Politics in a democracy has to be comprehensible to non-political people or it cannot function. Ideological labels are necessary shorthand to this end. The labels always over-simplify, and even partisans bicker continually over their meaning. Witness the current fight among Republicans whether GWB is or is not a "true conservative".

It is always smart politics to turn the other side's label into an epithet. The Republicans realized this decades ago and their assault on the word liberal is remarkable for its discipline, ferocity, and success. Liberals now run from the term.

Eric seems to argue that the Democratic Party cannot afford not to defend their primary label, which is liberal. We have to embrace the word, make it represent Democratic successes rather than failures, fight for it in terms of today rather than mistakes made decades below. Others seem to feel the defense is too difficult, and that adopting another word (progressive is popular) is the better way to go.

An analogy is car brands, in this case I'll pick Chevy. Can GM afford to let its brand slide, or is fightig to keep Chevy from becoming an epithet intrinsic to survival as a carmaker?

Frankly, I think Eric is right. There is no fixed meaning to either conservative or liberal. Both are words whose meaning is continuously in flux, and each Party must defend their label to the death, because a completely destroyed ideological descriptor equals Party death. I also think that Democrats are wise to learn from the Republicans. Attack conservatism. Attack the word itself. Make it synonomous with incompetence, war-mongering, anti-intellectualism, avarice, and a reflexive tilt towards the interests of the rich.

Posted at May 19, 2008 6:47 PM in response to Where Does American Liberalism Stand Today?

Reed... Speaking of courage, name him.

Posted at September 5, 2007 8:43 AM in response to Going After Gore?

Obviously, the Democratic tent has to be big enough to win elections.

The Pew Research Foundation does great work breaking the electorate into meaningful types (they have nine). Liberals are the single largest group, 17% of the population, and 19% of voters.

As the largest group it is not surprising that occasionally liberals get enough power to make major policy. At 19% of the population it isn't surprising that the stars align rarely.

Gitlin uses different types, arguing the Republicans base is the "Christian Right and business firsters" Implied but not said is that the Democrats are the big tent party, and presumably get the rest.

Were it so it would be smooth sailing for us Democrats, but even using Gitlins cruder groupings I think you have to add a third group to the Republican base: Foreign Policy Reactionaries (my term, feel free to insert your own). These are people who are easily scared by foreign events, easily feel threatened, and will over-react to an attack. I think it is hard to argue they are not in the Republican base. They scored Bush's 2004 victory, and without them Giuliani's popularity among Republicans is hard to credit.

So the Republicans actually have Christian Right + Business Firsters + Foreign Policy Reactionaries. That is a potent combination. To beat them the Democrats either have to peel off some of their base or get virtually everyone else, which would be a tent too big to get much done.

Posted at September 4, 2007 1:12 PM in response to How Big a Tent?

I wish the Republican Party was limited to the "Christian Right and the business-firsters". If it was it woiuld be smooth sailing for Democrats. The Republican Party also has a lock on Foreign Policy Reactionaries, and that is not a small group.

This unfortunate reality undercuts one of Todd's best lines:

"My sense of Bush and his crowd is that they have been given too much credit for having reasons (for example, for the Iraq expedition). They did it because that is who they are—they are a will machine that does things like that"

Well, yes, maybe. But isn't it also the sort of thing that Foreign Policy Reactionaries do? You know, over-react in foreign policy?

I do not think Giuliani's success thus far can be explained any other way.

Christian Right + Business Firsters + Foreign Policy Reactionaries = Potent Combination.

Democrats can beat them, but not by being watered-down Foreign Policy Reactionaries ourselves (sorry, Hillary). We need to instead offer a more hopeful, less fear-based foreign policy alternative.

In the special case of foreign policy, we will not win by fudging our differences, and I think fudging differences is generally good politics. We have to instead make a full-force attack that Republican policies are gut reactions that MAKE US LESS SAFE. The central message is IN A DANGEROUS WORLD OUR LEADERS HAVE TO BE CAREFUL AND CALCULATING, NO MORE HOTHEADS!!!

This can strip off some foreign policy reactionaries who know on some level that their gut has not served them well over the last few years. They may not themselves be clear-headed, but they can be convinced their leaders should be.

Posted at September 3, 2007 1:17 PM in response to The Bulldozer and the Big Tent

Uh, conservative toads, Joseph Wilson was the whistleblower. Miller etal were all part of a (successful) attempt to GET the whistleblower (his wife's career was ruined).

So how is it that if these guys pay a price for getting a whistleblower, whitleblowers in general suffer a blow?

If this whistleblower is hurt with no consequences, doesn't THAT discourage future whistleblowers?

Just imagine yourselves as a whistleblower for a moment and imagune the lesson you would take.

That whole line of argument is really tiresome.

Posted at October 19, 2005 8:46 AM in response to Moral Clarity

Posted at September 18, 2005 3:09 AM in response to The Setup

"In the meantime, performance will be the most important issue in New Orleans and along the Gulf.  If the response is screwed up like it is in Iraq, nothing will help the president or his minions.  The response to Katrina cannot be faked."

Well said #41

Bush's entire career is about connections and politics. Results, well they just never quite happen, heh heh. Iraq is a long ways away, but even it was lately eating into the suspension of disbelief. Louisiana? Man, that's America!

Appointing Rove is Bush doing all he knows how to do. It won't work anymore, thank God. At least it won't work well enough.

The Democrats can run and win on good government. Katrina will pay their way through the next election. Too many Republicans are too rotten, and the price we are paying is now so glaringly obvious. We can take back a lot of seats in the mid-terms.

Posted at September 18, 2005 1:14 AM in response to It's a Setup!

Yes, it's a setup.

The Democrats have to make this a story of cronyism getting in the way of relief. That won't be a hard story to tell.

The Democrats will not be able to ward off every poison pill. They will have to swallow a few. But that will be OK. Because then the story is that the Republicans played politics with relief, and the Democrats played along because they put the national interests above politics.

"He's probably imagining an ad with dark music, pictures of ruined houses, and a narrator saying, "Bill Nelson and Ted Kennedy put the liberal union bosses ahead of rebuilding the Gulf Coast..."

We can't let him play that ad.

Posted at September 18, 2005 12:53 AM in response to It's a Setup!

Wow! 1 in 10,000 years!. We Americans don't aim so high, not when it requires tax money.

You see, we just don't like gummint, so we underfund it. Then, when the underfunded government fails to produce, we like it even less. And we get even crankier about our tax dollars.

Let's see how this plays out: Will people finally start to realize that good government is worth the money? Or will it further feed cynicism about the incapability of government to go anything right, so why waste the money?

Since Ronald Reagan Republican's central theme has been that government is the problem, not the solution. Government is always inefficient and bossy. Less is more.

But there is really nothing surprising here. Compared to Europe our country pays 2.5 times as much for health care, but our health care statistics are worse. Would such a country be expected to maintain top-rate levees around New Orleans?

It just doesn't fit with the main storyline of the last 30 years. Government is the problem. The free market will solve all problems.

Posted at September 5, 2005 4:22 PM in response to Risk Assessment

The storyline I'm reading here is mostly true, but there is a baser analysis that explains a lot of this more simply. It is the old story of hacks vs. wonks. Hacks are loyal first, and loyalty is what counts most. Incompetance can be overlooked so long as loyalty is absolute. The hack's sole concern is the wellfare of the clan. They do apply ideology, but clumsily, because they are not really knowledgable or conversant in policy. Hacks are like soldiers.

Hacks see the surface of things, and they grasp the mechanics of power. They are good at getting power, and pretty good at holding power until the wheels start to fall off. Then they are repudiated and scorned for their inability to govern.

Wonks care about policy above all. They approach governing intellectually as well as emotionally, They are also ideological, but with more flexibility, because they have the mental tools to give a deeper justification for a policy that may not superficially look Republican or Democratic. They are more attuned to the world of evidence, because in their hearts they take intellectual questions and government seriously. Hacks are like engineers.

Wonks do not usually win elections, because they want intellectual consistency, and that just don't sell. They don't hold power well, either, because they mistakenly think the general population can see the deeper consequences they see. However, they often run agencies well, and they sometimes learn with experience. Some can't learn; they must be ruthlessly fired. (ex. McNamara, Rumsfeld) The best wonks are not very ideological, understanding but not ruled by theory.

Both hacks and wonks are necessary in the political economy. Successful Presidents hire both: hacks for staff, wonks for administration. Successful Presidents are usually hybrids themselves, and that is part of why good Presidents are rare. Some examples:

Johnson: Too much hack. He was insecure around wonks and let them call the shots. Result: Vietnam.
Nixon: Good mix, but too devilish. Could have been a good President.
Ford: N/A
Carter: Can you say WONK?
Bush I: Actually a hybrid, but just not an exceptional guy otherwise.
Clinton: Good mix, but... well, you know.
Bush II: Unmitigated hack. Hires hacks, likes hacks, loyal as a mafia boss. His few wonks have to suck up big time, or tend to be the ideologically rigid type. Sign here, Powell. That's all right Wolfie, we know your hearts in the right place. Get out of here O'Neill, what an ass.

Runaway hack administration. They just aren't very good at government. And Krugman is right, they don't mind, because they don't believe in Gummint anyway.

History never remembers hack Presidents kindly.

Posted at September 5, 2005 3:14 PM in response to noteworthy