Internalizing The Right

If you ever wanted to see an article that perfectly captures the fact that Democrats have internalized all the right wing propaganda of the last 20 years, you only have to look at this one By EJ Dionne.

Democratic Détente

The party’s 20-year-old fights are — well, 20 years old. Enough already:

For two decades, the Democratic party has been riven by sharp ideological arguments. Those debates were in some respects necessary and important. But it’s obvious that many of those conflicts are irrelevant to our moment, and say far more about the past than the future. The road to nowhere is paved with rote disputes between center and left. Here are 10 tired and useless arguments that progressives ought to stop having, and 10 new ones that they should start making.

I wasn’t aware that we were in a deep ideological struggle. I thought we mostly argued about tactics and strategy. But, lay it on me.

1)Big Government Versus Small Government.

What is the point of this argument? Progressives and Democrats clearly favor a rather large government when it comes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education spending, environmental rights, worker rights, civil rights, and consumer protection. There is nothing here that requires apologies. Progressives don’t have to defend themselves against charges that they favor the government takeover of private business because they are proposing no such thing. And they have always defended individual liberty against government incursions. The big versus small government argument miscasts what’s at stake. There is nothing wrong with favoring a strong and active government that operates within limits. You might even say that this is the American way.

No kidding. But, since when are Democrats arguing among ourselves about this? This frame is a bullshit tactic of the Right designed to make Democrats look like tax and spenders, regulators and gun appropriators. To the extent that we even engage in this discussion it’s in response to the Right, not each other. Tell it to Grover, it’s his rap.

2)Pro-Business Versus Anti-Business.

Since when have Democrats or liberals been anti-business? Didn’t business flourish in the Clinton years — and in the Kennedy and Johnson years? Democrats want business to prosper, and their actual policies when they held office have favored growth, prosperity, and entrepreneurship. They also want businesses not to cheat. Supporting capitalism means opposing fraud, guaranteeing investors honest information, opposing monopoly and oligopoly, and resisting measures that throw government’s power on the side of the most powerful economic actors. Believing in the strength of the capitalist system means countering the idea that regulation destroys business.

Uh, yeah. But, which Democrats disagree with this? Are there really a bunch of them holding forth about their “anti-business” beliefs? I haven’t kept up with the latest Internationale, but I don’t imagine that there are many Democrats attending these days.

Tell this one to George W. Bush.

3. Populist Versus Mainstream.

Some Democrats think Al Gore went off the rails when he went “populist.” What did Gore do? He attacked big oil companies, polluters, HMOs, and big insurance companies. Does anybody think he lost voters by doing this? Gore went up in the polls after his Democratic national convention speech that made these points. On many issues, the “mainstream” is populist. That’s why John Edwards’ warnings about “two Americas,” one for the rich and one for the rest, struck such a chord during the 2004 primaries.

Dionne is right about this. But, it is a tactical not an ideological argument.

I would love to see the Democrats stop arguing about tactics and strategy, but this being politics and all, I think it may actually be part of the process. Why, even the lockstep GOP Borg do it sometimes.

4. New Middle Class Versus Old Working Class.

Democrats are supposed to face a choice between rallying working-class voters or appealing to voters in the new middle class. But they won’t win elections unless they get votes from both constituencies. Gore did very well in the new middle class. He fell short among working-class voters, especially in rural areas and the South. George W. Bush appeals to rich business people and lower-middle-class Christian conservatives. Can’t Democrats also walk and chew gum at the same time? Democrats need to hold the gains they have made in the professional classes on the issues of social tolerance. They also need to be more respectful toward religious people and more explicit about supporting economic policies that would create opportunities for voters with modest incomes who now vote Republican on cultural issues.

More tactical argument. But, in his explanation he pulls out the right wing (widely internalized) trope that Democrats are hostile to religion, which is not true. They are hostile to the religious Right because the religious Right is wielding its alleged superior morality like a club for partisan political gain. We have a right to fight that on those terms.

But, our political tradition is actually much more religious than the GOP’s and our politicians are just as religious as theirs are. The problem is that our northern politicians do not speak “Evangelical” very naturally, which is, again, a tactical not an ideological problem.

As for being more explicit about promoting economic policies that would create opportunities among cultural conservatives — well, what a good idea. How about being for national health care and school loans and child tax credits and job treaining programs and the minimum wage and…oh that’s right. They already are. The cultural conservative don’t listen because they have been persuaded that Democrats want to storm into their houses and confiscate their gun and their bible. You can try to argue that they’ll get health care, but they just don’t hear you.

Just once I’d like for somebody to come up with a REAL solution to that little problem. Droning on about our “Children and Adult learning and healthcare program initiative for college students and seniors” isn’t going to do it.

5. Globalist Versus Protectionist.

Democrats are told that they either have to defend the new global economy or fall back on protectionism. It’s a no-win choice. The global economy is not going to go away — and it does create injustices. It also poses challenges to regulations in areas such as labor standards and the environment. Isn’t the real issue whether it’s possible to create a global New Deal under which the new economy is accepted as inevitable but under rules that make the playing field fair and protect the vulnerable? And don’t the sharp decline in manufacturing jobs over the past few years and the flight of both manufacturing and professional jobs overseas suggest a need for new thinking about the impact of free trade and globalization?

Yes. Which is why it isn’t an “old tired” argument at all. The world is changing. Dionne doesn’t even begin to address the actual issue other than to suggest that both sides might have a point. But it has to be hashed out. It’s important and it isn’t a result of some sort of political gamesmanship or posturing. There isn’t an easy solution.

6. Deficits Versus Balanced Budgets.

This is a real choice. The Bush administration decided to throw balanced budgets overboard. Why is it so hard for Democrats — and liberals and moderates — to argue both that the Bush approach is dangerous fiscal policy for the long term and that it threatens government’s ability to solve problems in the short term? Where is the money to establish universal health insurance, to help state governments balance their budgets, or to stop tuition increases at public universities? And where will the money come from to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers?

Gosh EJ, I don’t know. But, that doesn’t sound like something we are arguing about. The last time the Democrats were in power we had a multi trillion dollar surplus.

He asks, “why is it so hard for Democrats to argue both that the Bush approach is dangerous fiscal policy for the long term and that it threatens government’s ability to solve problems in the short term?”

It isn’t, and they are. They all are. It’s a huge issue. But, this is an argument that hinges on tax policy as Dionne well knows. And tax policy is a much stickier wicket for the Democrats because the Republicans have managed to convince a large number of Americans that we want to tax them to pay for cadillacs for terrorists and illegal aliens to get free health care. That was the whole point of the “balanced budget” Dem policy of the 90’s, to prove — again — that we could be trusted. It might have even worked if Dionne and his ilk didn’t help Rove with his talking points by continuing to state, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Democrats can’t seem to decide if deficit spending is our official policy or whether we prefer an economy that’s healthy and thriving. That is the GOP frame, not ours.

(There is, of course, an ongoing economic argument about deficits and balanced budgets but, unlike the Republicans, the Democrats haven’t relegated science to the garbage disposal so they consider whether the country is better served, one way or the other, by certain fiscal policies at certain times. Let’s hope actual Democratic policy makers never stop discussing economics in those terms because otherwise there will be nobody left in the country who doesn’t view economics as their personal political playground.)

7. Strong on Defense Versus Weak on Defense.

Who, these days, is for a weak defense? The challenge to the Bush administration is whether its unilateral approach protects the United States and strengthens our standing in the world. It’s tough, not weak, to insist that Americans will be better protected in a world that does not hate the only remaining superpower. It’s tough, not weak, to defend a progressive internationalism that tries to create a more democratic world that will be less hostile to the United States. It’s tough, not weak, to think through military commitments in advance and to tell the truth about the costs of these enterprises

.

