A New Approach to Finding Common Ground
Three recent discussions on TPMCafe--the question of an intellectual blogging elite, how to approach political activism, and the current debate with the DLC--have circled around the central problem of political organization for the Democratic party. In each of these cases the fundamental tension has been between vesting authority in the hands of an elite (often, but not always, centralized) and dispersing that authority amongst national party leaders, local activists and organizers, and, of course, the so-called netroots. I don't think anyone denies that parties need leaders, so the question is really who is the best to lead? And here I believe it is useful to examine how the Republicans consolidated their power and whether their successes offer any lessons for an emerging Democratic majority.
Imagine you're a Democratic strategist in the 1990s. You're only now becoming aware of a highly disciplined Republican message machine that is able to deliver identical talking points across various media to constituents. You see two possibilities: you could try to build a Democratic network on the same principle or you could try to refashion the Republican talking points for a centrist audience. You reasonably conclude that the Republicans are winning because either their message is more appealing to voters, or their message machine is superior at convincing voters. So which is it? Polls tell you that voters endorse Democratic policy proposals so they must be voting for Republicans for a different reason. You try to retool your message to appeal to center-right voters but it yields negligible--if not outright negative--results. Perhaps it might be time to start building a comparable Democratic message machine.
But there's a problem. The Republican message machine works because it is highly disciplined. Through diverse media outlets, the same message gets delivered and unity is expressed. How, you might wonder, are Democrats to do the same? After all, Democrats are a big tent of competing interests so how is one to develop a system for delivering a unified message when the party can't even express what it stands for? Moreover, you might wonder how the Republicans were able to paper over the very deep differences in their coalition--notably the alliance of libertarians with social conservatives--and still motivate their base? Why should such Janus-faced doublespeak be a hindrance to the Democrats but not the Republicans?
Leaving the musings of our hypothetical analyst behind, we can appreciate the problem of replicating the Republican message machine: its very success is dependent on total obedience to the message and Democrats can't decide on their message. They can't win elections by talking in Republican-lite either so what to do? We've been hearing for years that Democrats suffer from a dearth of ideas. I believe instead that Democrats suffer from an inability to articulate their ideas. But that is only part of the problem. Who is going to articulate those ideas? The intellectuals? The party base? The DLC or some other leadership organization working with the party? I propose that this disagreement can be resolved by accepting that the party in power will remain there only insofar as it can articulate a timely populist message that resonates with the majority of voters. The problem with invoking populism is that the very word carries historical connotations that disturb conservative--read: aristocratic elite--power structures. So whether that elite is perceived to be a business class antagonistic to collective action and federal manipulation of the economy in the Progressive Era, or perceived as a bureaucratic elite stifling innovation and suppressing freedom in the Reagan Revolution, the response has always been organized and framed as a populist revolt against entrenched power; and executed in a timely fashion with the right message--think 1932 or 1980--it has led to a new governing ideology based, initially, on popular--though not exactly revolutionary--revolt.
Because America is not tied to an aristocratic or feudal past and has only known liberal democracy as a political system, it is natural that the populist message almost always wins. Add to that the polarizing nature of the two-party system and it's clear to see that the winning strategy to have a superior populist message. Naturally new governing majorities create their own elites almost immediately, but that does not mean the original populist message loses its salience immediately. It takes time for the new power structure to become intolerable, even if it was always intolerable to a few keen political observers. The point, from a strategic point of view, is to identify the populist zeitgeist, and the Republicans have given the Democrats an ideal foundation on which to build a superb populist message. Here there is a place for the local activists to hone that message. There is a place for the netroots to focus in on the populist message. The national party leaders can provide discipline. There is even a place for organizations like the DLC to use the advantages of being in the "establishment" (even if it is a waning perception) to promote the message at the highest levels. The elegance of this system is that it not only gives each of these interests a role, but it also creates a unified message distributed across multiple media at the highest and lowest levels. Nor does this require massive investment or long term institution building. There's no need to directly compete with the conservative "counter-establishment" because that assumes balance and an objective public that can rationally decide between the two. Rather it is engagement with the conservative message machine and staying on-message, never yielding to the rhetorical traps that have plagued Democrats and liberals for years. Republicans have lost their ability to speak in populist terms and have fallen back on exploiting the lowest prejudices in humanity to rally their base. But that base is not enough to win elections. And every time Democrats talk about the war, the economy, health care, jobs, etc. in populist terms, they win another vote. Republicans will scream about class warfare, but this projection strategy will not work any longer if correctly countered. It doesn't take a detailed discussion of macroeconomics to demonstrate that Republicans have been waging class warfare on Americans for decades. And this is the right moment to say that unequivocally.
