Robust Oppposition Postscript

I had already started this postscript to yesterday's "Robust Opposition" post when I came across this piece at Hullaballoo.  I think it captures well what I am trying to get at.  Please read the whole thing, but here's the gist:

Those of moderate political temperament are naturally resistant to the rather radical belief that politics have become an ugly, bare knuckle battle in which winning is defined as stopping the other side cold --- or winning elections and passing legislation through brute partisan force if necessary. I suspect that many people are resistant to this idea and for good reason. While there are some on the right who enjoy getting in others' faces, most people prefer a peaceful existence and avoid confrontation until they are absolutely forced to do it.

It took me a little while to recognize what was happening too. I was a Clintonite who was willing to see if the third way could work. But I've got a strong streak of anti-authoritarianism in me that viscerally recoiled at the conservative movement's partisan misuse of the congress and the legal system during that era. Perhaps because I grew up in a rightwing household I understood that the bipartisan rules we had all assumed were a permanent fixture in American politics were no longer operative. By 2000, I was thoroughly radicalized and believed that Democrats had to play a different, more disciplined, brand of politics even if it meant losing in the short term (which, after 9/11, I figured would happen anyway.) It was clear to me that third way politics had no future once the Republicans had a taste of power and revealed themselves.

The point I was going to write about today was precisely the point Digby makes, which is that moderates by nature are "moderate."  Moderates, after all, are typically conservative. Being rash or hasty is not in their natures.  "Alarmist moderate" is an oxymoron, and they are ill-disposed to anyone whose message they perceive to be alarmist. They are inclined instead to think that our current experience with the Bush administration is just politics as usual, nothing to be alarmed about. The thinking goes something like this:  "If the Democrats were in, they'd screw things up in a Democratic way just as the Republicans are screwing things up now in a Republican way.  It's six of one, half dozen of another.  Get the knot out of your shorts, Bush haters.  This is America--everything is going to be ok in the long run. The worst thing we can do is pour gas on the fire by reacting to this mess in a partisan way.  We can work it out by being moderate and reasonable."

Well my argument is that moderates play right into the hands of the far right which hopes that no one mounts a serious opposition to their agenda. The longer the hard right can keep the moderates diverted in "reasonable" conversation, the more time it gives it to consolidate power.  That's why moderates need throw their support to partisan Democrats, whether they like them or not.  There is no other way to create a potent counterbalance to the power-grabbing agenda of the right.  The right works hard to present a reasonable facade, but feels no need to negotiate or compromise unless it is forced to do so, and at the moment there is no political power potent enough to force such negotiations.

So my point is that moderates, if they really understood how serious the threat we are facing, would have no choice but to become partisans in opposing the current power grab by the far right. There is no way to communicate the seriousness of this threat moderately.  And since moderates are inoculated against immoderate language, they cannot hear the alarm because it is alarmist.   As such they are vulnerable to manipulation by the far right who achieve their ends precisely by playing moderates for the moderates that they are. 

Josh Marshall put it well here in a post Digby links to:

The president twice took the presidency with a divided electorate -- first a minority president, then a 51% president. And he proceeded to govern as though he had a mandate to completely remake it, often in what appeared to be profoundly destructive ways geared to short-term political benefit and intended to consolidate power. The folks who've made efforts toward bipartisan compromise have again and again, in this era, been played for chumps. And that's one of the reasons President Bush has had a much harder time in his second term (one among many): he made it too clear too many times that he'll take anyone who'll give him an inch or lend him a hand and use them up and toss them when he's done.

Moderates may not want to hear it, but by now there is too much evidence to deny it.  They are being played for chumps. The right tells them what they want to hear and then does what it wants.  And then the moderates like Andrew Sullivan complain that Bush isn't a true conservative.  Of course not; he's a power conservative.  The only prinicple for power conservatives is power.  And people like that don't respond to reason, and they don't negotiate unless they are forced to do so, and right now no one has the power to force them to. The right has no reason to compromise, and they have shown no inclination to do so.  Supporting moderate candidates like Lieberman is the same as supporting far right candidates because such moderates do not provide enough of a counterbalance or push back. They have become for all practical purposes coopted.

And that's why independents and centrist Republicans will play a critical role in the election this November.  It's up to them to take away the Republican majority so that finally there will be a counterbalance to this administration's abuse of power. Once a counterbalance is established, the moderates can move in and do their moderate thing to help work out a compromise between two power factions. But their moderation is useless unless there are at least two opposing parties to moderate.  There are no moderates in one-party systems; there are only collaborators. 

The hard right in power knows that it depends on moderates to maintain its power.  It doesn't need them all--just 18% of the electorate to supplement their 33% of die-hard supporters. That moderate support is going to come from independents and centrist Republicans who are disinclined to think too negatively of anyone, particularly those they helped to get elected in the first place. These moderates tend to see less danger from the radical right than they see from the radical left.  This never ceases to amaze me because the extreme left wing in this country has no power and no credibility, especially when it's contrasted with the power and influence of the far right. The extremist left has no representation in congress; has no significant media presence; it has no spokesperson in the courts; it has no well-funded lobby on K Street.  And yet the radical right has significant influence in all these venues. But in blog after blog and article after article I read about how, for instance, Lamont is the captive of the radical left!?!? Who specifically are the power brokers of the radical left?  MoveOn?  DailyKos?  What is their radical, democracy-undermining agenda? Who do they control? Disagree with them if you will--I do on several counts--but don't characterize them as radical left.  That's just silly. 

America is a conservative country dominated by a conservative news media.  If it were otherwise, the very word "left," even when used in the phrase "center left," would not have such a pejorative ring to it.  It does, though, and while there are complex reasons to explain it, the main point is that the center in this country has been drifting rightward for the last twenty-five years.  And so now basic things like a sane tax code, health insurance system, energy policy, and a non-bullying foreign policy have become associated in the mind of too many "moderates" with the flaky left.  It's crazy, and too many intelligent moderates have become a captive of this right/center/left scheme as it has been defined by media conventional wisdom.

The real center is, therefore, not defined by splitting the difference between left and right when the left has no power and little credibility when contrasted with an empowered, media-savvy, radical right which is working hard to maintain this power unbalance. The real center is the one that serves the common good of the majority of Americans--and we can debate how that best might be served, but right now there is no debate because any common-sense approach that has the odor of programs as conventional as those developed during the New Deal has to fight against being labeled "radical left". 

And so the current power configuration defines the center far to the right of what it would have been even in the 1950s.  And if is clear as it should be that this power configuration does not serve the common good, it is equally clear whom it does serve--special interests, usually ones with lots of money. 

So summing up:  If you think of yourself as a moderate, your moderation is useless unless there are two sides to moderate.  Right now there is only one side with  real power, and it is doing everything it can to aggregate to itself more.   The fate of the country lies now in your hands.  My fear is that too many moderates will recognize their essential swing role too late.  There is a season for moderation, but this is not it.  This is the season to say No, to resist.  As Josh Marshall closes the piece excerpted from above:

In any case, this is all a way of saying that in this all-or-nothing crisis the country has been passing through, I think it's made sense to line up with those who say, No. I guess I'm one of those partisanized moderates Kevin Drum has spoken of (not sure that's precisely the phrase he used.) That leads to a certain loss of nuance sometimes in commentary and a loss in the variegation of our politics generally. As a writer, often it's less satisfying.

But I cannot see looking back on all this, the threat the country is under, and saying, I stood aloof.  Read more.

I consider myself a centrist, but I know many readers consider me alarmist. If so, this is my justification for being so.  And I am particularly alarmed that moderates are still sitting on the fence because they think that's the grownup, reasonable thing to do.  On the contrary, it's time to get alarmed, very alarmed.

Comments

[Mike McG...]

"These moderates tend to see less danger from the radical right than they see from the radical left."

Evidence, please. No possibility of finding them both dangerous? Perhaps criticism of the left is only permissable if carefully balanced, in the same sentence, with criticism of the right.

"America is a conservative country dominated by a conservative news media." This makes perfect sense if one works from the presumption that one's own views are, after all, the center of gravity. "I" define the center, with no one to speak of to my left and the great unwashed to my right. When observers argue that Hillary Clinton is a conservative politician and the New York Times is a conservative newspaper, such terms have lost all anchors of meaning.

You seem to be saying, Jack, that anyone who doesn't adopt your frame is in thrall to the evildoers. Is it really that black and white? No possibility, whatsoever, for framing issues in ways that reject the terms of engagement, as left and right have agreed to define them? If we're not 100% with you, we're either 100% against you, or at least 100% irrelevant? No possibility of an honest difference of opinion?

[Matt Zemek]

Well, Jack, in light of my Seattle Times column today and all the bewildering complexities in both the Connecticut and Washington Senate races, you really have gotten to the heart of the matter. This post EXACTLY captures the essence of the primary political tension of the day.

My problem is that while agreeing totally with this intellectually, I cannot see how this kind of an enlightened view could EVER be translated into a campaign. American independent/moderate types are just not ready to hear the kind of message you outlined above, no matter how correct or accurate it is.

Moreover, Jack--and this is the element of realpolitik moderates can use in countering your assertions--when a political fight these days is nasty, Republicans ALWAYS WIN. The deeper we sink into a polarized morass, the more the Republicans find fertile ground for their distortions, lies and smears.

Democrats don't need bare-knuckle tactics; they need 100 percent clarity attached to sound reasoning and unshakable conviction.

Maybe, Jack, I'm the one who's not being realistic in some respects, but on the matter of the country not being ready to be told that moderation needs to be chucked, I will stand my ground and insist that this nuanced a message--in a country that just doesn't do nuance very well at all--will not sell.

It's a very wrenching debate, and the undeniable loser is political sophistication. Sad.

[forestwalker]

"But I cannot see looking back on all this, the threat the country is under, and saying, I stood aloof."

Or ambivalent.

for a chuckle: http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17313

[Jack Whelan]

Mike--

Sorry you find my argument unpersuasive. Two points in response. First, I do not think of moderate and centrist as the same thing. In that respect I am a partisan of the center. Obviously my definition of the center is very different than how conventional wisdom defines it at the moment. My task on this blog over the last three years has been one way or another to persuade readers that my definition of the center is one that most Americans would accept if it were vigorously promoted.

Second, for me the overarching problem facing this country is its drift toward authoritarianism. If you don't see that as a problem, then hardly anything I write would make much sense. If you do, then, it follows that the most effective way to say No to the authoritarianism and militarism of the Bush administration is to take away his congressional majority. That issue is for me more important than electing the best individual for a particular congressional seat. That's the only point I'm trying to make. I've pointed out in an earlier post that the Lamont victory will be Pyrrhic if it means a loss of a Senate seat for the Dems.

Matt--

Congrats on the op ed piece, which others can read here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003206884_zemek18.html
Based on what I said above, the choice for me is not for McGavrick vs. Cantwell, but Tran vs. Cantwell. McGavrick is an impossibility to me because the issue is not whether he is more consistent, but taking away the majority. If principle were the primary issue, I would vote for Hong Tran in the primary. Since Tran has no hope in the general election, I have no qualms about supporting Cantwell. I'll assume that she'll adapt her thinking to the prevailing winds in the Congress should they turn more aggressively against the administration.

Regarding your point about realism, all I know is that if moderates keep voting Repbublican we're all screwed. My struggles with immoderation probably make me a poor one to make the case, but maybe people with a more moderate temperament than mine who "get it" can do the job that I can't.

Robert--

Precisely.

[Matt Zemek]

Jack -

A big point to be made with respect to Cantwell is this:

Hillary Clinton is sitting there, not laser-focused on this race, perhaps, but very much aware of it. Anything that can dissuade Hillary from holding fast to a pro-war stance has value; anything that can dissuade her from running or having a credible, strong candidacy would also be good.

An anti-Maria vote could have positive repercussions for 2008.

It's funny how the Democrats, despite the appropriately fierce opposition to Bush and the bloody war throughout the progressive base, still manage to trot out general election candidates who are for these wars and who thereby aid the Bush Administration in its worst and most dastardly deeds.

When will the Dems wake up? I'd rather make them wake up than allow them to continue to think they can get away with campaigns in which their best selling point remains, "I'm not a Republican."