I know. I just wish the Democratic Party would decide once and for all if it cares more about America or Osama bin laden. Personally, I wish we could persuade all these Democrats not to run on the “weak on Defense” platform of total surrender to our enemies. I don’t think it’s a winner.

Maybe at the convention we can get them to change their minds.

8. Interest-Group Dependent Versus Independent.

Why does no one talk about Republican special-interest groups — the wealthy, big business, and Christian conservatives? Here again, Democrats are hopelessly defensive. There is nothing wrong with defending your own, especially when your side is supposed to stand up for the poor, the marginalized, and the minorities. And why are progressives so prone to battles among their own supporters based on race, gender, ethnicity, and interest? Solidarity, a word the left has long prized, is now the characteristic of a conservative movement in which gun owners, abortion opponents, and corporate executives manage to sit down together at the table of political brotherhood. Why should progressives be less than the sum of their parts?

Exactly. We are hopelessly defensive about this and we shouldn’t be because there is nothing wrong with defending your own. And we wouldn’t have to be so defensive if our damned racial, ethnic, gender and interest groups would just shut up.

Rush undoubtedly has some advice on how we might accomplish that, seeing as how he’s been pushing this idea for 15 years.

9. Traditional Versus Permissive.

Who, pray tell, is really “permissive”? Most social liberals have kids, worry about porn on television and the Web, and aspire to a world in which children are raised in strong families. They also aspire to a tolerant world that honors religious liberty and opposes discrimination on the grounds of marital status or sexual preference. Most Americans combine a reverence for tradition with a respect for tolerance. Indeed, by all measures the United States is a more tolerant and open country than it was 10 or 20 or 30 years ago.

I like to define this argument in more simple terms, “good” vs “evil.”

At this point, Dionne seems genuinely confused. Does he really think that the Democratic Party is in the grips of this argument? That’s the GOP vs Dem frame, not our own. (If it is, then we truly have internalized their central charge against us.) His argument seems to recognise this, so I don’t know what he really means.

There is a genuine tension between “civil liberties” and “religious morality” (which has been going on for over 200 years and is not confined to the Democratic party) but I don’t think that it will be solved by having Joe Lieberman and Larry Flynt make nice-nice.

Anyway, with the Republicans embracing the “tradition” argument with such phony fervor, while their big money owners make such huge profits on “permissiveness,” my inclination is for the Democrats to kick back and wait for them to have their own little political Armageddon. That’s an “ideological” smackdown worth watching.

10. Clinton Is the Solution Versus Clinton Is the Problem.

The Clinton obsession is dangerous to Democrats and to the country. Bill Clinton presided over a booming economy and governed effectively. At the same time, he got himself inveigled in a scandal (and made dubious last-minute pardons) that turned off millions of Americans who were not at all opposed to his politics. Why is it so difficult both to embrace the positive parts of Clinton’s record and to criticize his foolishness? If Al Gore had figured out how to do that, he’d be president. Most Americans find this distinction an easy one to make.

I hear that this is some sort of parlor game in Washington but I don’t think there is a Clinton obsession among Democrats out here in the rest of America. I think he’s about as relevant as a Seinfeld re-run. Which is why any more criticism by elected officials of his “foolishness,” particularly in light of the, you know, economic and international unravelling that has come since, is simple self flaggelation.

There is one group of Americans, however, who share this desire to keep Bill Clinton at the top of the political agenda. Republicans.

So there you have it. The “10 tired and useless arguments that progressives ought to stop having.” I’m sure that the Mighty Wurlitzer is pleased as punch to see us finally admitting that they’ve been right about us all along.

We are not a perfect party, by any means. We have been very slow to recognise that the modern GOP is a “take no prisoners” (perhaps I should say, “torture prisoners for fun”) kind of party. And, we have consistently underestimated the power of the Republican Noise machine on the political subconscious of ordinary Americans, even ourselves.

But no Democrats are actually arguing that we should be the party of permissive, anti-business, deficit-loving, protectionist, weak on defense, interest group dependent Clinton apologists.

The words sure do sound familiar, though, don’t they?