Common ground? Look no further than Democratic Populism.
I agree 100% with your idea. Now if we can only find some Democrats to implement it without getting into an argument. This is why I LOVE being a yellow-dog Democrat!
April 4, 2007 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coffeedout
April 4, 2007 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
.You know, I think we are going about the business of establishing good government--government as envisioned by Rawls, say--in an entirely wrong way.
We have these tests of purity that we put people through. Harold Ford is not pure enough to be a progressive. Why? because he countenances corporations as part of our national resource. That's absurd!!! You want to go back to the guild system?
A more serious point of debate is defeating this dangerous Behemoth that is overtaking our nation.
Consider the tactics of the others side as explained by Matt Labash of the Weekly Standard:
This is what we are dealing with.
Our aim should be to defeat this tactic by effective countermeasures and I think we can worry about the DLC at a more convenient time.
We see this tactic employed here at the TPM Cafe. I won't mention the names but we all know them: they will post unsubstantiated and outright false or deceptive post from one side of their mouths while they criticize us legitimate posters as being UN-objective or some such from the other side. And what do the honest poster do--even those that should know better than respond to them--? Repeat ad nauseum something that is common knowledge anyway.
If people at the Cafe fall for this crap, what do you think will be the effect of this ECHO CHAMBER on the unsuspecting public?
Let's not pick fight with Harold Ford or the DLC. They are sufficiently on our side to count as allies.
Finally, it is fine and dandy to espouse utopian visions that could be actualized if we could just get the right people into office, it is another thing to wake up and smell the coffee and put your nose to the grindstone
April 4, 2007 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have these tests of purity that we put people through. Harold Ford is not pure enough to be a progressive. Why? because he countenances corporations as part of our national resource. That's absurd!!! You want to go back to the guild system?
The notion that progressives are "anti-corporate" or "anti-capitalism," or that the criticism of Harold Ford is only that he approves of corporations, is simplistic and inaccurate, and dismissive of progressive ideas and positions.
The issue is putting the brakes on unfettered capitalism, and whether privatization and "market forces" are the solution to every problem.
You can either demonstrate you have some knowledge of the positions of those with which you disagree, or you can keep making silly statements about guilds.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
April 5, 2007 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I consider myself a progressive of sorts myself. Above all I consider myself a Pragmatist. Harold Ford is not my favorite politician. I've long grown weary of politicians in general. They are a necessary evil.
My point is that we have a much bigger fight here than that with Harold Ford and the DLC. We have a fight about the public discourse in general. Is it going to be a Tower of Babble where Truth is the victim, or is it going to return to a semblance of decency.
I went throught the 60's as a student. I remember my lessons of co-optation. I'm not totally new to the debate. I think we need to pick our fights carefully. I just don't think it is productive at this time to pick a fight with the DLC. Does that mean we are going to accept their whole approach? Obviously not. As I said in my original post, we are going to keep them as allies in our battle against the conservative/neocon encampment.
The reason why we progressive's often get ridiculed is because we lack a certain sense of practicality. We demand "purity" in those we support for elective positions. And guess what? They never or hardly ever get elected. What does that tell you?
Our disagreement is a matter of tactics: I'm an incrementalist other's are "purists".
April 5, 2007 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
We demand "purity" in those we support for elective positions. And guess what? They never or hardly ever get elected. What does that tell you?
