Democrats' public brooding over which philosophical path their party should take -- moderate or liberal -- could perhaps be a profitable one if not for this singular, inextinguishable reality: the merits of each argument are wholly academic, even pointless, since as a whole the American political system is grounded on localities of interest, not national platforms.
That may be unfortunate to the more idealistic among us, and the observation itself may seem so obvious as to render it unnecessary; nevertheless Democratic strategists are already at it -- pounding away at each other, that is, arguing this celestial direction or that, even though Democratic pols themselves are fixed in the muck and mire of provincial idiosyncrasies.
Last week the Politico surveyed this intensely vain debate in a kind of 2010 starting-gun way. First went the centrists, such as former Clinton cabinet member William Daley, who, noted the Politico, recently penned a Washington Post op-ed arguing that Democrats should "acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans." Mr. Daley is especially worried about independents: in national polling "there is not a hint of silver lining" about their druthers or intentions, he wrote. "They are the quantitative expression of the swing bloc of American politics slipping away."
Hence, says Daley, the party in toto should move to the middle -- which of course makes absolutely no sense for any liberal Dem from any reliably liberal district.
Following Daley came the opposing view, as expressed by former union official Steve Rosenthal: "Stop overanalyzing 2009 losses in Virginia and New Jersey.... Stop talking about needing to move to the center to win back independent voters. Stop complaining that the Obama surge voters ... didn't vote in '09 and won't vote again in 2010. Start legislating, start organizing and start mobilizing."
And that of course makes absolutely no sense for any centrist Dem from any reliably unreliable district, loaded as it is with Daley's unhappy mobs of independents. Go ahead, ye Congressional Democrats from districts that voted overwhelmingly for John McCain: start your organizing and mobilizing from a conventionally liberal position, and while you're at it, start packing for home.
Supporting Rosenthal and blasting Daley was, in full self-delusion mode, a progressive blogger from the Washington Monthly: "On most issues, the liberal approach to policy issues is the mainstream approach to policy issues" (except, naturally, in those districts where the moderate approach to policy issues is the mainstream approach to policy issues).
That contained within quotation marks above is dangerously wishful thinking. I too wish it were the case, but it's not; the empirical evidence arguing against it is as vast as it is deep. Just ask Karl Rove, who from the ideological flipside once believed that his reactionary base was largely representative. Lesson learned: successful national campaigns are a rarity, and they're run at a perilously high risk.
In brief repetition of the obvious, Democrats hold Congressional majorities today because they're ideologically disparate and disunified. Again, I'm scarcely fond of that circumstance -- I would much prefer not so much an ideological but a pragmatic coherence on pressing problems, which, in general and by coincidence, also happens to be progressive -- but to blindly deny its reality and advocate one exclusive path over another -- either moderate or liberal -- is politically insane.
Accordingly, I worry about the unstrategic frame of mind of some progressive activists. When I read their blistering words and fiery cris de coeur about organizing in opposition to moderate Democrats in moderate-to-conservative districts; about their supporting progressive candidates who haven't the electoral prayer of moderate incumbents; about, in fact, ensuring the long-term pain of a Republican lunatic in exchange for the short-term joy of ousting a Democratic moderate -- I'm stumped. Just plain stumped.
I can see my emails already: You're a sell-out, Carpenter, an apostate, a turncoat, a traitor. And that's OK. Poor reading comprehension is a rich currency of the nasty-note blogosphere, left and right. Yet the point I wish to accentuate, notwithstanding the odds of being laughably misunderstood by some, is that these immoderate progressive activists are even more unstrategic in another and far deeper way: they're unwilling to do the hard work, from both the top down and the bottom up, that the right so successfully did.
In the mid-20th century, as liberals sat bathing themselves in the comfortable reassurance that liberalism had metamorphosed as Americanism -- that, as currently quoted, "the liberal approach to policy issues is the mainstream approach" -- ultraconservatives were grinding away. They funded think tanks and study groups and political action committees and every conceivable media to bamboozle and mal-educate the electorate. However vulgar their arguments, they nonetheless persuaded first -- and it took years to accomplish.
