Dodging the Hard Questions

What with (a) the recent spate of publicity and prosecutorial interest concerning the long-obvious Republican corruption, and (b) the DLC pushing the "anti-corruption" campaign narrative again, I feel compelled to resurrect a post from a couple months ago, as I'm frankly too lazy to retype the same thing every time this issue comes up.  Laydeez and Gennulmen, I give you (excerpts from) Rove, Reform, Republican Recidivism:

Simply running as a reform party is an inadequate least-common-denominator position for the Democrats over the long term.  I expect the Democratic "centrists" to push the reform narrative very hard as the exclusive campaign narrative for 2006 and 2008. It requires almost nothing of the "centrist" faction except that they not be as venal and corrupt as the Republican Party leadership: hardly a high bar.  It certainly allows them to continue to adhere to a pro-multinational "moderate" agenda, and for the Democratic Party as a whole not to really stand for anything except "not as bad as (NABA) the Republican Party."  That's not enough on two levels. 

As a crude political matter, NABA is simply not enough to deal with a Republican Party which has so far successfully relied on the short memories of the American people and the ability of the Republican Noise Machine to create fact from lies and to erase history.  The Republicans have shown that they will fight back from even criminal scandal, often with the same criminals.  "Reform" alone is a necessary but insufficient platform for the Democratic Party if it wishes to develop and retain a majority.  "Reform" will not hold the public's attention.  "Reform" does not show the American people that you are on our side.  Not when it's paired with votes for the Bankruptcy Bill, with votes for eliminating the Estate Tax, with service to giant multinational corporations instead of to ordinary Americans.

More importantly, NABA is not enough for the American people. We deserve a party which fights for us, not just a party which is not technically corrupt.  We know that the Democratic Party is not on our side, even though some within the Democratic Party are.  We show that with our apathy to the Democrats, even as this crop of criminal Republicans fall.  "Reform" is just one small part of what the Democratic Party needs to do.   We deserve not just some ersatz "reform", but real reform, real representation, a party that stands for something real.  Don't let the "centrists" get in the way.

The rest of the post is dedicated to explaining that the modern Republican Party has no shame, and will merely launder any of their criminals through a think tank or lobbying organization, either to stay or until they can be dug up and put back to work in the next Republican Administration.  There's even a fun list of current Republirevenants.

Comments

[tim]

I can't argue with the specific examples you cite (bankruptcy bill, estate tax) but the flaw in your strategy is an inability or unwillingness to recognize that a leftist Democratic party won't win. The priority is to win elections. Then work on the "center" in Congress to vote with the left on certain issues important to the left, along with rectifying certain egregious rightwing policies as you cite.

The left and the right both need the center. That means negotiation, which by definition is a two-way street.

[paperwight]

I can't argue with the specific examples you cite (bankruptcy bill, estate tax)...

So you're going to set up a bullshit, unspecified straw man.

a leftist Democratic party won't win.

And then argue that the strawman will die unless it adopts your preferred pre-capitulated strategy of "maiming and a cookie" when confronted with the choice between "cake or death".

The priority is to win elections.

Entirely ignoring that the way you win elections is to adopt strong positions, not to allow the other side to define the terms of debate, or else the "center" becomes a moving target pulled closer to those who are willing to actually take some kind of stand.

Then work on the "center" in Congress to vote with the left on certain issues important to the left, along with rectifying certain egregious rightwing policies as you cite.

While simultaneously failing to grasp that the place for compromise is in the negotiation process, not in the adoption of strong leadership positions.

Yeah, that's great advice. When was the last time that actually generated more seats in Congress? Pre-capitulation is hardly a political strategy.

[tim]

Gee, tell me what you REALLY think.

Perhaps you should read Broder's column today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202000.html

".....the odds of a married woman supporting the Republican candidate rose from just under 40 percent in 1992 to nearly 55 percent last year. Clinton, a Baptist, carried the Catholic vote by nine points in 1992, while John Kerry, a Catholic, lost among his co-religionists by five points."

But, no, you're too busy assuming that Democrats like me who don't lean far enough left to make you happy are "pre-capitulated".

As far as generating more seats in Congress, perhaps you should look at demographics. Democrats are not going to get elected in all those red states by advocating YOUR point of view. But if they do get elected as centrists, they just might be more willing to vote with those who share your views, if you can get over yourselves first.

[paperwight]

I find it astonishing that Tim continues to use "left" to define my positions, when all I've said is that maybe Democrats should maybe at least attempt to represent working people, who are the vast majority of the country, not the wealthy and multinational corporations. How is that "left"? Who's talking about nationalizing the means of production?

And really, do the "centrists" actually represent their constituencies in those red states? Really? Because I might be willing to cut them some slack on stuff like the freedom to marry for the cultural conservatives if they didn't keep voting for corporations over people.

I might also note that "centrist" is a meaningless term. "Centrists" want it to mean "person who is reasonable because they want to split the difference between the two available political positions". Now, leaving aside the real problem that politics is a constant renegotiation, so that every triangulation moves next time's center toward the person willing to pound the table hardest, "centrist" doesn't really mean that.

It really means either "someone with their finger in the wind without the spine to take a stand" or "someone who can't tell the qualitative difference between death and cake". What is "centrist" today in the US is farther right in the EU than almost any of the parties there with any representation, and frankly, would have been "Solid Republican" in the US 30 years ago. Now how did that happen, I wonder... how did that happen?

Oh, yeah, that's right. The Republicans moved radically right and people like tim followed them. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. There are populist representatives who effing win in red precincts, because people know that they stand for the working American. And they do it without gay-bashing or attacking the rights of women.

But tim would rather look at "those red states" and say "gee, you need to stand for less". Hell, even the "centrist" nominally Democratic polling says that no-one knows what the Dems stand for. And tim wants to muddy the waters further by advocating a position which is neither fish nor fowl and telling those of us who disagree to just shut up, sit down, and open our wallets.

Useless advice. You need a rock on which to build your church, not the shifting sands of the windblown dunes.

[tim]

Well, your second response started out reasonable, but in the end you can't resist the desire to belittle folks like me who don't completely share your views. Since you think I "stand for less", here's what I stand for and why I have always been a Democrat:

1. the social safety net, keep SS secure, and add a health care benefit for all. Keep moving welfare in the direction of encouraging people to work, by making it possible for them to work through subsidized child care, housing and education until they can become self sufficient.

2. Public education. No unfunded mandates like no child left behind. More money for smaller classrooms, teacher training, summer schools, afterschool programs and alternative schools.

3. Reduced spending on Defense. Put the "D" in Defense. Instead of what we have now, which is the capacity to wage war (badly) in far off places for an infinite amount of time.

4. Roll back the ability of lobbyists of all sorts to influence elected officials. Reduce hand outs and tax breaks for corporations.

Going forward:

5. Roll back some of the tax cuts enacted since 2001, particularly the estate tax and capital gains tax reductions. Labor and capital should at the very least be taxed at the same rates. Sell the estate tax for what it is, an income tax on those who inherit. Keep the breaks for college savings accounts, retirement accounts etc,. If anything, increase the amount that can be sheltered in these types of accounts.

6. A foreign policy of inclusion. Work with the UN at the same time as working to reform it. Get a multinational peacekeeping force in Iraq through the UN. Probably won't happen until we admit we shouldn't have invaded in the first place. Get out of the permanent bases we seem to be building.

7. Protect a woman's right to choose abortion. Regulate just how long that right is absolute and when it isn't, such as ending late term pregnancies. Recognize that reasonable people can agree to disagree.

8. Encourage energy efficiency, conservation, alternative fuels. Regulate better mileage standards. Produce a long tern plan incorporating these goals that also acknowledges in the short term we may have to increase domestic production of fossil fuel energy.

Those are some of the biggies. We may not agree on every issue or the specifics of certain issues. But a centrist recognizes other points of view and works toward a consensus. You don't get a consensus by making shit out of those who don't march in your lockstep.

[paperwight]

You know what's funny about tim. He never asked what I believe in. He just assumed that I was some kind of wild-eyed bolshevik who demanded some kind of socialist ideological purity and told me I have to compromise with "centrists". I told him that it was a bad idea to pre-compromise -- you should take hard positions to campaign, and then, if necessary, compromise in legislation when compromise was possible. Now of course, it's my fault that I never asked him what he thought a "centrist" should believe in.

Turns out he's a wild-eyed bolshevik too. We share almost the same policy prescriptions. The largest differences I can see are:

1) I disagree about increasing domestic energy production, mostly because the environmental negatives are huge, while the benefits are negligible. We could get the same or better net benefit by really getting aggressive about conservation, IMO. Of course, this is one of the areas where one could negotiate in legislation.

2) I disagree about the specifics of increasing the amounts that should be tax-sheltered in various accounts, specifically because the people who most need to build up savings don't have the capital. The well-off (in which group I include myself), don't need further incentive or rewards for savings. Again, something where one could negotiate in legislation.

