A Democratic debate
The Democratic Party is looking ahead to November '06 and November '08, says The New York Times: "With Democrats increasingly optimistic about this year's midterm elections and the landscape for 2008, intellectuals in the center and on the left are debating how to sharpen the party's identity and present a clear alternative to the conservatism that has dominated political thought for a generation."
The Times evidently doesn't pay much attention to the blogosphere, where this debate has been going on for a long time.
In the blogosphere, the debate isn't always friendly — or, at least, there are often serious and sometimes harshly personal differences in perspective. A current debate pits The New Republic's Jonathan Chait against Kos and Atrios. You can find Chait's recent posts at TNR's The Plank here and here. Kevin Drum weighs in here, the Bull Moose here.
My abridged view is this: I don't think that the "left" is all that left. As I recently argued here, the rightward shift of America's perceived center of political gravity over the past few decades has made the left seem more extreme than it really is (or, rather, extreme when it isn't). In fact, the real center of gravity is well to the left of where conservatives claim it is. Given this, I think Kevin is right.
However, Chait's argument that the Kossack left has come to resemble the McGovernite New Left of the late '60s and early '70s is quite persuasive. What worries me is the demand for ideological purity and political conformity that seems to come from some parts of the pro-Democratic blogosphere. The Democrats will only win by being a broad-based party that welcomes and celebrates diverse viewpoints (including, perhaps, Joe Lieberman), not by enforcing a strict litmus test that alienates so-called "moderates".
Ultimately, there is a lot that unites Democrats and a lot that unites their supporters in the blogosphere, but, politically, winning requires compromise.
I welcome debate. It's good for us. The unexamined life is not worth living, and, in my view, the unexamined party isn't worth supporting. But let's have a healthy, constructive debate, not one that divides, not one where winning outright is the goal. We may not need our own 11th Commandment, but we do need greater respect for difference. And, differences and all, we need to pull together if we are to win in November and again in '08.
The Republicans will be enough of an opponent. We don't need to go up against ourselves as well.
The Times evidently doesn't pay much attention to the blogosphere, where this debate has been going on for a long time.
In the blogosphere, the debate isn't always friendly — or, at least, there are often serious and sometimes harshly personal differences in perspective. A current debate pits The New Republic's Jonathan Chait against Kos and Atrios. You can find Chait's recent posts at TNR's The Plank here and here. Kevin Drum weighs in here, the Bull Moose here.
My abridged view is this: I don't think that the "left" is all that left. As I recently argued here, the rightward shift of America's perceived center of political gravity over the past few decades has made the left seem more extreme than it really is (or, rather, extreme when it isn't). In fact, the real center of gravity is well to the left of where conservatives claim it is. Given this, I think Kevin is right.
However, Chait's argument that the Kossack left has come to resemble the McGovernite New Left of the late '60s and early '70s is quite persuasive. What worries me is the demand for ideological purity and political conformity that seems to come from some parts of the pro-Democratic blogosphere. The Democrats will only win by being a broad-based party that welcomes and celebrates diverse viewpoints (including, perhaps, Joe Lieberman), not by enforcing a strict litmus test that alienates so-called "moderates".
Ultimately, there is a lot that unites Democrats and a lot that unites their supporters in the blogosphere, but, politically, winning requires compromise.
I welcome debate. It's good for us. The unexamined life is not worth living, and, in my view, the unexamined party isn't worth supporting. But let's have a healthy, constructive debate, not one that divides, not one where winning outright is the goal. We may not need our own 11th Commandment, but we do need greater respect for difference. And, differences and all, we need to pull together if we are to win in November and again in '08.
The Republicans will be enough of an opponent. We don't need to go up against ourselves as well.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
7:58 AM
3 Comments:
It's a mixed bag, Michael, and many are overreading the pendulum swing. It's easy to mistake mobilization against Bush incompetence and intransigence for pro-liberalism. They're not the same, particularly as to social issues. As Moose profers, Dems must always remember that liberals are hugely outnumbered by conservatives and moderates.
Gay marriage is an example. There's no discernible trending for it. Gay marriage has been rejected on 19 state ballots. That's not a trend toward liberalism, although there is a general fairness and gradualism that's encouraging. Similarly, progressives forget that Americans are religious, though tolerant. There isn't a countertrend for abortion, for example. The same is true with the war. There is Iraq fatigue but anti-war sentiment isn't filling the streets.
Your argument is that the center (magnetic north of politics) has shifted left. My sense is that moderates have shifted left as a function of rejecting Bush's tin ear. Dems will benefit temporarily in 06 from this, but shouldn't overread it.
By
cakreiz, at 8:12 AM
All good points, Cakreiz. Perhaps I am a bit too optimistic that the center is shifting. I suppose part it depends on the definitions of liberal and conservative. What makes a conservative now isn't necessarily what made one in, say, the '50s. And, as Peter Beinart of TNR never tires of reminding us, today's liberals aren't exactly the tough liberals of the Truman era.
My sense is that the center is returning to where is always has been as opposed to where the right says it is, and this in part is a reflection of the crumbling of the conservative movement and the rise of the liberal movement in opposition to conservative ascendancy. But it's true that liberals shouldn't smugly think that liberalism is America's one and only political philosophy -- and hence bound to triumph. There is a decidedly illiberal streak in American life -- derived not from Lockean political thought but from puritanism -- and it's important for Democrats to pay that demographic some attention.
But I think you're right about so-called moderates. They have indeed abandoned Bush.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 4:57 PM
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
By
Anonymous, at 12:03 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home