Today, too many liberals still prefer false triumphalism over -- for want of a better term -- mass reeducation. It's easier, far easier, to simply regard one's liberal views as reflective of the majority's, and leave it at that -- except, of course, when it's even more convenient to scream Betrayal! at all those confounding moderate and conservative Democrats elected by moderate and conservative voters who, taken together, do in reality represent the majority.
This has been President Obama's key insight as a genuinely progressive president: He understands and embraces incrementalism as an educational tool -- incrementalism as that little bit now, to build on later; as that almost imperceptible shift to the left, just to ease most everyone into it.
Yet so many fundamentalist progressives are fighting him and his strategic allies on it. To whom I can only say, If you want wholesale purity, get religion. But if you want actual progress, take what you can get when you can get it, accept inevitable compromise and the compromising majorities which bring it -- and above all, don't sermonize the choir through clouds of delusional smoke.
Instead, work to educate the non-believers (and you can start by sending them BuzzFlash's way this year, along with a few bucks each month) and thereby help to expand the progressive base that is.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Obama a progressive? HA!
Yep, you're ARE a sell out, Mr. Carpenter. We've been "taking what we can get" for too long and aren't getting too much in return. For the past twenty years, this nation has been going further and further to the right. Heck, the old republicans look like the current moderate democrats! When "W" rode into town nine years ago and sent this nation whirling with his illegal conduct and handouts to his rich buddies for eight LONG years, it's no wonder that the nation (progressives especially) wanted and demanded REAL change. We wanted BIG changes to take place which would make giant strides leftward in hopes of at least making the playing field somewhat even between the wealthy and the poor, the hungry and the over-fed, the ruling-class over the working-class. Instead, we have been throw just a couple crumbs by Obama, and we're suppose to be satisfied because it's better than nothing? I think not! How come the republicans have no problem making wide changes, but the democrats have to take it in "measured steps"? Obama fed many of us a fine bill of goods. His message gave us the indication that REAL change was on the way (though look at his voting record and we'd have known that wasn't going to happen). Sadly, he had the nation and the world in his hand. Real change could have taken place had he and his fellow democrats held their heads high and screamed from the mountain tops that it was time to take back our nation - and really take it back in the manner of FDR and JFK with wide sweeping changes that the average American could see and benefit from. I almost choked when I read the part about Obama being a progressive. You have got to be kidding! Obama is about a far as you can get from being a progressive without being labeled a republican. In fact, there are good arguements that he isn't too far from being considered a republican as well. After all, he seems to be enjoying the role of the U.S. military playing GI Joe in every nation in the world these days. So much for trying to settle a dispute/problem using the brain instead of a weapon. He almost puts "W" to shame! His healthcare changes are so outragious that it's shameful - another give away to big business (like the financial bailouts) while the common man remains down and unserviced. The progressives of this country are sick and tired of the democrats refusing to defend the principles of the party. Is it really so extreame to demand an equal playing field? How come our views are seen as such? If the democratic party would come out and say to the public: : "What has the republican party done for you? Here's a few examples of how the democratic party has improved your life: social security, medicare, child labor laws, evironmental laws to ensure clean air and water, establishment of the FDA to ensure your food is safe, community colleges to ensure that EVERYONE who wants to better themselves can do so close to home and for a reasonable fee, recognizing the right to unionize so that you are paid a fair wage, the establishment of the minimum wage, etc. etc." THESE are the topics that need to be brought forth to the public. These are also the programs that progressives hold dear to our hearts. If there is something wrong with demanding that our politicans uphold the interests of their constituants over the interests of themselves, that's not the problem of the progressives. That's the problem of those who don't.