The purity argument is old.
Aside from some fringe elements, no one looks for purity. Certainly not in the online blog community. Why don't the progressive netroots call for a primary challenge to Ben Nelson? Lieberman's challenge, on the other hand, wasn't at all about purity. (Although the Right and some of the punditry wanted to make others believe it was.)
You're arguing about purity, but I just don't see it.
Can you direct me to a blog post that argues we should oppose Harold Ford just because he approves of corporations?
I don't really even think people are "fighting" with the DLC. There were two major complaints on the Ford thread -- one, criticizing his views and the positions of the DLC, the other, he lack of response to our comments.
Personally, I don't see why we have to pay all that much attention to the DLC at all. Their influence is on the way down.
As allies against the neocons, I'm not so sure. Have you read their magazine, "Blueprint," especially the articles from a few years ago, when Bush's approval ratings were high, and they thought invading Iran was just swell?
Seems to me they, when it comes to foreign policy, are of the same mind of the neocons. They just think Rummy and Bush did a stinky job of the whole thing.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
April 5, 2007 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Republican messages predominate, because it is easier to destroy than to create; and it takes a much smaller instruction set to reach the primal impulses, than it does to cause a will to be humane. The effectiveness of this public messaging strategy needs to be considered in relation to the mediums upon which it is expressed, as well as the capacities of the audience expressed in sets of lowest common denominators. Short Attention Span Targets connected to a Data-Rich Environment, where far too often, any information requiring more than byte sized morsels to convey, are simply lost in totality's background noise.
With these rules, visceral appeals to the primordial: fear, anger, hunger, death, etc, will triumph over compassion. The rules must be changed through innovative usage of the available mediums or creation of new ones before any progressive ideals will possess permanence in the face of erosion from nihilism's storm.
April 5, 2007 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could not have said it better.
However, I'm not as pessimistic as you seem to be. We need to employ countermeasures. Employ the same tactics but at the service of liberal, compassionate agendas.
I particular, we need to tap into the primal impulses of the people and turn them against these nihilistic forces. Simply to wait it out, I'm afraid is way too risky. Much of the game that's being played out now, I'm afraid, will be for keeps
April 6, 2007 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pessimistic is partially apt, but the intent was hyperbolised realism for impact mixed with a touch of satire. A current favorite example of what I was attempting to portray is:
6550 words cannot compete with 'Flip-Flopper' in the median American voter's mind. Even though this example is an extreme case, as verbose is an understatement when referring to Senator Kerry, he was not hedging. This was clearly setting limits, which were obviously overrun by Mr. Bush's Fixing the Facts and Evidence in His Press for War Upon Iraq, The Truth Notwithstanding. Yet I would wager that many who voted for Kerry in '04, believe he was a flip flopper too.
Attempting to explain a measured choice delimited with qualifications is pitching a curve, hung belt-high fat over the plate, that an Atwater simulacrum could hammer out of the park blindfolded, even if the measured response was the proper choice.
As a vagrant within the linear representation of politics, I would council(with a touch of sarcasm), that if you were to employ the same visceral methods as the GOP, you could easily lose one of Liberals' finer traits; their tendency to engage in hard-wringing self-doubt before making far reaching decisions. To step cautiously and take into consideration the implications is far superior than to act with Palovian coded reactionary salivating, quickly and without thought.
It would be far better if new methods were created for disseminating, as well as comparing/contrasting political viewpoints. Figure out how to get a significant increase on that slow curve's rotation. Those who play for Ghorbanifar and Chalabi seem to always get these guys to swing at a ball outside, and in the dirt.
April 8, 2007 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh.
Some remedial statistics for you.
The median voter is a single individual.
Slogans that numb the minds of even some with modest IQ's, such as say Chris Matthews and Tim Russert let alone total blanks like Dubya, affect a hell of a lot more people than even the bottom half you seem to want to refer to.
It is mindful of Mitt Romney's father being destroyed over Vietnam when he said he had been "brainwashed." No way of washing junior's mind. Nothing there.
Best, Terry
April 8, 2007 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
A teacher, huh? Hopefully not an English teacher. Maybe you should check definitions thoroughly before correcting others' usage. The 'median' you're referencing is a noun, but my use of the term was 'the median American voter's mind': in this instance median is an adjective.
Bartleby's online American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language"s first definition for median as an adjective is the concept I was attempting to convey, as well as the concept that you seemed able to grasp, yet would not accept as proper.
median
Adjective: 1. Relating to, located in, or extending toward the middle.
On top of that, your assertion: "The median voter is a single individual", is only correct in statistics when the number of records in the data set are odd. The median is a point where half of the records are on each side of it. If there are an even number of records, the median of that sample is the mean of the two middle values.
April 8, 2007 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm, I am delighted you have proven you can count to two.
If half the people are one side of a divide and half on the other, what is the divide you think?
The median could be all the people if there was no difference in the people. All the people could be a large or small number depending on the size of the group.
But the median is still the midpoint.
I don't know why you are upset. I am obviously no teacher.
Have a good day. I like your posts even if your math is not always perfect.
Best, Terry
April 8, 2007 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great article, morte.
I do think that Liberals can counter the "class warfare" meme by pointing out that it the warfare was started by Conservative elites- we're merely recognizing it. People get viscerally the unfairness of the fact that productivity has risen their compensation has not. This needs to be hammered home again and again and again. Conservative can blame individuals for making bad economic decisions but they can't blame society, (meaning everyone who didn't strike it rich) for making bad decisions. At the very least, they can't do that and even try to pose as Populists.
One thing I do want to point out is that at least part of the "discipline" of the Conservative message stems from the fact that a lot of the propaganda is funded by a very small group of very rich Foundations and individuals, namely the Olin, Hunt, Bradley and Mellon Foundations and their ilk. Its a little easier to stay on message when you know who's buttering your bread.
-Dave Adams-
April 5, 2007 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the article poses a false problem and then responds triumphantly not by solving it but by defining it out of existence. The false problem is that either we are utter sell-outs or we all parrot a party line on which we all agree. As the post notes, this makes things tough, because we clearly don't all agree, whereas we'd be insane and unprincipled to sell out. (In fact, we don't even all agree on who's selling out.)
But then it just says we'll all agree on populism, whatever that is. For one last rhetorical trick that doesn't hold up, it defines the obstacle to populism as, you guessed it, selling out to entrenched interests. Presumably anyone who sets leftwing activism apart from populism, which has often meant the right's anti-intellectualism, distrust of government, hatred of immigrants, etc., isn't a player. But we'll all agree anyhow. Or else we'll sell out.
Maybe the terms of the debate were wrong to start with. I've got my principles, and they're not the DLC's even remotely, but I welcome DLC types to join me if they dare. When they even mock themselves, as objects of hatred here, they get hated all the more for it and that's sad (not to mention humorless). When they ask if we'd consider how best to deliver universal health care, which sounds like it could have come from our side, they instead get treated as if Ford's views on abortion represented them all nd what they really wish to say. When for once they, including Ford, actually vote party line on withdrawal, they're derided for backing the war and not confessing before a "truth commission."
This is why I'm not a populist. I'm not into this kind of grass-roots Stalinism. I'm into debate. Have fun, enjoy your mortal enemy de jour, even if some in the past (such as Gore) are your heroes today. Meanwhile, maybe someone can accomplish something. Oh, I know, that really means I'm on their side, right? After all, the alternative to populist hatred is selling out to RINOs.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
April 5, 2007 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The issue is putting the brakes on unfettered capitalism, and whether privatization and 'market forces' are the solution to every problem." Totally, and "values" as a solution to unfettered capitalism is totally the wrong frame. That's my disagreement with Ford in a nutshell.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
April 5, 2007 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to jump in and try to address some of the concerns raised in the comments.
