Party Orthodoxy
Jeffrey Goldberg writes on the Democratic "toughness" problem in this week's The New Yorker, mostly by focusing on Joe Biden:
He has come to realize, he said, that many Democrats still haven’t grasped the political importance of September 11th, and again he recalled how he had urged Kerry to keep his campaign message focussed on terrorism. Kerry, Biden said, would tell voters that he would “fight terror as hard as Bush,” but then he would add, “and I’ll help you economically.” “What is Bush saying?” Biden said. “Terror, terror, terror, terror, terror. I would say to John, ‘Let me put it to you this way. The Lord Almighty, or Allah, whoever, if he came to every kitchen table in America and said, “Look, I have a Faustian bargain for you, you choose. I will guarantee to you that I will end all terror threats against the United States within the year, but in return for that there will be no help for education, no help for Social Security, no help for health care.” What do you do?’
“My answer,” Biden said, “is that seventy-five per cent of the American people would buy that bargain.”
Have you ever read anything more stupid than this? Does he really believe that seventy-five percent of the country is so afraid of terrorism that they would make that bargain? Absolute rubbish.
It's not fear of terrorism, Joe. I'm sure New Yorkers and Washington DC'ers are truly afraid of terrorism for very good reason and THEY DIDN'T VOTE FOR BUSH! If Bush won because of the terrorism issue it was patriotism, not fear, that got him over the line. People responded to his simple Hollywood tough guy image because it looks heroic. Even "Ashley's Story" was a made for Oprah moment, not a call to Bush's great fatherly ability to keep us safe. He ran as Top Gun, not George Washington. There's a big difference.
For most people in this country "terrorism" is an abstract thing, not a source of everyday fear. Biden is wrong that Americans would trade education, health care or social security for an end to terror threats. They don't even feel the terror threats. What they cared about in this last election was patriotism and national pride (with a touch of old fashioned bloodlust and revenge) and that is something, particularly in this age of the televised campaign and pop politics, that can move people. But never think that people will trade their own immediate, personal well being for what up to now has been for most people a reality television show. They want it all. Bush's war has not called for sacrifice for a reason.
This article is an interesting insight into this argument within the party about both the foreign policy differences and the fiercely partisan nature of our politics today. In my mind, they may be intertwined in certain ways, but it's a mistake to think that we can solve the problem simply by speaking more hawkishly and voting with Republicans on military matters.
The fundamental misunderstanding is that we will be seen as "tough" if we just back a tough foreign policy. I don't think that our alleged lack of toughness is the result of soft policy but rather a carefully designed negative image forged from years of Republican marketing. Most importantly, it once again completely misses the most important fact about our current state of politics. Bill Richardson doesn't get it:
The Democrats need to stand with the President when he’s right,” Bill Richardson told me. “His emphasis on being more pro-democracy in the Middle East seems to have galvanized some movement. The Democrats need to establish their credentials on national security, and we get hurt by reflexive negativism.
Interestingly (and when you think about it, naturally) here's someone who does:
Hillary Clinton says that she has been “forthright in agreeing with the Administration where I thought we could agree,” but she believes that the Administration has taken advantage of Democratic support—particularly in the days after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. “Joe and I and others offered our support to the President and stood unified with him in response to these attacks,” Clinton said last week, referring to Biden. “The Administration saw our actions as a sign of weakness,” she said, adding that it “had a campaign strategy to exploit the legitimate fears of the American people.” Clinton also said that the Democrats must criticize the Bush Administration for its foreign-policy failings—of which, she said, there are many—but that they are hindered by their role as the opposition party. “It’s hard to describe a Democratic Party foreign-policy position, because we’re not in charge of making policy,” Clinton said. “We are, by the nature of the system, forced to critique and analyze and offer suggestions.”
It will not matter if we are agreeing with Bush and Cheney that we should immediately launch nuclear missiles and kill every arab in the middle east, by our very agreement the Republicans will deride us as weak. Politics are playing out on both a real and a kabuki level in which the theatre of the issue is actually more important than the reality in political terms. It's not a matter of being right or wrong on an issue, as sad as that may be. It's a matter of being willing to be aggressive against people who quite publicly hold you in contempt whether you agree with them or not.
Sam Rosenfeld on TAPPED, referring to what Josh Marshall calls the "convulsively neoliberal" pundit establishment points out:
The DC chatterers rank no value higher than “political courage,” and their special brand of policy dramaturgy demands that ennobled lawmakers demonstrate said courage by screwing over some constituency or another. Somebody has to pay. Someone must be sacrificed. Hence, when discussing Social Security reform, it is sacrosanct that benefit cuts will happen, one way or another, and that the only honorable lawmakers are those who assess the situation with cold-eyed realism and exact the necessary sacrifices in the name of reform.
This is where I think the real disconnect exists between the punditocrisy/party elites and the grassroots. The argument isn't really about policy although their are some differences. It's about what we define as political courage. Insiders still believe that the key is to distance itself from the base of the party as it did in the 90's, as Rosenfeld outlines above. Out here in the hinterlands we think that political conditions obviously require us to unify behind what feels to us like an existential battle with the Republicans.
Here's an example of the kind of beltway discussion that seems to me to entirely miss the point:
CROWLEY: With me now to talk more about the Democrats, including their new party chairman, is Bruce Reed. He is president of the Democratic Leadership Council.