Fire and brimstone, and Carpy's propaganda sell
What I don't understand is how talking head putzes like Carpy can possibly believe the Democratic voters will fall for the same old propaganda as the Republican voters. The MSM's failure to hold our representatives accountable, as well as treasonous Blue Dog DINO-Fascism are the reasons for Progressive Howard Dean's resurgence as a major poltical power in D.C.
'I can see my emails already: You're a sell-out, Carpenter, an apostate, a turncoat, a traitor. And that's OK. Poor reading comprehension is a rich currency of the nasty-note blogosphere, left and right.'
And what of your "nasty-note" uncivil ad hominem slurs against anyone who would dare speak out against your obvious fascist propaganda? The reason you get called all of those nasty names Carpy is because of your poor reality comprehension.
'In brief repetition of the obvious, Democrats hold Congressional majorities today because they're ideologically disparate and disunified.'
You mean repetition of the obvious propaganda. The truth is, Democrats hold Congressional majorities today because they did indeed unify ideologically and promise change. Instead of change and reform, enough of them were bribed into committing mutiny against the voters by delivering just more of the same.
'I would much prefer not so much an ideological but a pragmatic coherence on pressing problems, which, in general and by coincidence, also happens to be progressive -- but to blindly deny its reality and advocate one exclusive path over another -- either moderate or liberal -- is politically insane.'
What is insane is your constant denial that the path chosen is neither moderate nor liberal, it is indeed fascist and just more of the same.
'And that of course makes absolutely no sense for any centrist Dem from any reliably unreliable district, loaded as it is with Daley's unhappy mobs of independents.'
Carpy, what makes no sense is for any centrist Dem to change course away from winning progressive platforms that put them in office in the first place. You can beat Republicans by claiming to be Progressive on the campaign trail, but if you want to stay in office, you can't vote Republican Light in Congress. That is why Progressives are up in arms and are refusing to support DINOs in this year's elections.
'It's easier, far easier, to simply regard one's liberal views as reflective of the majority's, and leave it at that -- except, of course, when it's even more convenient to scream Betrayal!'
Carpy, what besides "Betrayal!" would you call it when our representatives vote against what got them elected, which was their campain promises for real change and taking this country in another direction away from fascism?
'This has been President Obama's key insight as a genuinely progressive president: He understands and embraces incrementalism as an educational tool'
Actually, he embraces the idea of incrementalism as a propaganda tool. But for there to actually be incrementalism, there must first be a change in directions away from fascism.
How was there a change in direction when Obama gave trillions of dollars to the "banks too big to fail" on Wall Street instead of to struggling home owners on Main Street?
How was there a change in direction when Obama increased our presence in the Middle East instead of ending our illegal, immoral, imperialist, genocidal wars OF terror?
How was there a change in directions when Obama not only decided to not prosecute any Dubya/dick war criminals, and instead decided to keep them on the payroll?
How is it change when Blue Dog DINO-Fascists create a health care bill that mostly benefits the big insurance companies and turns everyone into indentured serfs?
If that is what you call "incrementalism" I want no part of it! Nor will I believe any of your deluded rantings that only serve to prop up the fascist regime that has a stranglehold on our country and is slowly taking us down the pathway to the last days of Rome.
Oh, that incrementalism!
It’s good to see I’m not
It’s good to see I’m not the only person around here who sees Obama as a bit-by-bit educator. Mind you, he may do it mostly by habit, and he doesn’t quite have the maturity to do it convincingly, without the high-school snicker, but it is a thing he does, and someone has to do it.
People seem so often to forget that the core promise of his campaign was not to bring healthcare reform, but to help get people talking to each other. He didn’t count on the fanaticism of the Republicans, but apparently he also underestimated the resistance of Democrats. So many people do not realize that being for liberal goals does not absolve them of the duty to be civil and tolerant. This is why it was such a good thing Obama did to have Rick Warren speak at the inauguration, specifically because it required tolerance to get through.
"Help get people talking to each other"?
What does that even mean? By definition, merely raising an issue is going to "help get people talking about it". By that standard, I guess Bush "got people talking" about weapons of mass destruction, Iraq, the national debt, civil liberties, an imperial Presidency, etc. The problem is that Obama made a large number of very vague campaign promises that, by virtue of people interpreting them in the way that they liked most, help get him elected. He also made a much smaller number of specific promises which were less open to interpretation, and has since violated many of those specific promises. Consequently, progressives who tried to read between the lines of his vague campaign pledges (or believed his more specific promises) are feeling a wee bit disillusioned, and the WORM argument ("What Obama Really Meant ...") isn't really working so well anymore.
Also, while the role of "educator" is part of any President's job, it's not one I would use in an attempt to defend Obama. He's intelligent and articulate, but those qualities alone certainly don't make him a good teacher. Hell, on the dominant issue of this past year (HCR), he barely ever showed up for class.
BTW - Being "civil and tolerant" does not mean you should sit silently while a bigot and homophobe is given the honor of speaking at a Presidential inauguration, or that he should be given that honor in the first place. Hell, by that logic, ...... perhaps Professor Obama could have taught us an even greater lesson by having the Imperial Wizard give the invocation.
2010 pragmatism
The dire problems America [ & the Earth ] face now do not lend themselves to disfunctional politics or Centrist solutions ......... and most certainly can not be addressed with any Conservative ones.
Our choice therefore is either to solve them Progressively, or suffer very soon the consequences of failure.
What are you going to do
What are you going to do when we are suffering the consequences of failure? Or maybe this is supposed to be blackmail.
My point was ...
... that there is no longer time enough in today's reality for incremental changes ........ tipping points are rather unforgiving.
Case in point: Unless meaningful global action is taken immediately, sea levels will certainly rise several feet, and likely much more very soon. Try to imagine how any port on Earth will still function, and what are the consequences of that fact?
Obama/nauts are nibbling at the edges
of the 'wedge' issues--gender equity, HIV, e.g.--while ignoring/caving on the matters in which the Dims and Pukes--both wings of the SAME party, the party of privilege and property--are in essential substantial agreement: militarism, globalism, corporatism.
It seems to me to require a certain kind of purblindedness to regard this as "incrementalism." It's pure theater--Look, teh GAYS!--designed to raise distractions from the sympathies and synonymies of interest the two "parties" want you to ignore...
it IS as IS
THANKS for telling it like IT IS. A G A I N...
Excellent Analysis
Almost by definition a liberal/progressive party, such as the Democrat Party, will be diverse. Conversely, a conservative party, especially in a coountry with a history of high immigration rates, will naturally be more monolithic. Over the past 40 years, the biggest single evolution of the Republican Party is to go from WASP to Christian so absorb Roman Catholics.
The Democrats are, have been and will continue to be a highly diverse group with a lot of competing political interests and priorities. This diversity is at once something I love about the party and a continual source of aggravation.
The one aspect of this that I do not accept and urge us to punish is the faux blue dog, such as my congressman, Jim Cooper. Jimbo represents one of the bluest districts in the country, yet he is a blue dog. he hides behind the facade of this being a necessity because he lives in the South. It is a lie. Most of the other Democrat congressmen in Tennessee are compelled to be conservative Democrats in order to hold their office, and I accept that. But not Jimbo Cooper Scooper. He and his ilk should be targeted.
That makes some sense, and
That makes some sense, and it may be worth the risk of giving a House seat to the Republicans where the Democrat is a Lieberman-like troublemaker. But it is insanity to target Democratic senators, even Joe Lieberman.
Indeed, people who want Lieberman’s hide today know damn well that they were rejoicing yesterday that Lieberman gave them 60 votes in the Senate. To make matters worse, they know damn well that Lieberman gave them that sixtieth vote, which no Republican would have done (now that Lincoln Chafee was sent home), and yet these same people don’t give Lieberman so much as a thank you; indeed, they express displeasure upon hearing that Obama did give Lieberman a thank you.
Being for liberal causes does not mean you get to be a boor.