Signs of the Democratic Party Aristocrats

Chris Bowers, of MyDD.com, has put together a nice list describing the characteristics of the Democratic Party establishment aristocrats that sold us out to conservative republicans over the past 20+ years. The characteristics of the Democratic Party establishment aristocrats are:

• Views primaries against incumbents as “purges,” especially when they come from the left. All Democratic Party officeholders should receive their party’s nomination by right of possession.
• Thinks the war in Iraq was managed badly, but ultimately wasn’t a bad idea.
• After reading one too many Mark Penn polls, makes up imaginary friends like the Baileys as the gold standard for the average American voter.
• Constantly argues that we should end the circular firing squad and focus our efforts at Republicans, while simultaneously triangulating against left-wing strawmen at the same time.
• Believes in concepts like the “radical middle,” or that American is fundamentally a moderate country, even though most people who consider themselves moderates are actually just low information voters and non-ideological.
• Considers Fox News to be a conservative, but still legitimate, news outlet. Will gladly go on Fox News to reach out to new voters.
• Believes cutting the defense budget is political suicide, and should not even be discussed lest Democrats look weak.
• Finds GLBT issues to unbelievably radioactive, and tries to steer the most cautious course possible in this area.
• In terms of cults of personality, hates Howard Dean and joined the efforts to derail his presidential campaign / try and push him out of the DNC; loves Joe Lieberman and decried the efforts to try and knock him off; is interested in Michael Bloomberg’s potential presidential run and subscribes to his newsletter.
• Thinks that the blogosphere, You Tube, MoveOn and other netroots developments are fundamentally negative for the Democratic Party. Such institutions are filled with a new generation of dirty fucking hippies who will lead the Democratic Party over the cliff of unelectablility due to our ignorance, foul mouths and unwavering adherence to a far-left ideology.
• Thinks that dissenting from the great, all-powerful left makes you a rebellious, cool “outsider.”
• Considers the conservative rise in elected power from 1978-2006 to be a natural result of the country turning to the right and which can be countered by turning to the right ourselves. Does not believe that the massive conservative political machinery constructed over the past few decades played a major role, or that progressive political machinery must be constructed to counter it.
• Thinks that all options must remain on the table against Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons, because threatening a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a relatively powerless country you are not at war with makes you look tough on national security issues rather than absolutely insane.
• Argued for censuring Bill Clinton as a political necessity despite his 60%+ approval rating, and against censuring George Bush, Jr. as a political necessity, despite his 35% approval rating.
• Considers those who oppose completely unregulated trade to simply be rubes, even if they are also part of the “radical middle” that must be courted at all costs.
• Speaking to the Democratic rank and file, rather than to swing voters, is fundamentally a waste of resources.
• Running a fifty state strategy and spending money on field or internet instead of only and ever focusing on TV ads in swing districts is a waste of resources.
• Even though he lost an open seat in an overwhelmingly Democratic year, believes that Harold Ford Jr. is the model for the future of the Democratic Party.
• Won’t read this post, or catch The Simpson’s reference in the Michael Bloomberg joke above.

We’re All Sistah Souljah Now

“We’re all Sistah Souljah now.” This is how back in the 90s then candidate Bill Clinton re-branded himself as a different kind of Democrat — a New Centrist Democrat, critical of the apparent corruption of popular culture and not afraid to speak against it, even at the expense of calculatingly "alienating" a core Democratic voting block, African-Americans (at least that was the calculus):

Many will recall Sistah Souljah, a relatively obscure political rapper who was propelled into national fame by then-candidate Bill Clinton’s condemnation of her in 1992. It was a quick way for Clinton to position himself as a "New Democrat" who was mainstream, moderate, and "just like you and me" in his values (that is, of course, if "you and I" are suburban and middle-class.)

The centrist approach worked for Bill Clinton in ‘92, but things were different then (including a three-candidate race).

[...]

In addition, Clinton picked a marginal figure in attacking Sistah Souljah.

This is how RJ Eskow introduces us to his thesis, Running Against the Base – Hillary, Obama, and the Democrats’ High-Risk Strategy:

"We’re all Sistah Souljah now." At least, those committed people who form the base of the Democratic Party might be forgiven for thinking that. The Party’s leading Presidential and Vice-Presidential contenders seem committed to running against the interests and values of their core constituents. It’s a very risky strategy – for them, and for their party.

Unfortunately, it is patently obvious that RJ Eskow has it right. The conventional wisdom in DC, in spite of the utter failure of conservatism as a governing force, is that to win national elections Dems must tack to the Right. This is how one can explain Hillary Clinton’s attempt to criminalize flag burning, and Barack Obama’s thumbing his nose at the activist base of the party by endorsing Joe Liberman, while the grassroots rallies around Ned Lamont (Liberman’s challenger in the primaries). And, of course, there was Senator Obama’s post at DailyKos.com where he, more or less, scolded the vocal base and urged that cooler heads and civility must prevail — now, of course, it’s hard to argue against that… I mean, who would prefer the opposite, right?

As RJ Eskow explains, aside from appearing cynical, opportunistic and unprincipled, treating the Dem base as Sistah Souljahs is risky:

There are number of risks for the party here. One is the fact that Presidential elections are decided far more on the basis of character and trust than are other elections. Like most voters, I’m more comfortable with a politician who sincerely disagrees with me about an issue (even a critical one like Iraq) than I am with one who appears calculating and cynical in the pursuit of my vote.

Another concern is having an energized base. The Democratic base may not perceive a "clear and present danger" in ‘08 the way they did in ‘04.

Now, in a fair and rational world one could easily respond to being treated like this by one’s representatives by simply saying, Fine, I’ll just take my vote elsewhere — to another party. Unfortunately, we live in a two-party winner-take-all system; thus, given practical realities, all we’ve got are the Dems — for better or for worse. It is because of this that Matt Stoller’s suggestion, which basically calls for progressives/liberals to assert ourselves in the Dem party, must be taken seriously. As Matt suggests, not now, but progressives/liberals must start to challenge the entrenched establishment/centrist interests during the primaries and, too, we must build a competing infrastructure within the party if progressives are to control the Democratic policy apparatus.

Sure, going after Sistah Souljah may have had some short-term pay off for Bill Clinton. However, over time, his system of triangulation, proved to be nothing more than a political Band-Aid; because, as we know, while Bill Clinton governed successfully, his tenure in office did not help nurture the progressive movement/grassroots, which is what would’ve been necessary to build a long-term governing coalition to challenge the then ascending Republican coalition. Rather, Bill Clinton chose to side with the corporatist of the DLC and, too, put all his eggs in the new-economy-workforce basket to be the new base of the Democratic Party.

In 2008 we’ll see just how far to the right some opportunist politicians are willing to go. In the meantime, I hope that we, progressives, take Matt’s suggestion to heart and begin to elbow our way to the table — it’s the only that party insiders will begin to pay any attention to us.

Rove/Gingrich Envy

We do envy Republicans sometimes, it’s true.

Well, Liberals and Democrats don’t envy their policies, much less their policy results, just look at some recent Republican accomplishments: failed Iraqi nation building project, a nuclear armed Iran and North Korea (remember the “Axis of Evil” line?), record deficits, the 6′4″ Osama Bin Ladin still plotting against the U.S., the Taleban is regrouping in Afghanistan, multiple Republican officials are under investigation for accepting brides, money laundering, leaking a CIA agent’s name and for many other illicit schemes betraying the public trust.

And yet, we suffer of Republican Operative/Strategist envy — otherwise known as Rove/Gingrich envy. In these two men, Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich (and, actually, let’s add a third man, Grover Norquist), we have the architects of the Republican electoral successes of the past 10-15 years. Meanwhile, as these men, with the eager help of their allies in conservative circles, impeached a Democratic president, stole a presidential election (2000 and, some argue here and here and here, 2004), and exploited a national tragedy (i.e., 9/11) to advance their conservative/Republican agenda, the Democratic Party establishment largely stood by — too afraid to punch back, and punch back hard.