First, I specifically warned that invoking populism conjures up historical notions of what populism is. That's unavoidable. And there's nothing wrong with having those reference points. But I also said that the content of the populist message must be timely, that is, relevant to the political moment. Thus, the populist message I'm advocating is not anti-corporate but rather one that deemphasizes the priority the forces of privatization and globalization have been given for the past quarter century or so. For what it's worth, I don't think globalization is something that can be stopped. But it could be managed better. Populism is merely a strategy for reorienting voters in this country; it is not a call to radically alter our existing political and economic arrangements. And the reason populism is often understood in radical terms is because of the history of populism, as I said.
Second, I do not know where this "purity test" notion came from. Did I not specifically say that Democrats cannot reproduce the disciplined message sttructure of the GOP? My point was that it is ineffective for Democrats to rally around an ideology the way the GOP does because Democrats are comprised of a greater number of incongruent interests than the GOP. That is why I focused in on populism as a way of organizing these interests under a coherent social goal (greater emphasis on the interests of American citizens, rather than elites). This isn't demagogy, and there is no rigid party structure or ideology to adhere to. I'm offering a strategy for winning elections and building a governing majority, not a "purity test."
Third, related to the last point, I'm not trying to force this upon anyone. I made a simple observation: the party that controls government, politics and the media message is the one that successfully frames it in timely populist terms. Now, one can certainly challenge that premise. But if you accept it, then it is obvious that it is a winning strategy in American politics. That being said, if you lean towards Democrats and liberals and want them to be in charge of government and the national conversation, then you better start working on crafting your populist appeal, rather than trying to "triangulate" or appeal to "centrists" or any other of these tired political strategies. They appear (and are) inauthentic, generally serve an elite, and do not win elections for Democrats. So I could really care less about the DLC. Either they recognize the winning strategy (whether it is populism or something else) or they do not. I do not think they currently recognize the winning strategy.
Last point. I never said anything about "selling out" (or purity for that matter) in my post. I am not posing a false choice between selling out and mindlessly following a party line (Stalinist? Please.). As I said above, my observation is that populism appears to be a good strategy for winning elections. That premise can be debated, but has not been as near as I can tell. And I never claimed we would all just happily jump on board. I'm not predicting the future, I'm offering a strategy. Moreover, I never even defined what this new populist message even looks like (I'm thinking something along the lines of Sen. Webb). That's really a separate subject that requires more reflection and, yes, more input.
April 5, 2007 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I did not say anything about selling out. . . . I am not posing a false choice." How about this? "You see two possibilities: . . . or you could try to refashion the Republican talking points." Doesn't that mean either you're a populist or a RINO?
I am sorry that almost all those posts who feel that Ed and Ford were trying to be constructure even if they disagree with us and/or who feel they're worth debating are more in agreement with them than I. I mean such as avowed incrementalists, those who feel Ford is debunking myths, etc. I'm not one, and I liked Max's and Dan K.'s posts (and HC Berkowitz's comments among many others) a lot. But still, I am seeing a lot of defensiveness and a lot of calls to repent because the kingdom of progressive heaven is at hand.
Yes, Morte wasn't one of the many, many commenters who made the points that I worried were Stalinist, insisting on apologies and truth commissions. So sorry that the sheer proliferation of posts and difficulty of commenting adequately here led me to lump too much together.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/April 5, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The paragraph where I pose the choice (why is it false?) begins, "Imagine you're a Democratic strategist in the 1990s." I used this thought experiment to demonstrate how a Democratic strategist might look at the problem, say, 10 to 15 years ago (which means the choice is not between being a populist or a RINO). And I think, in considering the Republican way of doing things, you could have only reached those two conclusions: either the Republicans have a superior message or a superior machine for disseminating that message. What other possibility is there (other than hatred of Democrats, which is really a subset of the Republican message, is it not)?