We were interested in an article that you and your fellow chairman wrote in blueprint, which said in part about Democrats, "Voters don't know what we stand for and have grave doubts about what they think we stand for." You went on to say that changing this is going to require challenging party orthodoxy.
What part of party orthodoxy has to be challenged?
BRUCE REED, PRESIDENT, DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL: Well, Candy, politics is like anything else in life. The most important thing is what you stand for. And Democrats' biggest problem is Americans don't have a clue, most Americans don't have a clue. And some Democrats don't seem to either.
So the voters have given us some extra time. We think the best use of that time is to have a good, healthy debate within the party about what our values are, what our principles are, and what big ideas we have to back them up.
CROWLEY: So what is it in the party orthodoxy that you think has to be challenged from the DLC point of view.
REED: Well, the central issue in the last election, and a big issue going forward is, what are we going to do to keep the country safe? And, you know, it's all well and good to criticize the administration's many mistakes on this issue, but going forward, we need to come up with our own plan to promote democracy around the world, and come to terms with where we will be willing to use military force if necessary.
That seems pretty benign. But, in fact, when I heard this interview on in the backround I was fuming at the tone and the substance of those comments, but even more at what he wasn't saying. "Party orthodoxy" is a code word --- and I hate using code words against our own party --- for the liberal wing. I've been hearing this trope about party orthodoxy for almost twenty years and it's as stale as "tax and spend" and "hell no, we won't go." The only people who are still listening to this shit are the "convulsively neoliberal" DC establishment.
I was once an adherent of the view that moving to be middle was the smart move. But I finally hit a wall, a wall that apparently has knocked the Democratic establishment unconscious or stupid instead of awake. The other side now holds all institutional power in Washington and its power is strengthened by what the DLC is doing, namely promoting the position that the base of the Democratic party is outside the mainstream of the country. You never hear Republicans doing that.
Mostly, I am infuriated when Democrats do not properly defend our party against the Republicans and call the republicans out whenever they get the microphone. Reed could have made his points and still taken the opportunity to take the fight to the Republicans. Here's what he did instead:
CROWLEY: You also talked about it's not enough to say what we're against, we have to say what we're for. Looking at Congress right now, one of the criticisms coming from Republicans, but coming apparently through the poll, is that, look, what do the Democrats stand for when it comes to Social Security? Are they handling the Social Security issue well at this point, the Democrats?
REED: Well, I think they're doing a very good job of pointing out the flaws in Bush's plan, and they need to do that because it is a bad plan. President Bush seems to have finally found common ground in Washington, and most Republicans are scared of what he's doing on Social Security as Democrats.
CROWLEY: But is it enough for the Democrats to say no?
REED: Once that plan crashes and burns, Democrats are going to need to step up with our own ideas. Because it's an important issue for the country over the long haul, and we're going to have to address it.
CROWLEY: One of the things that you also talked about in your article is, look, this is a false choice between sort of the DLC more moderate and the base. But I want to read you something from "The Nation," which said this about the DLC: "After dominating the party in the 1990s, the DLC is struggling to maintain its identity and influence in a party beset by losses and determined to oppose George W. Bush."
When you look at it, moderation and compromise is not what the Democrats have said from the grassroots that they're about right now. They're about confrontation. There's no way you can square that, is that, with the DLC position?
REED: Oh, I think this is a false choice. We're not about compromise. We're about putting forward good, new ideas that bring together a majority of the American people.
Look, there are some -- Bill Clinton is the only president to get re-elected. We've lost five of the last seven elections. There are some Democrats who would like to leave behind the one guy who broke that curse. We think there's an important lesson from the Clinton years, which is that if you put forward a compelling agenda, you can excite your base and you can persuade new voters to come join your cause.
Well yes, it is about compromise. If Democrats put forward good, new ideas that bring together a majority of the American people, we'd like to think that the fifty fucking percent of us out here who don't vote Republican are considered a part of that majority. When the moderates fail to get the support of Democrats either in the country or the congress, then they are not doing what they say they are doing, they are enabling the Republicans. Even worse, they are helping to promote the erroneous idea that Republicans are mainstream and we are not. Could we all agree that if a bill cannot garner the support of a majority of Democrats in the Senate and House --- it isn't a Democratic bill. Is that too much to ask?
I'm sure there are some Democrats who hate Clinton. There always were. Most Democrats, however, see Clinton as a man of his time. And if the DLC guys don't recognize that TIMES HAVE CHANGED then there is no reason to listen to them anymore. The Republicans that were the minority leaders in the house and senate when Bill Clinton got elected were Bob Michel and Bob Dole. Those guys have been turned out to pasture. The Republicans today are systematically starting wars, bankrupting the country and repealing the bill of rights. Excuse me while I get a little more alarmed about that kind of thing than whether Michael Moore and Move-on are a little but unruly. I don't think it's too much to ask that centrist and moderate Democrats look at the Republican orthodoxy at least as often as they complain in the direction of the base of the Democratic party. I certainly think that they should take their ample opportunities in the media to make that point as long as they are distancing themselves from the "party orthodoxy." Indeed, if I were asked to define what party orthodoxy is these days, I would have to say that it is the reflexive recoil against the unwashed masses out here in the grassroots who are tearing our hair out and screaming for the establishment to look at the rogue elephant that is trampling on everything we believe in.
Update: It's good to see the Senate hanging tough with Reid on the nuclear option. more of this please.
UpdateII: James Walcott: Read Now
.