Simplifying Or Dumbing Down?
Over in the American Conservative, there are a bunch of articles trying to define the difference between liberalism and conservatism. One of the writers I like to read Michael Lind. I disagree with him as often as I agree, but I always find him interesting. In this piece he argues that ideology no longer exists, that it has been replaced by partisanship. The cleavages between the 2 parties are along the lines of identity politics, with the white christian majority ranged against an aggregation of ethnic and religious minorities. Because the various minorities cluster in cities, the result is a geographic division in American life between the urban Democrats and the rural Republicans.
This is a very strange view of American politics. The empirical evidence simply doesn't support Lind's description. Even in the most rural areas, Democrats get between a quarter and a third of the vote. Is there some big secular/minority group out there I'm not aware of? If not, where are all these Democratic votes coming from?
Certainly identity politics is central to the contemporary political divide. But there is a lot more to the liberal coalition than just identity politics. The Democratic Party is divided into Pluralists (identity politics), Populists (working class), and Progressives (issue-oriented middle class reformers). While the Pluralists are probably the dominant element of the Democratic party in terms of voters, but the Progressives have had control of the party leadership and agenda ever since FDR.
Similiarly, I would take issue with Lind's suggestion that ideology is now no more than a front for party loyalties. Liberalism is dedicated to equality of opportunity and personal autonomy, values which all of the elements of the liberal coalition support, albeit from different perspectives. There is real intellectual content here, not just shallow justifications for ethnic or religious groups seeking political power.
Lind goes so far as to say those who have real ideologies - which he lists as libertarians, populists, greens, and social democrats, among others - should avoid attempting to take over either of the 2 parties and instead should attempt to influence both. For someone has grounded in history as Lind, this is a bizarre suggestion. Every ideological group in American history has used one of the 2 major parties as the vehicle for its agenda. The one group that didn't, the Progressives, were isolated and crushed in both parties during the 1920's. It took their rallying to the Democrats before they were finally able to accomplish anything lasting.
Having said that, I do think that it is a waste of time for the ideological groups mentioned to align themselves with the Republican party, given its evident disinterest in anything other than making demagogic appeals to mask the rape of the country by the American elite. But there is another alternative, isn't there?
I agree with Lind, that ideology no longer exists, and that partisianship is all there is. It is an us vs. them mentality today for the most part, very polarized, with little or not room for ideas or cogent analysis of policies and/or views.
I believe there are urban and surburan Democrats as well as strong suburban and rural Republicans. Right now, though many of the suburban Republicans are fed up with Bushs issues on choice and his environmental policies...and basically the entire electorate agrees that the war is a disaster. Even though the idiot Bush stands up and says, he will continue on with the war, because he 'strongly disagrees'...most find him to be a simpleton.
I think the identity politics is moreso due to the fact that many people who oppose gay marriage and abortion do 'identify' with the GOP and the 'white MSM" Since blacks, females and gays tend not to be receptive to those issues it is called identity politics due to the diversity in the Democratic party vs. the GOP.
August 24, 2006 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a long-running divide between those who resist change and those who embrace it. This typically lines up with those who have (lots of) money and those who don't, since wealth concentrating in the hands of the few is a constant. Conveniently for the wealthy, social conservatism protects their standing.
This is an old fight, according to Sean Wilentz. Knocked back by the Jacksonians, Whigs and conservative Democrats performed a Rovian jujitsu for the 1840 elections, by arguing that since America was (by that time) classless, all had the opportunity to become wealthy, and therefore should resist any encroachment on the power of wealth and property. (Jackson and Van Buren had attacked private paper money issued by banks and worked for specie-grounded finances.)
This is precisely what the GOP achieved in 2000 and 2004, persuading many nonwealthy Americans to vote against their immediate interest in case they get lucky and end up rich, and also picking up those fearful of social change.
In 1840, one tool used was accusing Democrats of promoting a loosening of morals (doesn't that sound familiar). The Whig/Conservative coalition presented itself as the protector of families and righteousness.
Playing the morals card can get you into trouble, like a Civil War.
August 24, 2006 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not having read the article, it sounds to me like one of those things where it is hard to make a good point sound good without overstating the case. I think it's probably true that partisanship without ideology is part of the modern American political dynamic, but it's equally clear that ideology remains in play.
Part of the reason I think of myself as a Democrat is that my parents were Democrats, my grandparents were Democrats; there is a tribal pull. (The reason that I am a progressive, or whatever I describe my political beliefs - as opposed to affiliation - is my reasoned beliefs about what is just.) On the other side of the aisle, it's hard not to think that affiliation is more about a partisan identity than an ideology or set of beliefs simply because the Republican coalition has such deep philosophical fractures that are not reflected in intra-party strife: libertarianism and social conservatism are incompatible as ideologies, but libertarians and social conservatives seem perfectly happy to hold together as Republicans.
But is ideology dead? Hardly. Indeed, as many have observed, it's running amok in politicies coming out of DC. It's surely represented in many tough primary fights, not just this year.
The way I'd say it is this: ideology is about the values we hold. Political parties are about how we try to capture power. As a result, political affiliation is decidedly less controlled by higher aspirations, and most certainly more prone to partisanship and tribalism. That's only a surprise if you think that being a Democrat or a Republican is in itself an expression of political values and beliefs.
August 24, 2006 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink