Bulldozer and Big Tent, continued
Some readers may be interested in an interview about my new book with the knowledgeable Scott McLemee, to whom all praise for actually having read the book; and in Scott's own appraisal, both at Inside Higher Education.
Advertisement
I'm not well-equipped for podcasts, but I really enjoyed that second link, it was refreshing. He obviously thinks a lot, big picture, before he writes, and has a real talent for wrapping things up potently in "plain English." (i.e. "Identity politics did not put Dukakis in a tank...")I also got a real big kick our of that quote of yours from the introduction to "Intellectuals and the Flag," I'm sure you can guess why. He even brings up one of the main things that nags in the back of my mind about my own "picture" as to possible coalition building, "Jackson’s surprisingly strong primary showings among white labor unionists in 1988."
October 3, 2007 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to say, I haven't read the book yet. But it's on my Christmas list.
To his credit, McLemee did a fine job by writing a thoughtful review. But do you agree with this statement:
"In recent years, he (Gitlin) has greatly annoyed some people by suggesting that the American left has not only painted itself into a corner, but even revels in its own marginality and distance from power."
Certainly the quote that follows in the review, from your previous book (maybe I should put that on the list too), would support such a claim. But I've never gotten the "left revels in its own marginality" impression from your blogs/interviews/articles.
Moving to another point. I thought your original premiss about the big tent was that the disparate groups underneath it had a moment in history were they could rally their energies against a common, and hated, political enemy without being distracted by the differences of their own agendas.
If so, do you believe that window is closing as Bush/Rove et al become marginalized by their own party?
October 3, 2007 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
John, I have often argued (chiefly in The Twilight of Common Dreams and The Intellectuals and the Flag) that the academic left has fallen in love with its own marginality. I would still say so. I wasn't writing there about the reality-based left working in and around American politics.
In The Bulldozer and the Big Tent, I do think the whole population under the big tent can have a rollicking good time now that the (Republican) bulldozer has roared into a corner. There are legitimate arguments to be had about how to keep them there. I take my own positions in the book, but obviously those don't settle the matter. But (to muddle the dwelling metaphors further) I don't think the window is closing. The Republican Party can't afford to marginalize Bush/Rove, since Bush's approval ratings fluctuate around 29-37 percent. In other words, the bulk of the Republican base still likes their dear leader. Nothing will faze these truest of believers. Let the Democratic debate proceed.
Cheers,
Todd Gitlin
October 4, 2007 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for a direct reply.
When it comes to reveling in marginality, the distinction between academic left and reality-based left is a big and important one to make.
I understand the quixotic, chip-on-the-shoulder, we're pulling for the underdog mentality of the (big tent) left, because it looks back at me in the mirror most days.
I also see how that idealism is viewed as self-righteous by their critics. What I didn't get was McLemee's reveling in the 'distance from power' reference.
When it comes to the possibility of the Democrats holding on to the one-for-all-all-for-one energy that I witnessed in 2004,
I'm taking a skeptic's stance.
If the media eyeball focuses on Bush/Iraq during the post-primary presidential campaign, then the party stands a good chance of regenerating that energy.
Assuming Hillary Clinton wins the nomination: if the race is seen through a made for TV political prism of Clinton vs. Guliani, or women-for-president vs. anybody, I'm not so sure the party will be as galvanized because it will be on the defensive.
Either way, I think the Democratic candidate will be the next president. But in the long-term (i.e. 2012), the big tent energy could leak under the flaps unless the party can establish an embraceable identity that will withstand the conservative pundits' onslaught that made liberal a bad word and will come tenfold after 2008.
Despite Roger Cohen's op-ed in today's NYT, I don't think Liberal Interventionist is going to click.
October 4, 2007 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The party of Inclusion does have a problem with power: they stand against it to protect the little guy. It's a plank in the platform. They fail to make the point that we're all the little guy, opting instead to pose as the starving artist type with all its pretense.
They also fail to hit back well. The other side includes a large hooligan contingent, running in to kick ass. They snipe and lie and paint, which rallies this segment of their base.
The part of Big Balls might be nice to try. The stones to stand up to Republican bullshit: "Yes, it is a little like a step toward national health insurance, because that's what we all want. Companies don't get sick, they shouldn't get to vote on health matters."
Today it's the Democrats' '08 to lose. Forcing Bush to veto SCHIP to illustrate the thinness of the R mentality is great. But the House and Senate is bending over backward to mimic the Republicans' brand of toughness on domestic spying, on criticizing authority.
This Inclusion doctrine is one I value, but it seems to lead to too much deference to views completely incompatible with the Included consensus. I think the activist contingent may vote for a Nader again.
How did Bill Clinton co-opt everything truly conservative in the R portfolio? Whatever he did, it didn't force an exodus of liberals. It did seem to galvanize the yahoos though.
October 5, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Me again. Sorry, no I didn't read your book yet.)
October 5, 2007 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink