Mid-Term Democrats
In anticipation of tomorrow's teach-in, we post another comment, aimed this time specifically at the Democrats and the question 'Are the Democrats an Alternative?' We would like to make two basic arguments against voting for the Democrats: their vigorous avoidance of long-term political thinking, and their condescension to the voter.
On Thursday, Barack Obama spoke at the Barnes and Noble in Union Square, New York. He spoke to one of the most committed, liberal audiences he could have asked for. And the pep talk he gave them was, well, not particularly peppy. "The Democratic Party is not an ideological party, it is a party of common sense," he said. "It is a party that knows how to put aside differences, and get things done."* This is a surprisingly deflating thing to say to a liberal audience entranced by their next great hope. Yet it is no accident. Obama spoke the truth about the Democratic Party: it is purely pragmatic. When people complain the Democrats 'have no vision', they speak as if the Democrats once had one. But that is something of a mistake. The essential feature of the Democrats, throughout the twentieth century, has been that they have been a party that aggressively avoids strong ideological stances, and committed ideological positions. It has, instead, always been one that has acquired its reputation for being 'left-wing' more from being not as conservative as the Republicans, than for a coherent set of ideas that it stands for. Indeed, its hey-day, under FDR, was famously non-ideological; FDR and his New Deal was often criticized for its unplanned, experimental, and pragmatic character.
What makes this relevant to the current debate about the mid-terms and voting is that it sheds light on the 'Anybody but Bush' character of the Democrats' campaign. There is a myth that underwrites this campaign, which goes something like the following: if we throw-out Bush, and bring in the Democrats, that will create breathing room, which we can then use to develop some interesting ideas about politics. Obama's words belie that claim. Anybody But Bush is simply the most recent iteration of a long-standing Democratic strategy in their electoral war of position. They constantly seek that Archimedian point, just far enough from the Republicans to win an election, never too far to sound extreme and unelectable. This time, they may very well succeed in latching onto popular discontent with Bush and the Republicans, but they are not leveraging a short-term opening to bring in a long-term agenda.
Quite the opposite. The Democrats are employing a strategy of short-term politicking to sell out the long-term. This is their political stock-in-trade. After all, what will happen if they are elected? They will not suddenly open their arms to interesting political schemes. Anything that begins to sound too exploratory or radical will instantly be dismissed with that short-termist trump card: "what about the 2008 elections? It's just too unrealistic now." When, then, is long-term thinking appropriate? This is the rub with the Democrats. Trapped in the electoral cycle, they will always have one eye to the election just around the 2 year corner, which constantly short-circuits any attempt to develop an interesting and coherent vision of the future. A vote for the Democrats is a vote to sell-out the long-term in the name of the short-term.
But that is not all. The Democrats are often accused of (or, depending on who you are, heralded as) being the party of intellectuals. Unlike the dogged Republican Party of dirty tricks, Democrats are supposedly the party of ideas. But this is a gross mischaracterization. It is true that many educated people vote Democrat, and that there are many intellectuals in the Democratic Party. But if you look at the Democratic Party's relationship with its own members, we see that the Democrats are the party of ideas for the few, not the many. They love their policy-experts, big thinkers, and university professors, but they carefully isolate them from their membership as such. They do little or nothing to make their 'whole' party a party of ideas, and ensure that each of their members is a thoughtful and self-reflective participant in the party debate. Rather, they see most of their members as a kind of voting army, to be trotted out once every two or four years to vote into power the various experts who will take care of ruling, thank you very much. The Democratic Party relates to the public as voters but not as citizens. What they want from most people is their vote, and not much else.
The flip-side of this is that the Democrats have a great deal of difficulty answering for their own political failures. They blame diabolical Republican machinations, corrupt voting machines, apathetic voters, unpredictable world events, and anyone else but themselves for their own failures to convince, persuade, inspire and, in short, conduct themselves like a truly democratic party. All the talk of holding the Republicans to account if the Democrats win this election is just another smokescreen for their failure to exercise political backbone during their numerous opportunities over the past five years. They have done, and will do little, to be worthy of a vote in this election. They are not an alternative worth considering.
*Obama's exact wording may have been slightly different, but this is what he said almost to a word.
On Thursday, Barack Obama spoke at the Barnes and Noble in Union Square, New York. He spoke to one of the most committed, liberal audiences he could have asked for. And the pep talk he gave them was, well, not particularly peppy. "The Democratic Party is not an ideological party, it is a party of common sense," he said. "It is a party that knows how to put aside differences, and get things done."* This is a surprisingly deflating thing to say to a liberal audience entranced by their next great hope. Yet it is no accident. Obama spoke the truth about the Democratic Party: it is purely pragmatic. When people complain the Democrats 'have no vision', they speak as if the Democrats once had one. But that is something of a mistake. The essential feature of the Democrats, throughout the twentieth century, has been that they have been a party that aggressively avoids strong ideological stances, and committed ideological positions. It has, instead, always been one that has acquired its reputation for being 'left-wing' more from being not as conservative as the Republicans, than for a coherent set of ideas that it stands for. Indeed, its hey-day, under FDR, was famously non-ideological; FDR and his New Deal was often criticized for its unplanned, experimental, and pragmatic character.
What makes this relevant to the current debate about the mid-terms and voting is that it sheds light on the 'Anybody but Bush' character of the Democrats' campaign. There is a myth that underwrites this campaign, which goes something like the following: if we throw-out Bush, and bring in the Democrats, that will create breathing room, which we can then use to develop some interesting ideas about politics. Obama's words belie that claim. Anybody But Bush is simply the most recent iteration of a long-standing Democratic strategy in their electoral war of position. They constantly seek that Archimedian point, just far enough from the Republicans to win an election, never too far to sound extreme and unelectable. This time, they may very well succeed in latching onto popular discontent with Bush and the Republicans, but they are not leveraging a short-term opening to bring in a long-term agenda.
Quite the opposite. The Democrats are employing a strategy of short-term politicking to sell out the long-term. This is their political stock-in-trade. After all, what will happen if they are elected? They will not suddenly open their arms to interesting political schemes. Anything that begins to sound too exploratory or radical will instantly be dismissed with that short-termist trump card: "what about the 2008 elections? It's just too unrealistic now." When, then, is long-term thinking appropriate? This is the rub with the Democrats. Trapped in the electoral cycle, they will always have one eye to the election just around the 2 year corner, which constantly short-circuits any attempt to develop an interesting and coherent vision of the future. A vote for the Democrats is a vote to sell-out the long-term in the name of the short-term.
But that is not all. The Democrats are often accused of (or, depending on who you are, heralded as) being the party of intellectuals. Unlike the dogged Republican Party of dirty tricks, Democrats are supposedly the party of ideas. But this is a gross mischaracterization. It is true that many educated people vote Democrat, and that there are many intellectuals in the Democratic Party. But if you look at the Democratic Party's relationship with its own members, we see that the Democrats are the party of ideas for the few, not the many. They love their policy-experts, big thinkers, and university professors, but they carefully isolate them from their membership as such. They do little or nothing to make their 'whole' party a party of ideas, and ensure that each of their members is a thoughtful and self-reflective participant in the party debate. Rather, they see most of their members as a kind of voting army, to be trotted out once every two or four years to vote into power the various experts who will take care of ruling, thank you very much. The Democratic Party relates to the public as voters but not as citizens. What they want from most people is their vote, and not much else.
The flip-side of this is that the Democrats have a great deal of difficulty answering for their own political failures. They blame diabolical Republican machinations, corrupt voting machines, apathetic voters, unpredictable world events, and anyone else but themselves for their own failures to convince, persuade, inspire and, in short, conduct themselves like a truly democratic party. All the talk of holding the Republicans to account if the Democrats win this election is just another smokescreen for their failure to exercise political backbone during their numerous opportunities over the past five years. They have done, and will do little, to be worthy of a vote in this election. They are not an alternative worth considering.
*Obama's exact wording may have been slightly different, but this is what he said almost to a word.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home