May 2020.

     Why would any Democrat accept strategic advice from Victor Davis Hanson, a commentator whose political proclivities are no secret?  His lionizing of The Cryptofascist in Chief has been unflagging and he in no wise wishes the left well.  Perhaps his motive, should his favored result not materialize, is to mitigate the damage by pushing the Democratic ticket rightward.  It’s political advice worthy of a Never Trumper, which Mr. Hanson is not.  It’s also an absurdity.  The Richmond Times-Dispatch didn’t print my response.

Here’s Victor Davis Hanson’s op-ed:

Victor Davis Hanson, “As in 1944, the Democratic Running Mate Seems Pivotal,” The Richmond Times-Dispatch, 1 May 2020, A15 (https://richmond.com/opinion/columnists/victor-davis-hanson-column-as-in-1944-democratic-running-mate-selection-seems-pivotal/article_d169b479-9ee6-594f-920e-3d591b694eef.html).

Here’s the unpublished letter:

     Victor Davis Hanson’s feigning of concern for the impact of Joe Biden’s vice-presidential pick upon his electoral prospects conceals neither Hanson’s defective drawing of historical analogies nor his continuing demonization any politician a scintilla left of center.  No rational Democrat should accept political counsel from an apologist for President Trump.  A far better historical parallel for the current moment is not the 1944 election, when Henry Wallace gave way to Harry Truman as FDR’s running mate, but the 1932 election that brought Roosevelt to power.

     Mired in the Great Depression, a disillusioned electorate faced a stark choice:  A GOP candidate, whatever his virtues, who subscribed to an outmoded philosophy of governance providing the people no succor and who implied that putting on a happy face would somehow dissipate the crisis, versus an empathetic Roosevelt, who pledged to move the levers of power to alleviate misery.

     Hanson, moreover, breeds confusion through misleading political labeling.  He has long equated “social democracy” with “socialism” and “socialism” in turn with “communism,” despite their manifest differences.  He now tosses “progressivism” into his nomenclature cauldron to concoct a verbal witches’ brew intended to frighten political naifs.

     What concerns fuel Hanson’s historical and political misapprehensions?  Has the coronavirus too tellingly stripped bare fissures in the American social compact and vindicated the progressive social critique?  Is the so-called Overton window – the spectrum of acceptable political discourse – opening too widely to be readily slammed shut again?  Might a progressive running mate prove the Democratic Party the big tent it purports itself to be and further endanger the president’s electoral fortunes?  Could it be the that the voters will not recoil from a progressive but embrace one?  Hanson’s motives aside, the anointing of a milquetoast centrist will serve neither the Democratic Party’s nor the nation’s interest at this juncture.