I'd also like to make clear (to everyone, not John in particular) that I didn't write this as a response to Ford, per se. The discussion he started (along with the other two discussions I began my post with) inspired the writing, but I just used it as a vehicle to discuss my populist thesis. I don't consider Ford or the DLC my enemy, but I also don't think the DLC strategy makes much sense for Democrats today. If I'm right about that, then they will either fade into irrelevance, or modify their positions. I think they're smart enough to modify their positions, but I don't see much will to do so.
April 5, 2007 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If I'm right about that, then they will either fade into irrelevance, or modify their positions. I think they're smart enough to modify their positions, but I don't see much will to do so." I'll buy that.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
April 5, 2007 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the DLC has its message in order to win votes, i think they really love the corporate domination of US politics, and they really want to support exerting US power around the world, and are just fine with using military power, and supporting wars of aggression.
This may not be new to the Democratic Party, but it is something progressives and social justice activists really have nothing in common with, it should be rejected and buried.
April 7, 2007 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could we have a clearer definition of "populist" here? Historically that's often meant socially conservative and fiscally liberal, which I'm pretty sure isn't what morte means. At least, I hope it isn't, since that's pretty much the opposite of what I want.
April 9, 2007 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is important to recognize the historical connotations for populism, as I've stated, and I don't think it is "socially conservative and fiscally liberal," but rather a type of politics that while consciously appealing to the pocketbook, is more of a style of siding with have-nots against the haves. More recently the new Right in America has used populism in a more explicit libertarian fashion, pitting "taxpayers" (talk about a big tent) against a bureaucratic elite, succinctly summarized by the Great Communicator as "Government is the problem." Since the "oppressed" in each of these situations are different, it becomes clear that populism is largely circumstantial: it is a political style targeted towards large blocs of potential voters (blue collar workers; taxpayers) rather than a political ideology. It is a political strategy, in short.
That being said, there is a definite economic message that underlies populist appeals. It originates in materialist concerns. From that point of view, the moral consequences can be twisted readily to accomplish political ends. The Progressive Era style of populism was attacked as class warfare and good old fashioned demagogy in its time but such criticisms were denfenseless against the visible destruction wrought be the Great Depression. Similarly, the appeal to taxpayers in the 1970s was salient against a backdrop of urban decay, bloated or broken social welfare problems, inflation, etc. The Reagan Revolutionaries might have been hypocritical in the view of critics, but there is no denying that the message won elections.
Our present era sees the worst of both worlds: both government and the private sector are failing to provide their end of the social contract (that's the populist message). The reason Democrats can profit from this is because conservative Republicans have been setting the agenda (limited government, trusting the market) and that agenda has failed. Accountability, protecting citizens from the abuse of the powerful, reining in unfettered corporate greed--these are the sort of talking points around which a new populist message can metastasize. Naturally some of these ideas are going to grate against the "Washington Consensus," but it's not as though conservative Republicans accomplished all this with no help from the would-be political opposition. But as I've discussed above, this isn't about purity. I don't care if former conservative Republicans or DLC-types want to switch sides; I won't hold their past trangressions against them for all time, even if we should be wary about their past allegiances. The point is to build a new political coalition and I maintain that the best way to do that is around a contemporary populist message.
April 9, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a bad message, morte. But having read that, I'm still worried about the branding. When I hear populism, I think George Wallace, or maybe Ross Perot.
I'm mostly bothered because I don't see how you can put together a workable Democratic majority without the former liberal Republican bloc, and "populism" really isn't a positive term if you come from that background.
April 9, 2007 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alan,
I think you're absolutely right about the branding; strictly speaking, conservatives are supposed to be anti-populist (which demonstrates how far they have strayed from their Burkean roots). But that doesn't mean the pitch has to use the P-word. Repackaging good (or in the Right's case, bad) ideas is a cornerstone of contemporary American politics, so populism need not be nomatively invoked at all. In fact, convincing liberal Republicans that you aren't going to socialize the economy is a big part of the strategy. Easier said than done. But I think a strong case can be made for peaceful co-existence, particularly since the Bush model of conservatism has demonstrated itself to be utterly unsustainable.
April 10, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink