A Simple Way the Republican House Can Combat the Woke Left
Invite nonpartisan experts for formal debates in the chamber and let the people make up their own minds.
By James Hankins, WSJ
Jan. 13, 2023 5:26 pm ET
Now that Republicans control the House, what can they do to regain Americans’ trust in government? What can they do for America? The questions are related.
We already know what the Republican House plans to do. It is going to investigate. It is going to investigate the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the administration’s handling of the border crisis, and the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. It may investigate the business dealings of the Biden family. It may even investigate the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Some of these investigations may do the country some good, and the House has a constitutional duty to hold government accountable. But they are unlikely to receive much attention from the news media and they are unlikely to change public opinion. Take the House Jan. 6 committee, whose hearings were professionally produced, televised and covered by the media. In the end, the proceedings didn’t measurably change public opinion about the so-called insurrection. The public tuned them out because there was no debate and no cross-examination, and the outcome was never in question. No drama, no audience.
So what else could the new House do with its powers? With the Senate and White House in Democratic hands, it is unlikely that it can pass any new legislation that reflects its own priorities. But it can do something to change public opinion about the direction of the country, which almost two-thirds of Americans think is on the wrong track.
If you look at conservative media these days, a constant theme is how you are “not allowed” to say things anymore. “They” won’t let you. You will be deplatformed, canceled, maybe even fired. You can’t challenge progressive orthodoxies on climate change or fossil fuels. You can’t question the teaching of gender ideology and “antiracism” in public schools. Students are afraid to push back against professors. Employees don’t want to tangle with HR departments over politicized “mission statements.” You can’t contest the conduct of tech companies or the FBI. Things might happen to you. Your disembodied avatar can whisper about these things in the dark corners of the internet but you can’t talk about them in public. It’s Not Safe For Work.
Many people now sense that the progressive left has a hammer lock on public opinion through its control of most media, the universities, Hollywood and the diversity, equity and inclusion apparatus of every large company. Decisions are made that degrade the quality of life for the little guy, whose voice can’t be heard.
But what if the new House were to challenge the information oligarchy by holding televised debates in the House that address the very questions the little guy is “not allowed” to raise?
I don’t mean that members of the House should themselves debate these questions. Anybody who has watched congressmen “debate” before cameras in empty chambers knows that such an exercise would have no effect. I mean that the House should sponsor in its own chamber formal evening debates, Oxford Union style, on questions of public concern such as “What should be done about climate change?” or “How can government best support the middle and lower classes?” or “How can government strengthen the family?” or “Should government regulate social media, and if so, how?”
It should bring in speakers from outside, preferably nonpartisan people like Joel Kotkin (on the plight of the middle classes) or Bjorn Lomborg (on climate policy) or Mary Eberstadt (on family policy) or Jonathan Haidt (on social media). Let the Democrats nominate progressives to represent their point of view. Let’s have a real debate on issues that affect the American people. Let the American people, for once, hear all sides.
As to the outcome of these debates, I’m confident the American people have the wisdom to decide what’s best if all views are fairly presented. This has been a fundamental principle of democratic deliberation since the ancient Athenians invented it: Expert opinion is best at formulating policies, and the people are the best at deciding whether to carry them out.
Anyone who follows the debates of the libertarian Soho Forum knows that even in the Democratic stronghold of New York City it is possible to shift public opinion from radical progressive orthodoxy so long as viewpoint diversity is maintained. The House could commission its own polls from a board of left-leaning and right-leaning pollsters to measure how the public reacted to the debates.
It’s possible that progressives would simply refuse to engage in debate. It has long been a characteristic of the activist left that it prefers to conceal from the public the ultimate goals of its policies. It doesn’t want the working classes to know that its vision for the future is for elites to drive Teslas and for everyone else to walk or take the train. It prefers to “nudge” them in progressive directions or to drag them into the future by executive fiat, using its control of opinion to silence or discredit dissenters.
But if the most radical progressives refuse to participate, it would reveal to the public the undemocratic mentality of the woke left. It might bring to the fore progressives of a more liberal bent, whose views can moderate and render acceptable to a broader public any policies that might emerge from the debates.
It is increasingly difficult to fight the information oligarchy, and few institutions have the power to do it. The House is one of those institutions. Giving a voice to the full range of opinion is something it can do for America. The House, after all, is supposed to represent the voice of the people under our Constitution. That is the best kind of populism: not holding rallies to hear the ravings of egomaniacal billionaires, but allowing the people to make up their minds through the operation of free institutions.
Mr. Hankins is a professor of history at Harvard and a visiting fellow at Princeton University’s James Madison Program.
Comments