.

Yes, but by setting the discussion in such manichean terms, we run the risk of brushing over real differences in opinion.

To take one example, consider a Democrat that believes that Free Trade (reasonably regulated) benefits Americans, both wealthy and poor, improves foreign relations, and is generally good.

Another Democrat believes that Free Trade hurts working class Americans, while benefitting the wealthy, it hurts other nations by gutting environmental and labor laws, and is generally bad.

Which of these is a real Democrat? or a real Liberal?

It is all soooooo easy to sit back after the fact and say I didn't support this legislation or I didn't support that legislation. Legislation which some of your brethren from the DLC supported and allowed to be passed. If you were so much against the Bankruptcy Bill Mr. Kilgore the question can be asked what did you do to try to prevent it's passage? If you don't feel comfortable with the actions of some people who surround you maybe you should be more careful about the company you keep...and please try not to criticize others for justifiably feeling betrayed and for standing up to say so.

As Kevin Phillips puts it "Republicans have an instinct for the jugular, Democrats have an instinct for the capillairies", and Ed's comment encapsulates exactly that instinct.

David may attribute evil intentions and corrupt motives to centrist Dems, and perhaps that isn't the case, but there does need to be a sea-change in how Democrats play this game. Their efforts to outplay Republicans at their own game has resulted in a party that is demoralized and unsure of itself. Sirota may be seeing things in black and white, but I think a little less humming and hawing is exactly what we need.

I disagree with the poster here who equates dislike of Sirota's rewarmed Stalinism with 'going for the capillaries'.

I think the kind of brutal yet reason-based, grounded advocacy that you see from sources like Glenn Greenwald, firedoglake, and even Juan Cole in his stirring counterattack against Hitchens' hit piece is going to be infinitely more effective than Sirota's Rage Against the Machine schtick. The United States voting public is not interested in hearing about how 'corporations' are the source of everything that's bad, that's as undirected and useless as repeating 'love of money is the root of all evil'.

As someone who (rather unhappily) accepts identification as a Democratic "centrist," I look at David's description of my alleged belief-system and don't see a thing I recognize.

Obviously, then, you're not the kind of centrist Sirota's talking about.

So what's the problem?

Unless we're trying to defend the kinds of politicians Sirota talks about, then I don't see a problem. 

I'll agree that there's a line of civility that can be crossed, and maybe Sirota did come close, or even cross it.

But the Democrats problem is we've been overly civil, as if there's some magical high road in politics that everyone follows.

I'd rather have someone with the bloodthirst of Sirota in my corner than, say, a Lieberman, who's all-too-willing to play Mr. Nice Guy.

Certainly Brian Schweitzer did, and he won.

Dissent Protects Democracy

But Sirota is not focusing his ire on the other side, he is directing all too much of it at his own side, which actually is what is wrong with Lieberman as well.

The problem with Sirota is that he hates the modern American middle class. He envisions a world in which the economic interests of industrial labor and the rural working poor, are the sole source of the progressive movement's moral authority and purpose.

His problem is that he would leave out 90% of the people who actually make up the Democratic Party, the larger progressive movement, and the American middle class.

Sirota fetishizes his farmer-labor moral elite while implicitly casting aspersions against the service economy workers who are greater in numbers and are growing.

My goodness. Ad hominem attacks. How very fortunate we are to have one side of the debate at least (the DLC of course) that does not use ad hominem attacks. (I don't think attacking the patriotism of the whining anti-American, anti-war, anti-everything peaceniks, hippies, and other Stalinist refuse, trash, garbage, counts as an ad hominem attack. These are facts. Just facts. And besides sometimes you have to show that you are not beholding to left wing loonies).

Does David Sirota have any record of political accomplishment? (Sincere, not rhetorical question.)

Or, if you want something more exotic, I here Al Qaeda is still hiring.

I guess if I think Al Qaeda is evil that means I have to join Al Qaeda, by your logic.

I don't know, this whole thing leaves me feeling conflicted. On the one hand, we must always be skeptical even of what we believe to be most true. And you get more flies with honey than with vinegar.

On the other hand, it's seems like its the liberals are always asked to be civil and centrists who get away with demonizing the liberals any chance they get. If the left holds its nose and votes Democrat no matter how far to the right the candidate in question is, every candidate has an incentive to move as far to the right as possible. And if nothing is good or evil, if nothing is to be preferred to anything else, why do I even bother showing up at the polls anyway? For that matter, why do I even bother getting up in the morning? And how can we prevent skepticism from turning into convenience--in this case, convenience for those who have power over us?

My rule is that if I can think of a reasonable explanation for someone's behavior that doesn't assume they're a wicked person, I go with that explanation. I can think of such explanations for trade polcies that differ from my own (indeed I guess I support fairly open trade).

However, I can't think of any such reasons for the Bankruptcy Bill. Occam's Razor leads me to believe that the people voting for that bill have motivations other than the welfare of the American people--motivations I consider monstrous.

I agree with Ed that this "Matrix-ism" of the left-wing is getting out of control, but still, the people have the right to question the motives of the those who govern them. The governors have every other advantage in life, why must the governed give up the right to question?

The Matrixers are wrong to stop questioning their own beliefs, but I think we would also be wrong if we took the motivations of our government on faith.

The burden of proof should always be on those who seek to have power over another to prove that they are good people. That applies to people of both parties and all ideologies.

I prefer that the Democrats regain the chance to govern rather than be concerned with maintaining ideological purity. The reason that Bill Clinton become the first Democrat to be a two-term president is that he understood the potency of that idea.

Part of the reason that Al Gore wasn't permitted to accept his election to the presidency is because a segment of left of center voters eschewed pragmatic political considerations, and opted to vote for Ralph Nader instead.

The result has been five years plus years (and counting) of the worst president in history, and with it a disastrous war in Iraq, a ballooning national debt, a reversing of environmental regulations that had demonstrated success in keeping our air and water clean, and the packing of the federal bench with troglodytic ideologues.

The lesson to be learned is that we can no longer afford internecine battles among the factions in our coalition.

We need to respect our differences and move foward to take our country back.

I don't see how this supposed high road has worked.

If Iraq went any better, we'd lose in 06 and we'd lose in 08, don't you think?

I don't think Sirota is playing in the same field as Hannity and Coulter, first of all. Even so, I think the GOPs win not because they "demonize," but because they fight for what they believe.

We say we were for things before we were against them. 

Like I said, I appreciate Sirota's willingness to fight, and I haven't seen much of that on our side from too many other places.  

Dissent Protects Democracy

So how do we respect our differences when the differences are over issues like war? You vote for Feingold. You vote for Lieberman. The difference is thousands of Americans dead and a half a trillion tax dollars.

Rockefeller -- that NY liberal! Nope, the centrists are more like Nixon Republicans (I can hear the "peace with honor" now).

My rule is that if I can think of a reasonable explanation for someone's behavior that doesn't assume they're a wicked person, I go with that explanation. I can think of such explanations for trade polcies that differ from my own (indeed I guess I support fairly open trade).

However, I can't think of any such reasons for the Bankruptcy Bill. Occam's Razor leads me to believe that the people voting for that bill have motivations other than the welfare of the American people--motivations I consider monstrous.

I think its a good idea to have a fairly high standard for characterizing someone as "evil" because in practice it's a sort of license to treat the object of that label in an unconsidered fashion.

For instance, because those victims of Abu Ghraib were designated in some way as the evil enemy in the war on terror, the American soldiers who tortured and hurt them did not have the usual inhibitions in place. (This is not an excuse of those soldiers--it's a warning to those who would not become like them.)

Another problem with the common use of the word evil is that it contains (I think) assumptions about motive that don't often apply.

I don't think that the people who supported the bankruptcy bill felt evil as they cast their votes. I think they were lazy and stupid, but I doubt they were getting a charge out of the idea that they were screwing over multitudes of people. I imagine this was something they were trying very hard not to think about. Wouldn't their being evil demand that they were doing what they did because it was wrong, not despite it?

And what on Earth did you do to prevent the bankruptcy bill from being passed?

What got into Ed Kilgore?

Well let me be the first to say, Congratulations Ed! I usually can't stand your flacid "can't we all just get along?" approach in fear of sparking more ire towards your infamous organization. I also suppose you couldn't expect a lesser reponse to a guy who basically sees no difference between you (along with a sizeable chunk of the Democratic party) & Tom Delay. In ight of that, taking it to a know nothing hack like Sirota took guts. May you further expose the hacktastic depths of his hacktacular hackery during future submissions in this, a forum for him to advertise the wares he peddles.

"I don't think that the people who supported the bankruptcy bill felt evil as they cast their votes...Wouldn't their being evil demand that they were doing what they did because it was wrong, not despite it?"

Being evil precisely does not demand that the perpetrator be motivated by causing pain to someone else. Often, the evil lies in passive acquiescence of a monstrous system -- or in the unthinking or indifferent perpetuation of such a system. Unless we want to descend into philosophical abstractions about distinctions without real-life differences, amorality is just as evil as immorality.

If a mob boss orders a hit in order to make money rather than to cause pain to the victim and his family, does that clear the mob boss of charges that he's evil? More relevant in this case, if Coca-Cola supports the killing of union organizers at bottling plants in Columbia, should we refrain from invective on the grounds that the company didn't actually hate the victims, but simply didn't care?

Yes, there is such thing as evil. There is also such thing as legitimate disagreement. Just because distinguishing between the two is difficult and indeed subjective doesn't mean we should abdicate our responsibility as moral beings to attempt to do so.

I couldn't agree with you more about reason-based advocacy. The lovely thing about the blogosphere, this site in particular, is that its an environment where reason and fair argument and reference to evidence have more rhetorical weight than they do on television, where bluster is king. The worst part about the backlash against blogs from newspaper journalists is that they seem not to recognize what an effective bullshit filter the blogosphere is. This is something that Washington Monthly article about Al Gore a few months back touches on. I only hope that the sort of unmediated media Gore calls for penetrates broadly enough into the culture to effect the next presidential election.

It's strange that Ed's post and most of the comments that follow take on the way Sirota said what he said, and don't address the substance of what he writes, the implications for democracy in our country, and how Ed and the people here think we can address or fix the problem.

What can you do when big money has corrupted not only politics in general but the very vehicle by which most of us think to address this problem -- the Democratic Party? How do you break the stranglehold concentrated wealth has on policymaking in the United States? How can we make our country truly democratic again?

These are much more interesting things to discuss than whether Sirota is uncouth or too intense of fanatical or not cool.

I agree with Ruy Teixiera that the message can't be a play on crude class-based resentment because people here aspire to become rich and think they have a shot at it. Kurt Vonnegut was very wise when he posed the question: "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"

I think many, many people are very angry at being screwed by their health insurance companies. Many understand that politicians are bought by these interests. I think it may be possible to harness this anger by appealing to a sense of fair play and democracy -- why should a giant insurance company have more political influence than a nurse who works for it?

People may not now make these connections or, if they do, it may not be a very salient issue for them. But that's partly our fault for not getting out there and finding ways to educate them.

We should be thinking of how to do that rather than criticizing the messenger for not being nice to us.

This kind of shallow relativism is really tiring. The difference between saying that Republicans and centrists are Evil and saying that gays/women/communists/environmentalists are evil is precisely the obvious difference. The object of one sentence is 'Republicans and centrists' and the object of the other is 'gays/women/communists/environmentalists.' No doubt you will think this response misses the point. But the only way the object of the ascription of evil could not matter is if no one is evil. To think that is absurd. (you seem to think that use of terms like 'evil' mean that you have a theological view of ethics. let me tell you, as a graduate student studying the history of ethics, you simply do not know what you are talking about.)
It matters who is being called evil, because it matters whether what is being said is true or not. The response that this is not what happens in a society that plays nice is completely confused. If there actually are evil people out there, how does it make things better to not identify them as such? If there are no evil people out there, then the claim that there are is false, and thing to do is point out that it is false, not complain about its tone.
As for the 'only one with a "true" vision' line, well don't you think that you have the only true vision, with respect to the etiquette of political debate? If not, then presumably you think that the opposing position has just as much claim to truth as yours. If that is the case, why bother writing a critical comment. If one wants to use sentences in the declarative voice, then one sure as hell better think that one is speaking the truth, or one is being irresonsible.

"Within the left is a diversity of sincerely held beliefs none of which, in my view, should be required as a gate pass to the conference table of the left"

What about the following? Economic and social conditions should be tailored and directed so as to help the worst off in society? If someone claimed to be on the left and disagreed with that it would be odd right? Of course I doubt that you would get the Clinton wing of the party to say they disagreed with it. They might say you can't run on that idea, but they wouldn't outright disagree. And maybe they are being honest. But here is the thing. It seems pretty clear, as a matter of empirical fact that the policies of the DLC are radically regressive. (Technically I think the growth in the gap between rich and poor was greater under Clinton than under Bush, but the decline in real income and real wealth is certainly worse under Bush, so I don't mean to say that are so radically regressive as to be worse than the current guy). After a certain point if you have someone who says they agree with you about what the goal should be, but continually undermines it, you have to say 'No More!' That said, here is the one point where I will join the group of people complaining about the 'Evil' remark. It doesn't make much sense to say that someone is evil for believing in a false theory of economics. Some false beliefs make you evil (like the belief that the Jews are all out to get us or something like that), but not beliefs about economics. I like to think that people in the Clinton wing of the party are either just confused about economics, or confused about the effect their electoral strategy has on American political discourse. If my hope is right, then they aren't all evil.

And since when did the fact that thinking for yourself was a generally good thing mean that the truth should not be shouted loudly? Presumably thinking for yourself is good only because it is good at getting at the truth, and presumably someone shouting angrily doesn't stop anyone from thinking for themselves. Maybe you think Sirota is wrong, but he is not wrong for anything having to do with the idea that people ought to think for themselves.

We live in a country where people against war are admonished for wanting to throw war-mongers out of office, and also told we have to talk nicely about them. I am sorry but I don't see how Lieberman's moral standing is any higher than Bush's. They are both complicit in murder. Politeness is not a moral value, or if it is, it is compartively weak, and it has become a fetish when it is demanded in the face of men like Joe Lieberman.
Is it tactically useful to be polite? Perhaps. No, it defintely is sometimes. But at a certain point ought'nt truth trump tactics? When will the centrist Dems stop thinking that any Dem is worth supporting? When they support flat taxes, ending welfare, and slaughtering the poor and weak of other countries? Is winning still going to be important when, in 20 years, we have the ideological clone of Bush running with the (D) next to his name? I understand the short term benefits of having someone in office who wouldn't nominate Sam Alito. I hope that everyone else can appreciate the long term costs of ideological surrender. When no major public figure occupies the progressive ideological position, the positions get redefined, and what was once racist trash becomes 'radical right', what was once 'reactionary elitist' becomes the president, and what was once a moderate Republican becomes the de facto head of the Democratic party. People like to think the only reason for the rightward shift of opinions in this country is the efficient conservative network of thinktanks, media outlets and institutions ensuring party discipline. That is important. I cannot see how it is not also important that for 8 years the opposition failed to make cogent arguments against them.

On the other hand Mr. Kilgore has a mouth and he uses it likehe does here. Why doesn't he link to some of his disputes with the centrists (and they were undeniably centrists) who supported the corporate bankruptcy bill which increased misery on thousands of poor and struggling workers. Since you are so interested in actions, why don't you demand that Mr. Kilgore link to his outraged reaction when marshal Wittman denounced the antiwar left as "anti-American". I find this post of his quitedishonest.

I guess I just don't agree that the tactics on the left, even Sirota's, are the same as the right's.

And his target is corruption, and corporate-backed Dems and GOPs. I have no problem with them as the target.

I do agree that what the GOPs "believe" is not what they say -- but they give the appearance of believing, and you can write their slogans on a bumper sticker. That's puts them several notches ahead of us in terms of politics.

Finally, of course willingness to fight doesn't excuse everything, certainly not lying. But I haven't seen anyone accused Sirota of lying. They just don't like that the people he picks on happen to be Dems of a certain breed. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

How exactly is Sirota's book different from Ann Coulter's other than in choice of target? Ad hominem is fun to read, but it's still a fallacy. Intellectual dishonesty is intellectual dishonesty whether you agree with the conclusion or not. Otherwise, it's just a question of who can lie more effectively. Politics has to be about more than that.

Noel

Maybe I came off here as some sort of uber leftist crazy. I think Glenn Greenwald is one of the best bloggers doing. His meticulous, lawerly shredding of conservative ideas and actions is absolutely perfect. I just think to get most people to pay attention it's going to take changing people's attitude to see corporate/political corruption as a moral evil that's infected the whole system of power and is holding back our country, not just a technocratic problem that's making government less efficient or responsive or (insert other academic political science term). IE, people won't pay attention until we convince them that Sirota's right.

Look, the reason the battle for the Democratic Party matters so much is that the two contending forces in fact want quite different things. The liberal/progressiveleft want nothing less than a fundamental change in the direction this country is going. This is anathema to the centrists not because they don't think the left can be elected; in fact they do not WANT it to be elected, they see no need for fundamental change, they want to defeat Republicans yes but change their policies only slightly...from Iraq to tax cuts to social security privatization...the center/right/moderates want a more human touch but the Bush policies are not revolting to them (of course, the centrists believe they could effect these policies more efficiently and more equitably). It seems to me this is no small difference. When the Republicans say the Dems have no ideas they are half-right; since the center-right-moderate faction in fact accepts the Republican ideas just wanting them implemented somewhat more humanely. On the other hand, given this enormous abyss, it is essential for the center-right to demonize the left for therein lies a serious challenge to the direction this country is heading. So they readily adopt the language and stereotypes and "framing" used by the Republicans. To change this country, it is essential for the Dems to decide its identity; the tension between its factions will only intensify.

I'm not, at least not to extent of embracing the Sirotas and Michael Moores of the world. Riding the tiger to power usually ends up with the rider inside.

Noel