The Case For Deferring Some "Arguments"
With the partial exception of Joan McCarter's excellent post, it appears the discussion over Matt Bai's book has drifted away from the internal party "argument" I first posted about, and towards the external "argument" Matt urges Democrats to take more seriously. I will probably have my Centrist Wonk credentials revoked for saying this, but I pretty much agree with Mark and Garance that Democrats have a perfectly adequate "take on the world" (give or take some important foreign policy details) to offer in 2008 unless Republicans begin to offer something different. But I'd also suggest that it makes a lot of sense to defer some parts of the internal argument over the external argument until we've run Republicans out of power.
On the first point, Matt's implicit fear seems to be that Democrats could lose the argument with post-Bush Republicans if we can't shake off our focus on simply opposing Bush. As expressed in his book, that fear probably reflected a reasonable and widespread assumption that the GOP might succeed in nominating a presidential candidate who could distance himself from Bush, and cynically offer a "fresh start" after the trauma of the Bush years.
But that's not how it seems to be playing out, is it? At the moment, the entire viable Republican presidential field is competing to embrace a more-competent-and-more-right-wing version of Bushism. Their only "argument" is that the country needs less compassion and more conservatism, and maybe a war with Iran to redeem the failed war in Iraq. And more tax cuts, of course, and perhaps a revamped tax system that exempts wealth, personal and corporate, from taxation altogether. On social issues, the intra-Republican argument is between those who want to recriminalize abortions and demonize gays and lesbians via legislation, and those who prefer to do it by judicial appointments.
As a hard, cold, political reality, how much innovation do Democrats actually need to rebut that "argument?" And how much time and energy should we devote to internal fights over the details of our own argument? Not a lot, I'd suggest.
But to get to the second point, my main worry about the netroots and other unhappy Democratic outsiders with respect to "ideas" isn't that they don't have them or care about them (as Joan argued, and Matt conceded, they have lots of them if you look outside the purely political sites). It's that Bush and company have so contaminated the ground of policy discussion that Democrats might make bad choices if forced to thrash out the external argument in every detail.
I've long felt that Democratic centrists are the donkeys who should hate Bush more than anyone, since he's managed to slime a vast variety of potentially positive policy ideas with his toxic touch. Social Security reform? Forget it after Bush's reactionary 2005 proposal. Accountability-based education reform? Heavily discredited by Bush's implementation of NCLB. Charter public schools? Conflated by Bush with unconditional subsidies for private schools. A technology-based Revolution in Military Affairs? Totally discredited by Rumsfeld's clammy embrace in Iraq. Tort reform? Also totally discredited through its misuse by Republicans as a substitute for real health care reform. The very idea of "bipartisanship" on policy issues has been destroyed by Bush and company, who have done everything possible to validate Grover Norquist's contemptuous definition of bipartisanship as "date-rape."
I could go on and on, but you get the point. To the extent that completely rational and justifiable Bush-hatred has constrained progressive positions on policy issues, we can't have the argument we need internally until we reclaim the White House and expand our grip on Congress.
Then we must indeed renew our various arguments, and thrash them out, and it may not look pretty, and many of us may be at each other's throats. But I'd personally be much happier with having that argument in the context of a Democratic administration, and in a Congress when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid don't look so futile on so many issues. And the kind of policy discussions that Matt Bai--and I--consider essential in the long run would most definitely thrive in that far less polluted air.
Speaking strictly for myself, even though I have a computer and as a result, hate America, the only thing that would get me interested in supporting the Democrats again is if they cut off funding for Iraq, and put impeachment back on the table. Otherwise, I promise to do everything I can to see that they are not elected in 2,008.
September 27, 2007 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
See Matt, the left does to have ideas. Just go down to "live mike night" at the bad poetry society you'll hear all kinds of ideas. You can enjoy the clove cigaretts too.
Jack
September 27, 2007 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
They can construct a proper sentence too, the traitors.
September 27, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What, no comment on the spelling errors?
Jack
Who suspects his comments deserve a 0 rating
;-)
September 27, 2007 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to mention the spelling but I thought that would be piling on.
September 27, 2007 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
While Rumsfeld may have somewhat discredited proponents of a "technology-based Revolution in Military Affairs", the Bush Admin has actually done a lot to empower a very different group of military reformers: the small-war and counterinsurgency advocates. In the post-Rumsfeld era, the Petraeus-McMaster-Nagl crowd is ascendant. For the first time since Creighton Abrams in Vietnam in 1969, there's a chance that the US might start taking counterinsurgency seriously -- with its emphasis on the minimum necessary use of force and political over military goals. That could be a very healthy thing; the Surge is bad policy for America, but it may prove to be a very valuable experience for the Army.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 28, 2007 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Defending privacy, free speech, the rule of law, freedom of inquiry, habeas corpus, workers rights, voting rights, the nation's already meager social safety net, and its reputation and influence in the world, while trying to protect our military from misuse and abuse, vital government services from corruption, and our economy from crippling public debt is a big, vital and hard job.
Made harder still by the fact that members of the media like Bai insist on seeing all of the above as nothing more than "opposing Bush."
You can't build a new house on a crumbling foundation. Somebody's big new idea about health care or agriculture policy, economic development or security and defense will be meaningless if we keep undermining the very foundation of our democracy. And allowing the destruction of the concepts that form the basis of our strength and freedom.
September 28, 2007 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that Bai is finished trashing the Left blogosphere maybe he can turn his sights on the Right. I'm sure he will find much deeper thinkers over there.
September 28, 2007 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very well-said Mr. Kilgore. Thanks.
sPh
September 28, 2007 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark-
Here's my takeaway of what I take to be the crux of Matt's argument here:
"the progressive movement as a whole seems mostly unconcerned with making any argument about the modernization of government, vastly preferring, instead, to vilify Republicans and exalt the virtues of party discipline and tactical superiority"
So I have a couple of quick responses to that:
1. What Matt describes is taken directly from the Republican playbook. This, IMHO, is necessary but not sufficient. It's part of catching up, and leveling the playing field
2. When he says "modernization of government", I assume you're not referring to best management practices, but rather to developing a new paradigm, just as the New Deal was a new paradigm, and Ronald Reagan embodied a new, neo-conservative paradigm.
3. The surface of the real problem is that Democrats/liberals/progressives haven't established a meaningful narrative that ties the different elements of their new paradigm together. This is, in large part, because that new paradigm hasn't yet been developed. I think that's what you mean when you say "modernization of government."
4. I think there isn't a new paradigm yet because there hasn't been a fundamental discussion about values, and what values will be fundamental/necessary/sufficient to that new paradigm.
5. Right now there are "value clusters" in the Democratic Party, roughly represented by the Clintons, Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, and Biden. The struggle is on to see which value cluster will predominate.
6. Somewhat off topic, Clinton is trying to win over the other value clusters by virtue of potentially being the first woman US President.
(apologies for cross-posting)
September 28, 2007 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have fun wasting your time fighting the Dems, rather than trying to change them.
Why don't you just give to ActBlue pages of the progressive primary challengers to conservative Dems in safe Dem seats or do something productive?
A Dem President is a different ball of wax from a Dem Congress, and change will come if we elect a Dem as President.
September 28, 2007 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can sort of see all of them except Biden. He gets some special foreign policy cluster?
September 28, 2007 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give money to a Green candidate, if I can find one, or stay home. I'm done with the Democrats. I don't know how they can make it any clearer that progressives are not welcome in that party, only their money and support. They lied to us about ending the war, and they refuse to impeach a President who deserves to be impeached on several grounds. I guess they don't believe in following the constitution? If you want to continue being suckered by them, be my guest.
September 28, 2007 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I'm with you on this. Seems like we could also concentrate on our mutual points of disagreement with Bush.
The problem is, we say that and then I wake up one morning to find out that a bunch of people in congress, including Democrats, have given Bush warrantless eavesdropping authority.
Now I'm willing to accept that most democrats aren't as anti-Patriot Act as I am and even that some of them think that FISA is too restrictive or that technologies have changed. I'm willing to have that debate. But can't we at least agree, as with your example of Rumsfeld with the military, that even if you're the kind of Democrat who supports a certain reform that Bush is too incompetent to execute it?
Because in the end, I think this election's going to be decided more on the "competence" question than on the issues.
But there are some Democrats I just want to grab and shake on this point. Yes, maybe you think we have to deal harshly with Iran. But why do you think that Bush is the guy to do it?
Maybe there are some great ideas out there but I wouldn't trust Bush to put whipped cream on a sundae.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 28, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of having my bleeding-heart-looney-lefty credentials being revoked as well, nicely put Mr. Kilgore.
September 28, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
sphealey and staleync:
As Jesse Jackson, Sr., used to say, I'm delighted to be united with you.
And if anyone's wondering why I'm not involved in this comment thread, the discussion has gone in a different direction than my post, which is fine. I'm enjoying it.
Ed Kilgore
September 28, 2007 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
ohio did you notice that your party silently slipped the war criminal Bush another 60 billion for his illegal war yesterday?
I guess they are so embarrassed about the lies they told to get our votes they are trying to keep their continued support of it secret now. But I'm sure this is all going to change soon. Meanwhile, send more money.
September 28, 2007 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't trust any Democrat who voted to give him a green light to attack Iran to put the cherry on top of the whipped cream.
September 28, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
September 28, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't stay home.
Dems need a 60 vote majority. I think the key IS to elect both a "super" majority Dem Congress and a Dem president. Then we can work on getting Greens and real progressives in.
The lock-step, jack-booted thugs (AKA the Republican Party) need to be drummed out of government before any positive change can occur.
The Dems aren't great, but they're the platform that progressives need to spring from.
It's not pleasant, I know, but think strategically. The jack-booted thugs do. That's the way to restore America. Get moving back toward the middle, at least, then let the momentum do it's thing.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
September 29, 2007 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not staying home, but I'm not voting for any candidate who has signed on to war with Iran and who intends to keep us in Iraq till 2013 or 2017 or forever at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
That rather limits my choice to third party candidates, I fear.
September 29, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anything the Democrats are moving to the Right rather than the Left. I'm not going to live long enough to see the opposite. They are about to hoist Clinton on us and the party is dominated by the Steny Hoyers of the world. I have nothing in common with these people. I would rather support a party where progressives are the mainstream, rather than a tolerated minority that the establishment treats like an angry, retarded cousin. Maybe they can pick up all the votes they are losing on the Left, with voters in the red states they seem to be so enamored with at the moment? However, should they ever decide to try and earn my vote, rather than just taking it for granted, I will listen. As I said before a good start would be to stop the Iraq war, rather than making excuses for why they can't, and start impeachment proceedings against the war criminal in chief. There is nothing getting done at the moment that will distract from, and it may keep us from getting into another quagmire before he is finally gone.
September 29, 2007 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an idea:
Impeach!
September 29, 2007 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not Exactly. John Edwards is running as a Dem.
Seems to me we have to work with the system we got, not the one we wish we had. We have a two-pary system in which third parties act as spoilers. Knowing this, I'd find it hard to "throw my vote away" on a third party and act superior about it.
I do support third parties, but the only way we'll get effective representation from a third party is by running "stealth" candidates in the mainstream parties that change their affinity once in office, (not honest) or go to a system like "instant run-off voting" which I heartilty support.
At any rate, acting as if there are no anti-war Democrats running doesn't make much of an argument. Edwards is one, Dodd is another. Maybe try to work with what we have if you realyl want to see some changes.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
September 30, 2007 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink