Don't Know Much Philosophy
A recent piece by Michael Tomasky in The American Prospect has provoked quite a bit of discussion on the web: in it, Tomasky argues that Democrats talk too much about strategy, and not enough about philosophy -- or, I suppose one might say, ideology. Liberals, he says, are not particularly aware of their own creed's history; though he doesn't go this far, I would say that Democrats sometimes appear to be a party bereft of ideas, a curiously empty fund-raising machine that mostly reacts to Republican initiatives. Tomasky writes:
The implicit “us/them” dichotomy is important. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that if progressive change is going to come to the South, it won’t come from the outside. It will happen because Southerners (by which I mean simply people who live here, not only seventh-generation sons of the Confederacy, though I mean them, too) want to change their neighborhoods, towns, or states for the better. And one important way for this to come about is for progressives to discuss and push their ideas (living wages, national health insurance, protecting Social Security, limiting corporate control of government and public life) and explain why they are important for Southerners. This would seem to be a much more productive way to expend progressive energy than debating how best to "reframe" issues, whether or not to reposition ourselves as centrists, or how to pick “electable” candidates.
Democrats just don’t talk about fundamental ideas enough, and anyone -- a person, a movement, a political party -- can't really, deeply, profoundly know what he or she or it stands for without such conversations.I'm not sure this is entirely accurate (liberals do talk about ideas sometimes) -- but it does have some relevance to much of the talk I’ve heard about progressive prospects in the South. Too often the discussion seems to devolve into top-down strategy or tactics: “How can we win over the South? How can we get those gun-toting, Confederate-flag-loving redneck pickup drivers to support our issues? How do we appeal to them?” Obviously any movement needs strategic thinking; but to me (and I’m sure to other, less progressive-minded folks) it can sound like so much flim-flammery, like “we” (right-minded progressives) are trying to fool “them” (benighted Wal-Mart-shopping hicks) into putting leftist policies into effect.
The implicit “us/them” dichotomy is important. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that if progressive change is going to come to the South, it won’t come from the outside. It will happen because Southerners (by which I mean simply people who live here, not only seventh-generation sons of the Confederacy, though I mean them, too) want to change their neighborhoods, towns, or states for the better. And one important way for this to come about is for progressives to discuss and push their ideas (living wages, national health insurance, protecting Social Security, limiting corporate control of government and public life) and explain why they are important for Southerners. This would seem to be a much more productive way to expend progressive energy than debating how best to "reframe" issues, whether or not to reposition ourselves as centrists, or how to pick “electable” candidates.
8 Comments:
I agree with almost all of this post, althugh I think Tomasky is full of sh*t. Look at the Dem primary. Dean, Kucinich, Edwards, Sharpton and Moseley-Braun all talked about Democratic ideals and ideas. (I'm not sure about Gephardt, Graham or Clark -- didn't pay enough attention to them.)
It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the Kerry campaign was guilty as charged by Tomasky, but that hardly equals a universal Democratic failing.
But I think you dismiss framing too lightly. How do we talk to folks about things like universal health care, when the GOP has successfully branded it as socialism? Who will hear us?
Same thing with other social programs ("welfare mothers"), opposition to the war ("support the troops") and the rest of our ideas?
The answer is that it's not enough to just talk about them. We need to reach past the preconceptions the GOP has built up over the last 3 decades.
And that's exactly what framing is all about. Not faking things up, but cutting through the Republican Noise Machine.
We ignore the crucial importance of communication, of messaging, or framing, at our own peril. Does anyone really think the GOP has made the gains they have in the South over the last quarter century by producing policy and governing that benefits the average Southerner? If you're unsure, the answer is a resounding "Hell No."
The GOP has made its gains, here and everywhere, not by governing or by instituting poilicy changes, but through their messaging. That is how progressives, liberals, have been (almost literally, and that is probably the next step; witness the radical religious right and its rabid rhetoric) demonized in the public discourse, even equated with terrorists and assorted other GOP-defined enemies of the state.
I agree with Mitch that effective communication, or "framing," is of the utmost importance.
At the same time, that doesn't eliminate the need for developing and pushing actual policy ideals in the first place.
Gary is right to point out that in recent years Democrats have largely focused on REACTING to Republicans. That is certainly a point of weakness. (Although it's tough not to get caught up in this, when so many wrong decisions are being made.)
Obviously we need to point out to people why Democractic policies work for them, but why not go ahead and formulate and lay those out as a starting point. Start debates, don't just engage in them.
Indeed, framing is important. You don't want either the appearance or the reality of cynical calculation to creep into it, though--one thing conservatives manage to preserve (in general) is an air of ideological conviction.
On the other hand, I look at Fox and it's just so transparently, sleazily insincere (say, in the phrase "homicide bombers") that it's honestly hard to know what people who buy that stuff are thinking (or if anybody does really buy it).
The Democrats are way too cerebral in their approach. As long as people are afraid, logic will not reach them. And the Democrats lack passion.
Look at what happened to Dean. There was nothing wrong with him showing some enthusiasm, but the Right very predictably criticized him and the left sheepishly went for Kerry. We on the Left need to "cowboy up" and stop changing every time the Right cries foul.
They're going to criticize everything we do. They don't flinch or change course when we criticize them. Look at their pundits - Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly. These people are raging bigots and fascists, but I've yet to hear anyone from the left express outrage when given the opportunity. We should make a news outlet ashamed to give voice to such hatred, but we don't.
When you say "the Democrats", do you think it was Democratic voters, collectively? Or Democratic politicians?
I'm not picking nits, I swear. One of the things that still confuses me is exactly why what happened to Dean, er, happened.
I mean, I can follow the trajectory and everything, but it makes no sense to me.
It's important that you do understand what happened with Dean, because is crystallized the problem within the Party, and I mean voters and representatives alike. Dean's team overestimated what would happen in Iowa. I knew he wasn't going to win there - all he needed was a decent showing, which he got. Instead, he freaked and fired Joe Trippi, alienating his online base. Then he gave a standard pep talk to his followers and the Republican-owned media spun it as if he were unbalanced. Democrats, as usual, wilted from the criticism and started gravitating toward a "safer" - i.e. Lamer - candidate. All of this was exacerbated by the fact that Dean didn't oppose the occupation in Iraq. He wasn't left enough to inspire the real lefties, he wasn't perceived as safe enough for the moderates, let alone the veiled conservatives in the DLC. When the media turned on Dean, the Party leadership didn't defend him because he wasn't one of them. As far as I'm concerned, the DLC is the worst thing ever to happen to the Democrats.
Oh, I understand (in excruciating detail, I spent a lot of time delving into it) what happened.
It's the why I still struggle with. I think your last comment points to some of it. I'll need to spend more time digesting it.
I have a generally poor opinion of the DLC, too. Although I have to admit that my opinion has been largely formed by my disgust with From, Reed and the other public faces. Well, my disgust with them and my disgust that the Council hasn't removed them.
Post a Comment
Return to Facing South's main page