3) I think tim doesn't understand the realities of when women actually get abortions. Those "late-term" abortions about which he's worried occur very rarely and usually for medical reasons (does anyone remember "life and health of the mother?"). They're otherwise already prohibited by the Roe regime. Other than that, I understand that people have different views on when personhood begins. That's why I'm a fan of choice. One could also (cheaply) make birth control and good sex education available, reducing the abortion rate. And raising the economic level at which poor women live would do the same. These are already the mainstream positions of the Democratic Party. The problem is that the people who want to criminalize abortion don't want to actually take concrete steps to reduce it. That's why there's not much point negotiating with them.

4) I would greatly prefer a candidate who was in favor of single-payer health care. The current system is profoundly broken. But that's a nice-to-have, not a need-to-have, in the current environment. tim doesn't mention this except in passing, so I don't know his feelings.

5) My wish list on social issues also includes someone who was willing to be on the right side of the debate over the freedom to marry. But as I said I'd certainly cut someone slack on that if their constituency wasn't there yet.

A candidate who took tim's positions (and actually campaigned on them) would be at the far left of the establishment Democratic party and vilified by the DLC and the Blue Dogs as a rabid anti-war lefty who will never win an election. Seriously, those policy prescriptions are damn near Kucinich, not Biden, Clinton, Landrieu, or Ben Nelson (who is really a Republican -- check his voting record). They'd also get my vote in a heartbeat. As I've said many times, I would happily vote for a moderate who dug their heels in (see, e.g., Howard Dean, who is really very moderate).

So, tim, if you're actually willing to take those stands, welcome to the revolution. Or maybe tim is saying "this is what I believe in, but I'm not going to stick up for it". That would be really sad. And very "centrist".

[tim]

I'm not the only one doing the assuming. You assumed that I don't stand for anything, and that I followed the right. You didn't ask. It's your blog I guess. But you were rude from the very beginning response to my comment. Bad form indeed. Not necessary either.

Where the centrism in me exists is how I would frame the debate.

Increase the size of retirement and college savings tax breaks in exchange for a higher cap on FICA withholdings.

Allow more drilling and refining in exchange for higher CAFE standards and a subsidy for those alternatives that are close to being market competitive, like wind, geothermal and alchohol fuels.

I like Kucinich and before him Mondale and McGovern. There's a reason why guys like them never get the kind of support needed to change the direction of the country. The majority of the country can't relate to them on any kind of level.

What makes me a centrist is I recognize those realities and realize half a loaf is better than what we have now, i.e. nothing.

[paperwight]

Yep. My blog. tim came to my house, (a) started throwing words around like leftist, a classic Republican and appeaser slur of those of us who actually want the Democratic Party to stand for something, and (b) told me that the strawman he had in his head for my politics was politically worthless. (But hey, give your vote and money to people who will sell you out, and for the love of god, don't have the temerity to criticize them or ask anything of them -- they're not as crazy as the Republicans, and isn't that enough? You need to sit there and let them use Republican talking points to rip into you as a crazy leftist, though.)

And then he was hurt when I wasn't polite. I don't feel bad about that at all, nor do I think it was bad behavior. If tim's feelings get hurt too easily by little old me, wacky bolshevik with no political power, he's screwed if he wants to tilt with Republicans -- they'll eat him for breakfast and then ask for a chicken-fried steak because he wasn't even a full meal.

Oddly, the "compromise" positions he wants to adopt are still wacky leftist positions that the DLC and Blue Dog wing of the party will tear down. So I think tim is still pretty confused about what "centrist" means. And he still seems to think that pre-compromising his position is a good way to get what he wants. And he wonders why people might not think he stands for anything. Good luck with that.

Negotiation is for legislation, for the back room, not for public speeches and positioning. If you *really* believe in a position, campaign on that position (hell, even if you're a moderate, as long as you're a fighting moderate), and get as much as you can in legislation. Then do it again. And again. And again. And maybe you can say "on a few issues, I'm just not going to kick the sleeping dog right now." But starting from "I really believe in all these positions, but on every one of them I'm going to compromise that belief to put together what I think is an electable poosition" is a really good way for most people to have no idea what you stand for. Quick, what did John Kerry stand for? What do the Democrats stand for? Nobody knows.

And since modern elections are driven by perception of character, not actual policy, waffling is poison. Even when people do notice your policy, if it's pre-compromised, it lets your opponent set the terms of debate, because you've already handed him validation of his positions.

There's nothing in the middle of the road except yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

[tim]

paper:

You're full of cliches, and other things. Bill Clinton said, or restated: politics is the art of the possible. He made his compromises before he was nominated. And if he would have kept his pants zipped, not only could he have been great, but Al Gore could be in his second term and our troops would't be dying in Iraq. But to you, Clinton wasn't Nader, or Bobby Kennedy, and all the people who voted for him simply provided ammunition for the enemy.

I don't want to join your revolution, or anyone else's. I want to make some progress on problems that affect all of us. It appears to me what you want to do is go hide somewhere, stamp your feet and refuse to even acknowledge there are those who disagree with you, even in your own party. YOU'RE RIGHT DAMMIT, AND EVERYONE ELSE IS A GUTLESS SELLOUT!

You never refuted my statement that only one Dem won >50% of the vote in a national election in the last 60 years, nor provided any realistic insight into how to change that. And we havn't had a progressive majority in Congress in 70 years. Conservative southern Dems are now just conservative southern republicans. You provide no insight into how to change that either. Unless you think Nascar dads are suddenly going to change into metrosexuals.

You're naive and immature.

Also, don't flatter yourself by thinking I was hurt. I have children of my own. I'm used to how they can sometimes behave.

[paperwight]

tim is a piece of work. He doesn't know the first thing about me, or anything I work on or don't work on. All he knows is that he wants to come into my living room, call me names, tell me I'm childish, all because I disagree with the muddled notion that you can pick some triangulated middle position every time, no matter what the two endpoints of the triangle are and pretend that it's principled and will win over time.

And because I think that although Clinton was a good presidential *candidate* (and a decent President generally -- I voted for him both times), but that his model of triangulation was horrifically destructive for the party and for regular working people, tim thinks he can call me names (which, of course, he started with "leftist" -- that's an insult in American political discourse, and since he's apparently not the naive one, I expect he should know that).

I think that Clinton was an extraordinary politician, a minor miracle in that way. I also think that the "triangulation" worked ... once. It's not a repeatable strategy, unless you're willing to sell a different group of people out every single election cycle. I don't think that person or that opportunity is likely to come along again. More, I think it's irresponsible to hope for that person, and irresponsible to try to compromise with someone who simply intends to destroy you and every single thing you believe in.

Here's a really key difference in how we're thinking about this problem -- tim is looking for one presidential candidate who's *just bland enough* to eke through a win in 2008. I'm looking for a set of structures and institutions that can build a party strong enough that you won't have to depend on finding the most triangulated candidate. Tim has a 3 year project. I have a 20 year project. I have no doubt that the Dem's presidential candiate in 2008 will be Tim's wet dream -- precompromised, just like Bill Clinton, but without either the charisma or the wandering eye. And they might win, because the Republicans have dug themselves a bit of a hole this time. But maybe not.

Politics is the art of the possible, that's true. But assuming that anything better than the status quo is impossible is already admitting defeat, and people will treat you that way -- as if you're already defeated.

If the Republicans had taken tim's approach, the US would look like Europe now. But they didn't. It's a shame about that. But as long as people like tim are running the Democratic party, the Republicans have a pretty strong point about the spinelessness of their opponents. The Republicans will know that the Dems will always cave. And so they push, and push and push.

P.S. The snipe about Nader is really amusing, given any number of conversations I had with people who wanted to vote for him in 2004 who I tried to talk out of it.

P.P.S. It's true that I use cliches, old sayings, song lyrics, funky quotes, and scripture both in my posts and in my comments. I do so deliberately, because they resonate, and they're often representative of the way people think, the background culture that seeps into people's subconsciousness, the punch lines to stump speeches. But I know when I'm doing it, and I know why. Compare: "NASCAR Dads"? "Metrosexuals"? David Broder? These are hackneyed tropes straight out of the DLC and Republican spin machines, which tim has apparently swallowed whole. And tim simply doesn't know anything about my background to know which one of those groups I have more in common with. It's probably not the one he thinks it is. And if anyone thinks that if the Dems can just compromise their way into the hearts of good ol' boys, they've got another think coming. They aren't so dumb as to go for that kind of transparent head fake. It's patronizing to think they are.

P.P.P.S. The South is gone. It's just completely gone. The fundamentalists and cultural reactionaries own it. (Thanks to that darn LBJ, who did the right thing with the Civil Rights Act, even though he *knew* that it would hurt -- if only he'd triangulated even a bit more! And let's not even talk about MLK -- now there's a guy who really pushed the envelope. What a liability he was.) Even theoretical liberals in much of the South have such a pathological resentment of everyone else in the country that you can't win unless you pander to their particular cultural biases. And even then, it's not enough. I believe much of the West, however, could be very solidly Democratic, if the Dems actually stood up for themselves.