an open and civil society.
   First, it can safely be said that the 1948 option is already gone. The contemporary Democratic Party has fully surrendered to the divisive and intolerant cancel culture and identity politics of the radicals. In doing so, and in sharp contrast to the liberal Humphrey Democrats of the 1950s and 1960s, modern Democrats have forfeited any possibility of constructive and productive engagement with racial issues which persist in our society.
   Second, given their visceral antipathy to Donald Trump, the neocon “1980” option also seems unlikely.
   This leaves them in a position similar to that of the Mensheviks after 1918. After they overthrew the democratic government in October, the Bolshevik hold was initially very uncertain. Had the Mensheviks joined with the anti-Bolshevik forces, there might have been some chance that Russia could have gained the democratic government that it still lacks a century later. Instead, however, their antipathy to the czar, like modern leftists’ antipathy to Trump, led the Mensheviks into the embrace of the radicals who despised and would destroy them.
   Is there a happier 2020 option? On their side, the signers of the Harper’s letter might recognize that decades of being on the receiving end of the radicals’ cancel culture vehemence have massively increased conservatives’ appreciation for the preciousness and precariousness of free speech.
   The Cato poll showed that 60 percent of Republicans (and 49 percent of independents) with postgraduate education fear that letting their political views be known could harm their careers. If the signers could look past the radical-dominated media’s demonization of conservatives, they would see that the modern Right is not the one they think they know from their youth.
   For their part, conservatives need a coherent program to promote open and civil society. This could include encouraging corporate neutrality on political matters (isn’t the Left always decrying corporate influence on politics?), aligning academic financial incentives to encourage free speech and, most importantly perhaps, standing with the letter’s signers in favor of open and civil debate.