HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

It seems that Digby has taken up the cause outlined by Chris Bowers a few days back. I don't think my response made my point clearly enough, so I'm going to give this one another shot. First, an excerpt from Digby:

So my problem with Democrats these days is not what they did back in the 90's. That's water under the bridge. It's that they are failing to seize the moment right now. The most recent (imperfect) analogy I can think of is 1980. The Republicans seized that moment of national "malaise" and discontent to go mainstream. After that election it became a matter of faith among millions of Americans that "they didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left them."

The Republicans understood that the ship had finally made its turn, that many of the folks were unnerved by all the social and economic change of the previous 15 years. (And they knew they could leverage that discontent against everybody's favorite scapegoat in times of trouble --- African Americans, who also happen to be Democrats.) Over time they convinced a lot of people that they actually were "conservatives" but in that moment it was all about simply identifying with the great swath of Americans who were tired and fed-up --- and pointing the finger at the opposition.

Today, it's the Republicans who are seen as captives of their own worst impulses which is why it is so out of sync and dissonant for Obama and others to still be triangulating against their own base. It feels odd --- discordant. The Democratic rank and file are no different than millions of average people in this country who are feeling uncomfortable with the radicalism, incompetence, hubris and corruption of the Republican party after six years of one party rule --- and a quarter century of conservative consensus. And the activist base from which these politicians are trying to distance themselves is where the energy and future of this new majority party rsides. Why would you run from them just when the other side's consensus is starting to fray? It's far more politically useful to present them to the public as the average people they really are. We're all just like you --- regular everyday citizens who believe that the country needs a new direction.

As we have seen, triangulating can sometimes be the politically smart thing to do. But not right now.

That last part is, I would argue, demonstrably false.

I can't believe that I need to point this out, but as recently as the 2004 presidential elections, a majority of the American public bought the idea that Democrats were weak-kneed appeasers who wanted nothing more than to turn the country over to al-Qaeda while simultaneously raising its taxes. It was a small majority, sure, but it was a majority nonetheless.

Permanently shifting perceptions takes time, particularly in politics. The Republican Party has spent more than two decades discrediting liberalism by convincing Americans that a small group of extreme lefties represents the Democratic Party base. It is a lie, of course, but it is a lie that has been believed. And although I'm beginning to believe the lie is losing its power, I'm realistic enough to know that its going to take more than a year or two to undo this. The lie, after all, was built on a truth. Cindy Sheehan, to cite just one example, may not represent the Democratic Party, but there's a good number of people out there who believe she does. You can't just wish that away. You can't tear down in a handful of years what it took decades to build.

Which brings us to Obama and his strawmen. Two thoughts here...

First off, even Chris Bowers admits that the arguments Obama is attacking are strawmen. They don't represent his opinions, nor do they represent the base of the party. Nevertheless, Bowers finds them, in his words,

...disturbing on a very personal level. Whenever a right-wing pundit or politician uses those exact same strawmen, I feel as though I am personally being attacked.

I have to say this really baffles me. If they don't represent your views or the views of anyone you know, why take it personally? Bowers response:

This isn't paranoia--right-wing politicians probably are referring to me when they make statements like that, since their intention is often to slander any American who would refer to herself or himself as a progressive or a liberal. The problem is that when Democrats who seek to capture the "middle ground" use the exact same strawmen, I have a hard time believing they are not referring to me.

But there's a difference here. When right-wing politicians use these arguments they mean to discredit liberalism in its entirety. They mean to discredit a huge percentage of the American public by attaching them to a caricature of the far left. Bowers is absolutely right - they mean to attack personally anyone who calls themselves a liberal.

But Obama is, I would argue, doing something entirely different. In fact, he's doing something that is almost the exact opposite of what the right does. After more than 2 decades of attacks like this from the right, Obama recognizes that the caricature has stuck. All liberals are considered by many Americans equally unworthy to lead. As I say, you need look back no further than 2004 when a Republican draft dodger ran as a war hero and a Democratic Vietnam vet was tarred as a coward. John Kerry and Cindy Sheehan weren't seen as two different elements of the same party; they were seen, in fact, as one in the same.

And here's the thing: Until that caricature is attacked and destroyed by the left, its going to continue to work, the 2006 elections notwithstanding. And this gets me to my second point.

Although the arguments about "liberals" are in fact a strawman, they are a strawman of a very specific kind. Sure, mainstream Democrats see them for what they are; but unless you're willing to write of the results of 2004 entirely, you have to recognize that something resembling a majority of the American public believes the strawman is real. And until it is killed off, the Democratic Party is never going to build the lasting majority Chris, Digby, and others so desperately want.

Guys, stop being so defensive. Obama isn't attacking to you, nor are you the intended audience for his remarks. Consider his audience, and consider the result: speaking in front of a congregation of conservative evangelicals, he set up the strawman, knocked it down, and then spoke the truth about what liberals really want. And by the end he had won a standing ovation. And while it may have been possible to accomplish the last half half without the first, it would have been far, far more difficult to do.

We know those arguments don't represent us. You know the arguments don't represent you. But as much as half the country is not yet convinced, and ignoring that problem won't make it go away. What Clinton began with Sister Souljah, Obama and others are trying to complete. This should be embraced, not attacked.

You aren't the strawman, and the strawman isn't you. But attacking it serves a very important political purpose. It needs to happen. It is a means to the very same ends you seek.

One last point and then I'll try and let this go...

Like Chris and Digby, I wish we lived in a world where this sort of thing wasn't necessary. I wish we lived in a world where political debates were won on their merits, where fact always trumped fiction, and where our better angels always won. But we don't. Perceptions often matter more than reality. The stories and myths we tell ourselves are often far more important than the reality out of which they were built. Sometimes, in order to build the world we want to see, we first have to shatter the myths of those who were before. Sometimes, to tell our own stories, we have to incorporate elements from the storytellers whose place on stage we're trying to take. That's just how it works, and no amount of wishing is ever going to make it otherwise.

They call it triangulation for a reason. Caught between two viewpoints you can't control, you find a third way, one that, at least temporarily, allows to to win people to your side. Until you win control of two of the three points, however, its a strategy you cannot let go. I don't think the Democratic Party has made that kind of progress yet. Digby, Chris: do you?