Poles

by digby

Noam Scheiber wrote yesterday that the dust up over the public option is good news for the Democrats because it shows that there is a countervailing force to the teabag freaskshow on the right:

We’ve now got a pole on the left to match the intensity of the pole on the right. (Don’t get me wrong: I’m not suggesting a moral equivalence between the two. As far as I’m concerned, the critics on the left are basically right and the critics on the right are either insane or deeply cynical.) From a sheer tactical perspective, I think the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress have dramatically improved their position.

The benefits arise both in the broader national debate and in the congressional negotiations. In the national debate, Obama now looks like the centrist voice of reason instead of an over-ambitious lefty (I’m caricaturing, of course, in the spirit of the cable-news coverage). Inside Congress, Obama may not get a public option, but if he doesn’t, he was never going to get it. And now he can extract a ton of concessions in return, because he can point to a left-wing of his party that’s ready to eat him alive for failing to deliver on it (whereas that left-wing outrage was largely hypothetical before now). That kind of leverage is extremely helpful.

Yes indeed. But it’s ironic that it’s Schrieber who’s saying this. Here’s a post of mine on the subject from more than three years ago called “Liberal Ballast” which shows how far the debate has moved. (Unfortunately, I can’t access Scheiber’s old post anymore, but you can get an idea from Yglesias’ post and mine as to what it said.):

The next time somebody asks you about what the blogosphere really means to politics, pull this out:

The great benefit of the blogosphere is that it isn’t really an “interest group”; it’s more like an old-style membership organization (or a series of such organizations) whose existence used to do something to check what’s now become the out-of-control influence of business groups over the policy process.

That’s from Matt Yglesias. He’s responding to a post from Noam Schieber examining whether the blogosphere is a good thing, on balance, as its influence starts to crowd out the influence of liberal interest groups. Yglesias nicely analyzes that notion and I tend to agree with some of what he says, although I think the Republican coalition offers some lessons in how interest groups and a strong partisan identity can work fairly comfortably together.

Scheiber’s post suggests that the problem with the netroots is that we are going to make the party more liberal and that means we will lose elections. That would be the conventional diagnosis of what is wrong with the Democrats generally and it’s been the conventional wisdom as long as I can remember, at least since 1968. Yet, somehow, the society itself has become much more liberal. It’s true that the politics of the day seem extremely conservative, but if you look back at the way people really thought and spoke 40 years ago, you’ll see that this country was unrecognizably intolerant and thatwhile the unions were much more powerful and the middle class was still growing, the workplace was inhospitable to at least half the population.

Yglesias explains it this way, and I think it’s very astute:

I generally doubt that systemic social change will radically alter election outcomes since I tend to believe that the parties will more or less alternate in power — the important issue is the terms of debate between the two parties, and I think that insofar as the netroots become more influential (which I think is a fairly open question) the aggregate impact will be positive.

This is where the modern conservative movement has had its great impact: the terms of the debate. Progress marches on — or, at least, it has so far. Despite the most conservative political era in a century (maybe ever) the basic idea of extending rights to all, of opening the work force to all comers, to liberalizing society in general has continued, at least in fits and starts. But as an example of the terms of the political debate changing, where once it was considered natural to tax the rich more for the common good, the conservatives have managed to convince a good number of people that the common good is served by rich people keeping as much money as possible so they can “create jobs.”

Democrats have spent the last two decades trying to adapt to that change in the debate, sometimes out of a sincere desire to experiment with new ways of doing things, which is a liberal trait. But it was often a failure of imagination and fundamental commitment, as well. And in the end the DLC experiment failed liberalism. Trying to solely use capitalistic methods and modern business techniques to supplant government functions to solve problems has resulted in corrupt politics, inefficient government and huge income inequality. (Let’s not pretend that the plan wasn’t terribly tempting because of the vast sums of money that would flow from tapping into business and industry.)As Yglesias points out, the Netroots may just provide a needed counter weight to that system by challenging some of the plainly illiberal policies that have become so ingrained in the establishment that politicians today seem stunned that their constituents are objecting. (The bankruptcy bill comes to mind.)

But there is more to it, I think, than just counterweight against the influence of business, although I think that’s vastly important. I have described this current political stalemate before as a tug of war rather than a pendulum. Liberals let go of the rope for a while and failed to pull their weight in the debate. Without them — us — being there, helping to shape the debate (which sometimes means we are here to be triangulated against, btw) politics and society become out of wack as they clearly are now.

Conservatives benefit from their appeals to fear. It’s actually the very essence of conservatism — fear of change. And that is their weakness because in a democratic, capitalistic society optimism and a willingness and ability to risk are necessary for the society to thrive. Liberals’ job is to articulate that optimism, that belief that problems can be solved, that democratic government of the people is a positive force that provides the necessary structure for individuals and businesses to thrive and grow. It is that general sense of liberalism that the netroots, as a loosly affiliated organization of activists, thinkers, businesspeople, gadflys and interested observers might also bring back into the public debate.

We could potentially provide the ballast to the conservative political machine that has pulled the debate too far over to its side and created this nauseating sense of political instability. I think the country would welcome a little equilibrium (and by that I don’t mean a continuation of the 50/50 political stalemate.) We function better when society and politics are more in synch than they are now. And since progress is marching on as always, liberal politics are what’s necessary to end the cognitive dissonance.

Yesterday, Schrieber says that the huge dust up over the public option is an unalloyed good thing because it altered the terms of the debate. How far we’ve come. And the liberal interest groups involved in health care are surprisingly in line with the liberal blogosphere, the netroots and the grassroots activists. The only constituency within the Democratic coalition for compromise that I can see is in the political establishment itself. And as I wrote yesterday, they are playing with fire if they fail to lead and simply allow the teabaggers and the swift boaters to define the issue and tank reform. There are consequences to always selling out your base whether they know it or not.

Meanwhile, check it out:

.