« Great Moments in Punditry | Main | But What Do You Really Think? »
August 15, 2006
Why We All Went Nuts
From one of Josh Marshall's readers:
When I found [Talking Points Memo] site, you had a similar sort of "New Democrat" approach. You talked a lot about ideas and while you were certainly a Democrat, but not in a partisan or overly ideological way. I think we would agree that ideas matter, both parties overreach, had problems with trial lawyers and unions, etc.
What I first loved about your site is gone, however, but I don't blame you. I blame Bush et al. And that's a shame. I feel like I lost a real part of me is gone, taken by Bush and the greater Republican movement. That all of our efforts must focus on opposing each and every assertion made by this group; detailing, chronicling and exposing every lie, fallacy, and evil act. Clearly, you too realize this is the only reasonable tactic for us to pursue.
The era of ideas, debate, and moderation is gone (for now), not by our choice, but by theirs. That is Lieberman's problem and an ever shrinking number of holdouts. I really am angry about the loss of a worldview and approach that I valued. Your site's transition is one small bit of evidence of that loss.
I sympathize with all of that. I started out a moderate -- by temperament, if not totally by ideology. I liked believing the best about my opponents, approaching the debate as something to be valued and the ideas as good-faith efforts to be considered. But I was wrong again and again, and as my willingness to assume good-faith repeatedly proved an analytical weakness, I eventually abandoned the effort, and my predictions have been the better-informed for it. Now I write articles about how the West Wing weakened Democrats by wrapping them in a warm-but-false world of comity and spend my time looking for the catch in rightwing policies, not the hope. I'd love to see that change -- it's unnatural for me to be so cynical. But, as Josh's reader says, this is their choice, not ours. Because, in the end, this isn't a game, it's not low stakes. However much I might like to wrap myself in lofty values and enlightened opinions, this really isn't about me and my self-regard. Too many pundits (some even named Klein), I think, make that mistake, and the country is the worse off for it.
August 15, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834609e2769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why We All Went Nuts:
Comments
You can call your autobiography "They Made Me a Liberal!" You and me both.
Posted by: calling all toasters | Aug 15, 2006 1:29:43 PM
Great point. Over the last few years, repeatedly the most cynical observers have been right, and those moderates have missed the boat. The constant harping in the DC press about the sad loss of "bi-partisanship" obscures the basic reality that jointly supporting stupid policies is still supporting stupid policies.
Because cynical observers saw that this massive political machine was intending to implement a whole gamut of stupid policies. And they were right on the money saying that they would do almost anything in order to pull it off.
And following the dictum "Know thine enemy", there's answer why they are so fully willing to break all those rules. Because they have faith.
They have faith in g*d. They believe in g*d, and ergo they believe that whatever they do it is for G*d.
Second, they have faith in the country, and believe that because the country is good, that anything that the country does is good. And if they're the leaders it's doubly good.
Third, they have faith in free markets. Anything they do to support free markets, free trade is thus automatically good. And they automatically conflate free trade with freedom.
Thus, conversely if you are representing G*d, country, and freedom - all that is "good" that means people opposing you are "bad".
That's what too many moderates have missed - the opposition really hates us. They hate us as unAmerican, ung*dly, socialists. That's what we're facing, not some nice salon discussion about what's right for the country.
And given what we know about how most people make decisions (it's the emotions, not the facts, baby!) that's a pretty potent brew.
Posted by: Samuel Knight | Aug 15, 2006 1:35:52 PM
I'm sort of torn by this. I tempermentally sympathize with you, and Marshall, and Drum -- I like civil discussion of issues, and treating even those I disagree with civilly. On the other hand, I've been from my earliest political awareness a hard, hard, liberal, and thoroughly cynical about conservative motivations; I haven't had an awakening like yours because I've been here all along.
I guess what I want to say is that there's a difference between embracing civility and being a sucker. If you've got policy beliefs that are important to you, there's nothing wrong with listening to, and civilly engaging with, contrary arguments -- if they're convincing, you should be convinced. But that shouldn't keep you, and shouldn't ever have kept you, from rejecting nonsense as nonsense out of a desire to be polite to the people promulgating it, and it shouldn't have ever kept you from looking cynically at people's motives.
Posted by: LizardBreath | Aug 15, 2006 1:45:04 PM
Much as I sympathize with these points, I think they're fundamentally wrong.
I'm sorry, but politics and power doesn't exist in some Platonic realm, and never has. They pose real, flesh-and-blood questions about who gets to do what to whom, for how long, and under what circumstances. To blame the Bush administration and their dissemblers for this state of affairs is to overlook the fact that the left too wants (and has always wanted) to wield real power over people, the uber-wealthy in particular. (In fact, the left did a lot better when it made no bones about this fact.)
We, or at least I, want to raise their taxes, regulate their businesses and redistribute their profits more equitably. I don't think we can debate these issues with the uber-rich on their own merits because a) from an environmental standpoint (global warming), we'd obviously win and b) both sides are starting from two diametrically opposed moral and philosophical worldviews. There is an irreducible antagonism here, and we may as well accept it and move on.
Also, the dude suggests Lieberman is some kind of archaic, throw-back moderate: Can we bury this silly notion once and for all, please?
Posted by: Brian Cook | Aug 15, 2006 1:45:14 PM
Personally, one thing that gets me is that no matter how moderate someone is (especially economically), republicans will label them as extremists. Dean, Hillary, Bill, Kerry. They are all pretty moderate economically, but the right wing portrays them as communists. Shoot, they even call Harry Reid an extremist.
I just had an argument with a close friend who said that democrats need to nominate a "moderate, not somebody like Howard Dean or John Kerry" if we are to get his vote. He is an educated urban guy who knows that bush has been destructive. He likes Bill Clinton, but for some reason thinks Hillary is an extremist. I just had to shake my head. All these people are very moderate: Dean ran balanced budgets and is a member of the NRA; Clinton was a centrist who reformed welfare; Hillary has more in common with Joe Lieberman than she would have us know; and Kerry wanted to keep the tax cuts for all people earning under $200K and restore the Clinton tax rates for the top 1%.
How much more moderate can our party's leaders be? Yet we have to endure endless name calling from republicans. "Liberal Extremist", "Defeat-o-crat", "terrorist sympathizer", "Moonbat", "Appeaser". And those are just the names uttered by "mainstream" republican thinkers and politicians.
I really think someone needs to write a great piece on just how much they call us names. It is really childish.
Posted by: tomboy | Aug 15, 2006 1:49:12 PM
Brian is right, politics is real-world stuff.
"Centrism" and "moderates" are myths. McCain works at being a "moderate" because it gives him a national platform. But he knows on which side his bread is buttered, and makes sure that he never goes too far off the reservation, as it were.
The GOP has worked hard at producing these types of "moderates," people who will smile and politely shake your hand as they stick the shiv in your gut.
It's only the Democrats - excuse me, the DLC Democrats - who actually take this crap seriously. They're the ones that actually try to vote 50% one way and 50% the other way. The only thing is that they make sure their corporate masters get all of their votes that count. So St. Lieberman can vote against Alito after his nomination is secured, but for cloture as a "centrist, bipartisan" thing.
I don't necessarily want all the Democratic politicians to be firebreathers who pulse with their hatred of the GOP. Some of those would be nice, but counterproductive in large numbers. What I want are people who are polite, well-spoken, friendly and collegial in public, and who will screw over every GOP politician, policy, vote and idea in private.
This myth of "centrism" is what has kept the Democratic party back for the last 12 years. Bill Clinton didn't win because he was a centrist; he won because he was Bill effin' Clinton. But this party has been held hostage by deluded fools - or worse, by cynical, corporate money-grubbing powermongers who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. I'm talking to you From, Kilgore, Wittman & co.
Ezra, nice to see you come to the shrill side. Just remember that when Bush is gone, even if Democrats take over the whole government, being a real centrist means taking it in the gut every time.
Posted by: Stephen | Aug 15, 2006 2:26:51 PM
To blame the Bush administration and their dissemblers for this state of affairs is to overlook the fact that the left too wants (and has always wanted) to wield real power over people, the uber-wealthy in particular. (In fact, the left did a lot better when it made no bones about this fact.)
Really, this doesn't characterize my views at all. I believe in progressive taxation, but I don't envy the wealthy nor resent their existence. I don't want socialism, just a safety net for children, the aged, and the disabled so they aren't selling pencils and Chiclets on the street. I support environmental regulation to make industry pay for the damage they do, not out of some desire to stick it to big business in general.
Despite all this, I will vote a straight Democratic ticket the rest of my life, because of what I saw from 1994 onward. The attempted coup against Clinton, the stolen election of 2000, the "nuclear option"-- all of these things are simply without precedent in modern American history.
Posted by: kth | Aug 15, 2006 2:52:21 PM
actually I really do want to weld power over people. It's why I plan to become Rupert Murdock rich, and take all you conservatives over by usurping the middle ground. It's funny how moderate is defined as in terms of what conservativism is rather than liberalism- why is that? I mean I think I know the answer, but I want to see if anyone else can tell me a different answer.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 15, 2006 3:04:14 PM
Oh and Stephen I too want the democrats to bend over for the Republicans because its important for us to appear civil while we are being screwed.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 15, 2006 3:08:02 PM
>>This myth of "centrism" is what has kept the Democratic party back for the last 12 years. Bill Clinton didn't win because he was a centrist; he won because he was Bill effin' Clinton.<<
Quoted for truth.
Posted by: fiat lux | Aug 15, 2006 3:41:43 PM
To reply to kth: I don't think you have to resent the rich, either. Some of them, after all, are very nice people who also want to make sure that other people's children don't go hungry and that our elderly and disabled are taken care of, and who don't want the planet to be simultaneously burnt to a crisp and underwater. But there are industries with a vested interest in making money off these types of social and environmental disasters, and it is my belief that you have to fight, not simply argue, against them.
Rational, civil debate is a means; I don't think it should ever be confused for an end in itself.
Posted by: Brian Cook | Aug 15, 2006 3:49:06 PM
Oh and Stephen I too want the democrats to bend over for the Republicans because its important for us to appear civil while we are being screwed.
???
Posted by: Stephen | Aug 15, 2006 4:30:56 PM
Brian: most likely my perspective is probably closer to the center, and more accomodating of capitalism, than yours. That's why I object to the notion that the left (at least the left half of the electorate, among which I include myself) has historically been no different from the way Republicans have conducted politics these last 12 years. It may be the mindset of the left of the left (and you and they may be correct), but it has never been the way Democrats holding actual power have behaved.
I agree that the Republicans have left us no option but partisan militancy, but I strenuously disagree that it was always thus. As to whether progressives are better off with this grimmer, more realistic way of looking at the political process: I have no opinion, you could very well be right.
Posted by: kth | Aug 15, 2006 5:30:25 PM
We were all played for chumps. The Dems are my party not just because of what we stand for but who we stand with. I've never voted anything but Dem - I'm a yellow dog from the south originally and I saw what happened first hand when Reagan came in. It was nasty. Our party will prevail IF we can have honest elections.
Posted by: Dianne | Aug 15, 2006 5:49:26 PM
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Posted by: NBarnes | Aug 15, 2006 6:22:05 PM
I suspect this polarization is just a result of participating in the blog game for a long time. It's a polarizing medium.
There are a lot of destructive left-wing ideas. It's true that in the current conjuncture in American politics, those are not the ideas commiting the destruction RIGHT NOW. But if reasonable people like Drum and Ygelsias and Marshall become Duncan Black, and the Democrats in fact get some real power, then it could be bad.
Posted by: Pithlord | Aug 15, 2006 6:39:29 PM
and now we hear that its all the evil blogs fault. nothing to do with conservatism or accountability. nothing to do with a failed idealogical perspective. Will conservatives ever take responsibility for anything they do? or will they continue to play the role fo the victim? that is the great question
Posted by: akaison | Aug 15, 2006 6:51:45 PM
and by the way- the one big thing that makes me a moderate- although an aggressive one at that- is that I believe first and foremost in character. What is lacking right now in politics is the c word.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 15, 2006 6:52:56 PM
There are a lot of destructive left-wing ideas.
Kindly list some that have meaningful support in what passes for a left in America. And let's not muddle about with your view that strict separation of church and state is somehow destructive. I'll accept that you have that view, since you've made it clear elsewhere.
Posted by: paperwight | Aug 15, 2006 7:13:48 PM
There are a lot of destructive left-wing ideas. It's true that in the current conjuncture in American politics, those are not the ideas commiting the destruction RIGHT NOW. But if reasonable people like Drum and Ygelsias and Marshall become Duncan Black, and the Democrats in fact get some real power, then it could be bad.
What policies have you seen Black espouse that you think are so destructive? It's never seemed like there's been massive policy differences between, say, Yglesias and Atrios, just different tone. If you're not interested in reading blogs with that kind of tone, I understand that, but that's not a policy issue.
Posted by: MattT | Aug 15, 2006 7:14:47 PM
Well, it's not so much that Black has destructive policy ideas, but that he believes in partisanship uber alles, and no-enemies-on-the-left. My point was that to the extent that people like Drum, Marshall and Yglesias move in that direction (and they all clearly have in the time I've been reading them), it may make it more difficult to criticize bad left-wing ideas.
I agree that this is not the burning issue in America right now, but I wonder about the future.
Posted by: Pithlord | Aug 15, 2006 7:53:59 PM
Well, it's not so much that Black has destructive policy ideas, but that he believes in partisanship uber alles, and no-enemies-on-the-left. My point was that to the extent that people like Drum, Marshall and Yglesias move in that direction (and they all clearly have in the time I've been reading them), it may make it more difficult to criticize bad left-wing ideas.
Right, so no backup for this view then? Just concern about Atrios' partisan tone? I note that Black has pretty much no use for the Maoists in International ANSWER, and is not real friendly to the Greens, so he does have "enemies on the left". What he doesn't have is enemies on the left within the mind-bogglingly HUGE range of center-left to center-right that the Democratic party represents. More to the point, he is radically against using Republican extremist talking points to attack Democrats.
That's hardly nationalizing heavy industry.
Posted by: paperwight | Aug 15, 2006 8:15:06 PM
Methinks Pithlord is mistaking stridency for policy. (As for "no enemies on the left" see what happens at LGM when they have their bi-weekly anti-Nader post...)
Posted by: Pooh | Aug 15, 2006 8:28:11 PM
but you see paperwight- for some the mere disagreement with the right in the US per se makes one a communist. there aren't any shades of difference between a Green and a communist. There aren't any shades of difference between those who may believe in a social democracy where there is a strong social net but basically a focus on capitalistic enterprise and communism. All of it is the same. This is why the conversation in the US is so clouded and meaningless. If everyone to the left of Bush is an extreme leftist then by definition everyone here is. Every left of center person is. HRC is. Bayh is. Everyone. it's an argument that you cant win because its a rhectorical trap. It took my moderate leanings until the Bush Administration to understand how the trap works.
Posted by: akaison | Aug 15, 2006 8:32:48 PM
akaison, PithLord's a Canadian, and he's no fan of the Bush Administration. I know him from Lawyers Guns & Money (obligatory plug -- it's a great blog you should add to your reading).
But as I've told him before, I think he's fallen prey to a number of Republican narratives about contemporary American politics as promulgated by the corporate media, and it doesn't help that those narratives resonate with his (generally sane) conservatism.
Posted by: paperwight | Aug 15, 2006 8:39:44 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