Unfortunately it’s not just the Democratic Party establishment that’s too afraid to got toe-to-toe against these Republican thugs. Sometimes we of the grassroots are too afraid to hit back with all we’ve got. Now, clearly, more of us, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, have grown tired enough to not want to take it any more and have started to punch back. That said, I recently came across a post at DailyKos.com where a diarist suggested that members of the Bush administration should be routinely described as:

[I]ncompetent, Liars, or both.

[and, too]

The Republican congress is unAmerican because it is not performing its constitutional duty to be a check and balance to the executive.

The executive branch continues its unAmerican activity by any number of activities that are not supported by the constitution or bill of rights.

The diarist’s suggestions may be completely wrong headed, I frankly don’t know. However, what struck me was the response the diarist’s suggestions illicited from another user:

What good does it do to name-call?

[...]

[Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration will] be gone with the lame duck President soon enough, and [they'll] not be on the ballot, so there’s no point attacking [them].

The unAmerican line lost its popularity a long time ago, and I’d rather not be the party to bring it back. And I’d rather not have this charge brought against us when we have the House and the Presidency and they work together.

I was so struck with the reflexive dismissal of the diarist’s suggestions by the other user, that I responded to the dismissal with the following:

This is just a quick reaction after reading your response: you sound like a Democratic party insider (or at least with direct ties to an elected member’s office in some capacity), more interested in the immediate tactical gain; rather than on the long term goal of building a “progressive movement.” Again, this is my immediate reaction to your reply, without taking too much time to “ponder and digest” your take on the diary. Now, the diarist’s talking points I’m sure can be refined and retooled; however, the diarist premise and main point is sound: negative language used to tarnished the opposition does work — just ask Newt Gingrich to provide his list of words he suggested be used in association with Democrats:

“Anti-flag, anti-family, anti-child, anti-jobs, betray, coercion, collapse, consequences, corruption, crises, decay, deeper, destroy, destructive, devour, endanger, failure, greed, hypocrisy, ideological, impose, incompetent, insecure, liberal, lie, limit(s), pathetic, permissive attitude, radical, self-serving, sensationalists, shallow, sick, they/them, threaten, traitors, unionized bureaucracy, urgent, waste”

Now, I’m not a supporter of Gingrich, but the man is a visionary and a transformational “movement” leader, adept at using all tools at his disposal to provide his party with a political advantage — unfortunately for us Liberals and Democrats, Republicans seem to have monopolized the market on Gingrich’s type of party activist and leader (willing to reach into the operative’s tool bag for whatever is necessary to gain advantage over the opposition). Now, your point about not wanting to revive certain attack lines (i.e., un-American) is well taken; regrettably we, Democrats and Liberals, don’t have a choice on that matter, since the enemy (Republicans and conservatives) consistently pelt us with that very epithet. It seems to me that our only recourse is to wrestle the very notion of what it means to be American away from the opposition, and restore it to its rightful heirs: Liberals and Progressives that, with sweat, tears and blood, have welcomed previously excluded citizens into the American family — and, of course, all the while, the enemy blocked school house doors, blocked workers from organizing and generally could be heard from the sidelines chanting We don’t care, We don’t care.

Again, I’m sure that the diarist’s suggestions can be refined so that they are more than mere “personal attacks” against the administration; however, as I intimated in my response to the user that objected to “personal attack”: negative or attack language used to frame the opposition does work — just see how well it has served Rove and Gingrich, and their Republican/conservative causes.

Perhaps this is why some Liberals and Democrats, myself included, sometimes feel Rove/Gingrich envy: because these men don’t stop to ask themselves, Uh, perhaps we’ve gone too far. We don’t really need to attack them. In stead, these men and their Republican allies are always willing to go for the jugular to advance their cause. It’s about time we do the same; besides, it certainly isn’t a stretch to say that the Bush administration lied us into war, and it certainly is un-American for our Congress to ignore their Constitutional duties.