The Right Fights
Eric has penned a complex book, precisely because it is so comprehensive an analysis of liberalism, its proud past and accomplishments, and its discontents. I agree with Joan that the most controversial of Eric's arguments is that we must rehabilitate and fight for liberalism, while "admitting our mistakes." She calls this a contradiction; I would call it a necessary tension.
Joan's right that some liberal "mistakes" (politically speaking) flow from liberalism's proudest accomplishments. There'd be no backlash without civil rights; no anti-abortion movement without Roe v. Wade; and for that matter, no vast undertow of hostility to government and taxes without liberal policies that helped lift many millions of Americans into the middle (and increasingly upper-middle) class. Some of the recent political weakness of liberalism is largely cyclical, just as the political power of conservatism may not survive an extended period of conservative misgovernment.
But Joan's (and on occasion, Eric's) conviction that liberalism's worst recent trait has defensiveness and an unwillingness to fight is, IMO, an overreaction to a real but hardly dispositive bad habit. Yes, Democrats have learned that there is significant electoral value in articulating and promoting a consistent, principled point of view. But much of that value isn't a matter of "frames" or "dominating the narrative," as we've heard so often in the last few years; its larger importance is in reassuring Americans that we Democrats stand for something larger than the pursuit of power, and can be held accountable for fidelity to our own principles and their distinguished pedigree.
For the same reason, however, there are limits to the political power of coherent ideology, self-confidence, and "fighting" rhetoric. In a representative democracy, liberals also need to be roughly in alignment with a majority of citizens in their values, principles, goals and policies (accepting, of course, that there are times when refusing to bend to the popular will is morally essential, and will be vindicated by history). Indeed, one of contemporary liberalism's great advantages over conservatism, as Jonathan Chait has argued, is its willingness to temper ideology with empirical data. That's why we are proud to call ourselves "the reality-based community."
And that leads to another small but significant disagreement I have with Eric's line of reasoning. He's convinced that the "L-word" must be rehabilitated, in no small part because it cannot be evaded without cowardly, evasive, and politically damaging behavior. His exhibit A is John Kerry's inability to deal with the 2004 claim (largely based on a poorly developed National Journal rating system) that he was "the most liberal Senator."
This is of more than historical interest, since Barack Obama is getting hammered with the same claim based on the same shoddy "evidence."
So should Obama "embrace" and "redefine" the liberal label, in the course of a relatively brief general election campaign? Perhaps. If any politician has the rhetorical skills to do that, he does. But before reaching that conclusion, it's worth noting that in the phrase "most liberal Senator," the first adjective is probably more important than the second. Many Americans are nervous about anyone running for president who is the "most" according to any ideological measurement, regardless of its nature. By world standards, we are a relatively non-ideological people who want leaders willing to "get things done" and occasionally accept less than ideal outcomes.
Therein lies the tension I think Eric's book demonstrates: liberals must be sufficiently ideological--and proud of it--to represent a coherent and compelling point of view, but we must also show that, unlike George W. Bush, we can admit mistakes as they occur, and also accept we don't, as Eric puts it, "know everything."
In the extended intra-Democratic debate on what we can learn from the successes and failures of the conservative movement, in which Eric's book represents something of a watershed, I hope we are learning that ideological rigor and strict partisanship--the "fighting liberal" approach to politics--is necessary but not of itself sufficient for victory or for good government. Where possible, we need to engage in the right fights, where our values, the aspirations of the American people, and historical opportunity, all converge.
Admitting mistakes is just as important as admitting our humanity. Theleft and theright and all humanity must admit mistakes. If there is a perfect person, or a perfect party, or a perfect nation, or a perfect company, or church, - where are they. It appears obvious that all humanity is prone to mistakes, - so and while recognizing mistakes is healthy and necessary, so is focusing on strenghts and accomplishments.
The critical problem is theright defines theleft, and frames theleft in grievously unkind, disrespectful, and patently false terms and images. The complicit parrots in the socalled MSM on the payroll of the Bush government dutifully regurgitates therights slime, and curiously refuses to seriously examine therights failures, abuses, deceptions, and crimes.
Theleft must define and frame theleft, and shine searing hot lights on the wild divides between the policies and ideologies that separate theleft from theright. There are huge tectonic divides. There are also shades of grey, and degrees or points of convergence. Theleft must muster the courage to fight for our policies and ideologies. There is little hope of countering therights slime with respect and civility. The conflicts are always driven to the gutter and slime by the propagandists, disinformation warriors, and "message-force multipliers on theright. (Anyone challenging, questioning, dissenting with, or opposing therights policies and practics is immediately and automatically slimed as antiamerikan, unpatriotic, communist, lunatic appeasers giving aid and comfort to the enemy, who doesn't love thebabyjesus.
We all want "...peace on earth and good will towards men", - but there is little hope for that possilibity in the current environment, and theright does not, and will not play fair, or be civil, and certainly not honest. Theright brutes whatever slime they deviously conjure, because all the media attention and political oxygen on focused on the scurrilous aspersions of the opponent, and not the deceptions, abuses, failures, financial malfeasance, treacheries, treasons, and wanton profiteering of theright.
This is a battle, and it must be fought and won as a battle, a fight. And Queens rules were tossed out the window years ago, - American politics is an Ultimate Fighting contest. The DNC and theleft in general must develop ground fighting and MMA skills. Not literally of course, but in terms defeating theright on therights grounds and terms. Theleft need not stoop to the gutter and the lowest levels of human depravity like theright employs to win battles, - but we must be prepared and willing to fight and win these battles, and defeat theright with better skills, better preperation, superior strength of will, and in the contest of political, economic and social affairs - with superior policies, practices, and ideas that will better serve and advance people's best interests, - not the oligarchs and the predator class.
Theright brutes and advances inferior policies
and practices that that dimish or injure the peoples best interests, and benefits and advances the oligarchs and the predator class singularly and exclusively.
Thelefts failure to challenge, defeat and defend this obvious truth is a direct result of the lack of capability, or an unwillingness to fight against and defeat therights domination of the message, and total control of the message-force multipliers.
In the kabuki theater that is American politics, theright are the directors, the main actors, the set decorators, the LD's, the propmasters, the costumer's, the playwrites, and they own the theaters, - theleft must fight for and win parts and places and voices in the theater.
May 20, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as many of the public see the word "liberal" as something to vote against,
Republicans will continue to use it as a weapon.
Most of the public who run from the word "liberal" couldn't give a real reason why, nor could they define the word in a realistic manner. Ask them what liberal programs they're against and you get a blank stare or some vacuous reason they heard on talk radio or FOX.
Democrats have to articulate the liberal programs passed over the last 100 years that have lifted so many up. Why refuse to defend, in a liberal framework,; Social Security, Medicare, 40 hour work week, child labor laws, collective bargaining, workplace safety, student loans, GI Bill, unemployment compensation, etc.?
May 21, 2008 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the actual problem is that we are relatively non-ideological by world standards.
And, IMO, the minimal part of the solution for that would be public financing of Congressional campaigns, including generously reasonable provisions for third parties.
The real solution, though, is amending the body of the Constitution to make us more of a parliamentary government.
Read Daniel Lazare's "The Frozen Republic" for an excellent take on this.
May 21, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I think this reflects an arrogant Eurocentric view.
What liberals need to come to understand is that the Constitution, for good or ill, is the social contract under which this country was formed. Most people are naturally reticent about changing that contract because they understand how difficult it is for a people as diverse as Americans to come to agreement on such a contract in the first place.
As the post notes, we are a non-ideological country, but mostly because of the shared ideology in the Constitution that gives the nation a starting point of agreement. You can't undo that without undoing the whole community of America.
May 21, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would add to your post that liberals also should embrace and argue for the right of the people to be represented in their views whether we agree with them or not.
One of the ways I think we can diffuse some of the power of our disagreements with the vast majority of Americans where such disagreements exists is by noting that Democrats, as a rule, respect the will of the people even when we personally may disagree with it. It doesn't mean we stop trying to change the will of the people and we should be upfront about that, but unlike the Republicans when the people clearly don't want something, we won't say "So."
May 21, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theleft does include and "...embrace and argue for the right of the people to be represented in their views whether we agree with them or not." We must however draw the line at fascism. Criminal behavior and practices, perversion and betrayal of the rule of law, and the Constitution cannot be countanenced. Democrats or any sane citizens cannot allow aberrant and criminal behavior to be tolerated. There should be no blanket aspersions, but once proven through rigorous examination - aberrant and criminal cannot under any cicumstances be tolerated, defended, or excused.
May 22, 2008 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink