Can You Have Partisanship Without Ideology?
Big Tent Democrat (BTD) over at TalkLeft has a long post accusing me of quasi-Naderism for my post expressing some skeptical cynicism that happy partisan unity by many Democrats in opposition might give way to internal division and even collusion with many of the same corporate interests currently dominating DC -- unless that partisan unity is backed up by an ideology that articulates a real alternative
Read Big Tent Democrat's whole post and my response is on the flip.
1) BTD ignores the obvious point on Nelson v. Lieberman-- a more progressive primary winner in Connecticut can win the general election; a primary challenger in Nebraska probably couldn't (and possibly the same can be said in Pennsylvania).
2) I admit to a jaundiced view on this new enthusiasm for primary challenges, since back in 2004, I tried to get Kos and a few other blogs interested in a primary challenge to Tom Lantos, who plays a similar role to Lieberman in enabling conservative foreign policy by Republicans (and has done so since the 1980s). I was told good netroots activists don't challenge incumbents. Rules seem to change, and those who aren't keeping up with the fashions suddenly are quasi-Naderites.
3) Of course, I'm not saying Dems are the same as Republicans -- as the link in my original post to my essay a decade ago emphasizes, I've been arguing the exact reverse for a long time. But happy unity and partisanship may quickly unravels when the corporate lobbying beast bellies up to the Democratic-led bar and starts picking off swing Democrats. Remember, the corps won't have to buy off many to keep a slightly modified K Street apparatus happily still in full gear.
4) On the core issue of ideology and partisanship, BTD starts off saying bi-partisanship is an ideology, which of course it is, then want to argue you can have real partisanship that is in some way distinguishable from ideology. The only other version of partisanship that is different from ideology is "jobs for the boys" which leads us back to (3) above, where swing "partisan" Democrats get the corporate payoffs previously going to dominant GOP leaders.
5) My point is that in 1980, Democrats lost working control of both the House and Senate. They regained control of the House from the Boll Weevil-GOP coalition in 1982 and regained control of the Senate in 1986. So the point of the generation gap meme in this discussion is that some of us have been here before. And the reason we ended up here again is that once the Dems retook control, they did many things better than the GOP, but the corporate-dominated faction was still way too happy to enjoy the fruits of office, get fat and happy playing the DC game, and left themselves vulnerable to Newt Gingrich's ideological rhetoric and organizing.
I remember watching Newt on C-SPAN in the early 1980s explaining how it would take him a decade to take over the House (he explicitly called his shot a decade before 1994) based on honing a clear ideological challenge to Democrats and using that ideology to create greater unity in the GOP caucus-- and discipline wavers when necessary.
Now, let me be clear -- "ideology" doesn't mean litmus tests or even unity on every point, but it does mean a common set of values and understanding of who the movement represents. Some of that happens quite regularly on the blogs -- my point is not that what the blogs is doing is wrong, but that they need more clarity of vision and less embarassment about asserting the values and principles that a partisan Democratic party should represent.
Some of this is semantics, but the non-semantic part is that blurry vision and ideology is exactly what the corporate machine will exploit once Dems take power to intervene in internal fights, pour money into the most pro-corporate wings of that leadership, and swing votes to make sure as little changes as possible whatever nominal "partisan" change occurs.
As I said, having been here before, I have no doubt that many things will substantially improve with a change in party leadership.
I just am more ambitious and want more than a slightly better rehash of the corporate wheeling and dealing that gave Newt and company their opening to take over in 1994 in the first place.
There is no interest on the neo-left who make up the core constituency of the blogofascists (Kos, DFA/BFA, TalkLeft, et al) in recognizing all the issues, let alone uniting in the interest of all the issues. They might willingly exploit those issues.. use them for lip service to gain support, but they discard them when the rubber hits the road.
Their ethics and standards are deplorable, and you are spot on when you make comparisons like Gingrich and his contract on America.. they are the same type of divide and conquer brigade.. and for the same reason.
What I've said since 2000 is that I believe that so many of them might have been weaned on the republican/Reagan/Bush/Gingrich theories parroted by parents or the corporately owned media that they can seem like by-products of those right wing ideologies.. and lack any significant understanding of what progressiveism actually means... especially considering what progressives and the left were painted as being by said right wingers. They view social justice and most civil rights issues as being unimportant and some even dismiss them as anachronistic. Just the other day on NPR a report spoke about the rebirth of the SDS, and one of the new founding members of this incarnation of it inferred that the working to reduce and end poverty were nothing more than a single issue that they weren't going to get bogged down with.
August 6, 2006 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should say that while I oppose Newt on every issue possible, I think his approach to politics was more honest than the current GOP leadership, who mask pure corporate payoffs in lies about "compassionate conservatism", "clean skies initiatives" and other Orwellian talk So I'm in some ways wishing the blogs would emulate a progressive, honest version of Gingrich, rather than the defused partisanship of Rove and Bush which hides its ideology much of the time..
Many honest small government conservatives feel they were sold a bill of goods by the GOP leadership as Delay and Bush fully took over. And my question is whether many Dems may not feel the same if they don't hold their own leaders accountable to a vision where corporate interests don't hold the major seat at the decision-making table.
August 6, 2006 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand that, but still the neo-left, has to be forced to back up their lip service with genuine commitment to all the issues rather than be allowed to laud themselves as being activist on those issues. Likewise, they have to be held to the standards they use with their tests of ideological purity.. because their hypocrisy and willing indifference is plain out moral relativism.
August 6, 2006 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well his most recent comments are getting more and more ideologic.
Sounds to me like the GOP is running scared....when Americans do not agree with Bush and his policies we are 'traitors' now when we want to throw them out of office we are 'insurgents'? WTF??
August 6, 2006 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
From my viewpoint, the Democratic Party has two very serious problems in their lack of clarity about their fundamental values and ideas and their lack of commitment to fighting for those values if they ever figure out what they are. Now, I am not altogether serious here but I am not being flippant either. The Democratic Party suffers from not having a clear (how about discernible or even identifiable ) ideology and they are universally castigated for a lack of commitment to fighting for values they believe in. Both problems are serious and both arise now given the widespread rejection of the Republican, conservative-neoconservative, right-wing, militarist agenda. I agree with Billmon's disgust at the weak response of the Democrats to foreign policy disasters and crises ranging from Iraq, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, Arab-Israeli conflict. The Republicans have successfully demonized the UN; but our reliance on it even in the current conflict in Lebanon makes clear how essential a multilateral approach to foreign affairs is; how important respecting other nations' rights and beliefs are; how essential using all peaceful means at hand before resorting to force is. I do not think one can avoid this as an overriding principle that should be enshrined in the Democratic Party ideology. Domestically there is broader agreement but still serious dispute. I think Newman and Billmon and other progressives are correct when they insist that the ideology has to stem from a broad national popular need rather than directed by corporate bought and corporate directed lobbyists. But it is also essential to have strong partisanship and a willingness to fight (which seems altogether lacking in our elected leaders). So either they lack passion or they agree with the corporatist, military, neocons we oppose.
August 6, 2006 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The one thing Democrats could do that would solidify our base, make clear our idealogy, and probably gain enough votes to solidly take back the Congress, is to promise that the rules in Congress will be altered to prohibit any lobbying activity by corporate interests involving Congress. That means no lobbiest-written bills, no free lunches, no information packets, no free trips, no bribes or campaign donations by any lobby that represents in any way a corporaton or group of corporations. Fix the K Street problem by actually fixing it, not just taking it over.
Of course this wont sell, primarily because lobbying activity is so profitable for members of Congress, and those lobbiests don't really care which party is in charge, they just want their bills passed by whomever it is.
Hoppy in Sacramento
August 6, 2006 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"idealogy"? D'you ever check a dictionary before writing out a work that you aren't sure how to spell? But then again, what can one expect from someone who calls themself, hoppy..
Y'know Hoppy, I've read your rants now for probably close to a year now, and you just don't get it, Marxists are not the base of the democratic party.. you see, we democrats believe in freedom, the right to self determination, you Marxists don't share those beliefs. You are in favor of totalitarianism. The closest you get is that you believe you have the freedom to deny the poor theirs.
August 6, 2006 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The practical issue, though, is what the caucus thinks it needs to do to maintain itself in the majority.
Early on the Republican caucus was of two minds; it rewarded and supported Gingrich ("ideology") but not so much that it didn't turn to Delay ("practical money-raising politics") for its Whip over Gingrich's friend Robert Walker. And the rest -- K Street and TRMPAC, Medicare Part D and $64 billion of earmarks -- is, as they say, history.
Unless Pelosi, Emmanuel, and Hoyer believe they can win in 2008 on policy rather than on money, no amount of ideology will keep them in line.
August 6, 2006 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Nathan, I'm not being sarcastic or meanspirited but I really do not understand what it is you're trying to do or say here.
You say you fear that partisanship in this current election might result in internal division and corporate collusion, but that is the problem - the party IS internally divided and we already have corporate collusion. We don't have a party anymore, we have a lifeboat for some and water for a few and more and more of us are being thrown overboard while it's every man for himself. You're worried about rearranging the deck chairs and we're worrying about just getting a seat in the lifeboat.
We've had two major elections, now, where not one member has stood up and fought for us. Not one. No one even bothered to shout out that the boat was sinking, they were all so busy clambering over the side. And maybe, just maybe that is what it took to wake Democrats up to the fact that we're drowning out here while some, think that they're entitled to a seat in the lifeboat, and the rest of us can pick shit with the gulls.
You are cautioning this new generation over and over to watch for ideological purity and better the devil you know and be careful and all the tired old cliches of political life that has made such a failure
of my generation's timid bid to change and advance the future of our country. We're so afraid, so unwilling to challenge the bad, the mediocre and the downright rotten, that we're becoming them. "No, no," we say, "we might get someone worse." Well, how much worse is it going to get? We have a losing war, no health insurance, trillions of dollars of debt, fewer and fewer jobs, more and more expensive educations with no prospects, a defense budget out of control, a population so fearful and cringing that they're willing to give up their civil rights and a government that is beholden only to the rich.
So now we have a generation, smarter, wiser and far more resourceful than mine or your's has been, who are willing, finally to fight back. They're finally willing to stand up to not only to the republicans but to the democrats who are not only not helping us, but are hurting us.
They've chosen one race and one race they might win and they've done it in a way that even if they lose they still have a democrat in office. I don't think that's foolish, I think it's damned smart and a savvy bit of political strategy. I also hope that it sends a chill up the spine of every democrat who thinks it's enough to look out for himself and as long as he gets re-elected it's good enough for him. And that is what is going to drown this party - not the bloggers, not the liberals and not the younger politicos, but the cautious and fearful, afraid of rocking the boat.
I wish you would stop discouraging and worrying and nagging at them. If they win, we'll all be that much closer to what this country needs and if they lose it will send up a flare to signal the status quo that they might be next.
August 6, 2006 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're misreading my post. I'm for Lamont winning and not discouraging activism on the race at all. As I say above, taking out Lieberman makes sense for the practical fact that a Dem candidate is guaranteed win or lose. So I think you're mixing what is very much a "meta" debate with me somehow arguing against the Lamont run in the first instance.
August 6, 2006 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mister Newman, I think we are very close in opinion here. I'm working on a series of posts about what we need to teach voters in order for them to elect a working liberal majority. The first post is on taxation.
One thing I'm trying to emphasize is that a Democratic majority in the House and/or Senate in 2006 is crucial to stoping Bushism. Unfortunately, we will almost certainly lack a working majority for any progressive legislation. We must educate the voters in order to convert them or their children.
I don't know how to go about doing this but I am going to lay down some ideas on what to teach. Hopefully, these ideas will influence someone who will influence enough people for someone to implement the ideas.
After taxation, I am going to do Civil Rights.
John
For more go to my online journal.
August 6, 2006 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the current environment, I suppose I'm the only one who finds it ironic that someone with the handle "Big Tent Democrat" is actually an aggressive small tent advocate...
August 7, 2006 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mary, you have repeatedly fabricated your "facts" regarding the Lieberman-Lamont race -- I don't think anyone needs to be lectured on ethics by the likes of a dishonest shill like you.
August 7, 2006 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't think I'm misreading your post. You're saying that unless all candidates are on the same page ideologically, partisanship won't matter, because it will result in corruption and division. I believe you're wrong about that. Without partisanship, we won't have a party - it will be pretty much what we now have - special interests combined with an "every man for himself" mindset that has resulted in the loss of two major presidential elections.
The party is incapable of promoting an ideology precisely because it lacks partisanship. What passes for partisanship in the democratic party today, is really a mutual aid society for the advancement of careers in government employment. No one in the party is advanced because of his aggressive promotion of ideology - advancement is the result of longevity and seniority and personal relationships - the party is so top heavy with powerful incumbents that it is going to topple over soon.
We all have the somewhat same ideology - but what we don't have is the same party. We have the party in Washington D.C. and then everybody else. It seems that everybody else is out here to vote for them, and we have no one to vote for us. We don't need an ideology test, we need a democratic party test.
In your last two posts, it seems to me that you're critical of these activists. What difference does it make whose idea it was to challenge incumbents? I'm sure you prefer a "tried and tested" candidate like Sherrod Brown, but Ned Lamont is what they have. It seems to me that with these posts, you're setting up an "I told you so" situation. I think that's discouraging and I think it's discouraging to lecture them on how it was done in "your day" as though something is wanting now and somehow these new activists might lose the game by winning the inning.
They're right about this strategy - ideology won't mean anything if there is no means of delivering it. Without partisanship, we won't have a party.
August 7, 2006 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bev-- Folks continually discuss the priority of different fights and campaigns. In a world of limited resources and bandwidth, you have to. And you have to discuss how to use those campaigns most effectively.
To repeat-- I think the Lamont campaign is a good thing, so no discouragement there. The question is whether partisanship is enough even once you win. And no, I don't think everyone shares the same ideology. Folks are closer within the party than thirty years ago when rightwing Boll Weevils were in the same party with Ron Dellums and other left-progressives. But there is still a lot more diversity on core issues of corporate accountability than is evident right now in opposition, where differences are masked by shared powerlessness. In fact, it's skepticism of the idea that "we all share the same beliefs" that is behind the two posts.
August 7, 2006 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poor old put-upon petey wandering the streets, candle in hand, searching for an honest man.
August 7, 2006 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Poor old put-upon petey wandering the streets, candle in hand, searching for an honest man."
Heh.
The Lieberman primary is my 'Churchill between the wars' period.
August 7, 2006 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I "fabricated" facts that have been reported by leading newspapers and other news sources. I "fabricated" Jane Hamsher's blackface photo.. sure... I fabricated those blog articles she and others like her wrote using slurs.. boy I must have some credibility or some magical power to post things under her name on her own blog.. or at HuffPo too..
Fact is scvmws, it bothers you that you've turned into such a sell out. It's the reason you have to try and blame the fact that Lamont is such a sham, and that you fell for it. That you and your blog-o-fascist pals aren't quite the shiny happy people your market yourselves a being.. that you're being shown to be callow and cheap.. and you have no defense because the veneer on your ideology is less than paper thin. So p*ss and moan, you still have to hang your head low because your reputation is less than nill.
August 8, 2006 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some friends and I late last night before finally logging off were talking about this subject. We'd gotten together online around the presidential election in 2000, and one name kept coming up, Zack Exley. He started talking about taking down the democratic party in the early '90s, then had made a pretense at Bush bashing with a few sites.. then showed up as part of moveon.org, then he migrated to the Dean campaign.. where low and behold, the "activists" spent more time trashing democrats than republicans.. and now I've been told he's involved with this current blog-o-fascist movement.
He must be good at getting elitist fools like so many of you to drink his bong water..
August 8, 2006 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bev's post puts me in mind of a movie, The Boys From Brazil" where the intro shot pans in on a chorus of young adolescent boys, and we see they're dressed in Hitler Youth uniforms and they're singing a song, "Tomorrow Belongs To Me".
Y'know Bev, people like you back in 2000 were rationalizing Nader's demand that they go after Paul Wellstone because he wasn't "pure" enough. Here's a clue.. ideology is any system of values, beliefs, or ideas shared by some social group and often taken for granted as natural or inherently true. It's dogma. The stuff Falwell prattles off at full clip.
Ideology is about the perpetuation of the status quo, it's not democratic, and your "ideology" could never be mistaken for being democratic.
Democracy requires equal rights, and respect for diversity your ideology is about putting people in little boxes with labels, not everyone has the right to be in the democratic party according to Bev, so we have to discriminate.. we all have to march, er.. goose step in rigid formation.. be cookie cutters to match. If someone did that to you, you'd scream a blue fit... but you can do it to them, right?
It's why it is so easy to draw parallels between your lot and Nazi's because what you advocate is exactly what the Nazi's did. If there are problems, you don't deal with them.. no, you pick out a small group and blame them, you marginalize them with lies and mean spirited slander. You dehumanize them to the point where it's easy to start thinking about war and killing. They didn't get there overnight.. and neither will you, but you're a lot closer than you might think to acting it out. Do you even understand how fascistic you sound to those not in your amen choir?
Nathan, you used to sound sane.. you don't any more. Get some help for yourself.. just don't go for a Freudian.
August 8, 2006 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
At first I was going to post something flippant and meanspirited but that wouldn't be a very kind thing to do. I think you're frustrated and angry that people who post here are not agreeing with you and that's a lonely position to be in - you must feel that people are ganging up on you and I'm sure it hurts your feelings that no one is on your side. I know how that feels, especially when it comes from people with whom you feel you share a political affinity.
It's nothing personal, I disagree with your point of view, just as I sometimes disagree with the points of view of others on this site. I'm not a nazi or a fascist, in fact, I believe that liberal ideology is a bit of an oxymoron. Liberalism is about change and progress and adhering to an ideology is the antithesis of change. That's my opinion, and believe me, when I say sincerely, it's nothing personal - because it isn't. I try not to be personal and treat everyone with respect and hope I haven't hurt anyone's feelings. If I unintentionally hurt your's (or anyone else's), I'm sorry.
August 8, 2006 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink