Groping For Another Way
This was the week of “high conceptâ€? audio and visual clips from the G8 conference. And what memorable imagery…
First, there was President George Bush’s blunt, no PC use of a four letter word beginning with “s� in referring to Hezbollah’s provocative Middle East actions (The word wasn’t “sore.�) in a moment when he didn’t know his mike was on.
Next, there was that visual of Bush walking behind a clearly surprised and not precisely delighted German Chancellor Angela Merkel to give her a neck rub. (He would have gotten lots more publicity if he had done it to British Prime Minister Tony Blair).
In a way these seem to be metaphors for many in America’s political center.
You meet more and more centrists and moderates who are bluntly saying (and some will use the “s� word) about how fed up they are with polarization and the way they perceive both parties’ partisan bases are ignoring or “dissing� them.
And you find more and more centrists groping for solutions — and new options.
Did you ever walk onto a school playground and hear a little kid say “Nanee nanee noo noo!� as he teases a playmate? You’ve heard it many times before and even thought it may be cute and attention getting, but it’s quite old.
And that’s the story of American politics as it moves into the 2006 midterms and the 2008 presidential elections. We wouldn’t dare use the phrase “stuck on stupidâ€? to describe what’s going on.
Let’s just say it seems stuck on stupidity.
POLARIZATION REMAINS KING: Last week former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had some advice for GOPers and the White House. Start talking up events in the Middle East as being part of World War III. Have President Bush then call Congress into session in September and bring it all together using label World War III. Newt then suggested this could work against Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections — in other words, are you for us in this fight in World War III (which would embrace everything the administration has done on Iraq, 911, the Middle East) or not? In essence, he was suggesting national unity over the Middle East be flushed down the toilet. But when he went on Meet the Press he urged the World War III terminology, yet omitted the idea that this be used against Democrats to further divide our polity. In talking to Tim Russert, Newt assumed the role of thinker versus polarizing political hack. So which one is he?
EVEN SYMBOLS OF MOMENTS OF NATIONAL UNITY ARE EXPLOITED: In Ohio, Sen. Mike DeWine is using 911 footage to suggest his Democratic opponent is soft on terrorism. It turns out DeWine is soft on accuracy: it turns out the footage he was using was doctored. Mr. DeWine and others who want to turn 911 images of falling towers (which mean people being burned into cinders inside the buildings) into suggestions that their opponents are soft on terrorism and don’t care about American lives seem to forget that 911 was a supremely NONPARTISAN moment in national history — where all Americans came together and on the key decisions in changing the way the government operated BOTH PARTIES voted for the final measures. He seemingly forgets that who might have voted against a piece of legislation did so for reasons other than not caring about Americans. He also forgets: 911 was the result of a failure of MANY administrations of BOTH parties and intra and inter intelligence agency bickering that failed to connect the dots. No one party deserves the blame for 911 or is totally responsible for the national unity that came right after it.
DOWNSIZING THE SIZE OF YOUR PARTY TENT: Many partisans in both the Republican and Democratic parties seem determined to weed out people who do not fully agree with their own ideological agenda. They always offer logical explanations and rationalizations for doing it but the bottom line is the same. Lieberman has acted like a Republican and blasts his own party. Bush kissed him…Lincoln Chafee is a RINO. You can’t count on him to back the Republican party. (Come to think of it, Harry Reid has not kissed HIM so perhaps Chafee is luckier than Lieberman.) When these folks are weeded out or even if they survive with grave political wounds, it will tell some independent or non-lockstep voters: You’re not welcome in THIS party unless you agree with everything we believe so find another home. (We predict they WILL).
How did we get in this state? You can make the case that since the early 20th century America has gone through upheavals in the concept of “broadcasting� versus “narrow casting� that impacted entertainment and politics. Early live vaudeville shows had to appeal to a wide audience. Movies and radio came in and killed vaudeville but the concept was still to get a broad audience. In politics, politicians sought broad-based coalitions that would help them win and govern.
By the early to mid 60s and the growth of the Vietnam War, generation/culture gap and divisions became more rampant. In entertainment terms, this partly led to the demise of CBS’s Ed Sullivan Show because a “big tentâ€? entertainment variety show was becoming passé. Cable fed the trend of “narrow casting where you now have 100 stations to choose from (most of them showing crap). The Rush Limbaughization of America began by the 80s where politics became like pro-wrestling — entertainment…hours of demonizing and ridiculing politicos and defending and praising one side. Rush became the model for much of progressive talk.
Enter Karl Rove and the “mobilization election� where you aim to get YOUR side out and don’t worry about the center. Add to that a (sometimes angry) soul searching among some Democrats that their party has blown it by trying to appeal to Republicans and that the way to win is to by accentuate differences between parties to offer a clearer choice.
In a way, this comes full circle: today’s left-wing Democrats aren’t just like the 1960s McGovernites, but like the early 60’s Goldwaterites whose credo was “A Choice Not An Echo.�
Increasingly, moderates and centrists are being asked to choose sides or someone will define them as being on one side whether they like it or not. In Blogtopia some blogs in the middle are being labeled as right or left. Usually a writer’s motives are impugned. Blogs on both sides have allowed almost slanderous things to be said about other bloggers in comments sections. Meanwhile, blogs in the center are used to being called secretly Democrat, secretly Republican and being delinked occasionally by the right or the left who insist they know THE TRUTH about what these blogs REALLY believe.
It’s trying to shove people in the center into one of the ideological slots on the right or left. The goal in American politics these days seems less to create broad-based coalitions and win people over than to beat them down. Old fashioned political horse trading has in many cases been replaced by a yearning for intellectual slavery and total obedience.
This may work to bludgeon some folks in the center. But those on the right and left may find that when it comes time to vote he who has pressured or demonized people in the center may find that his side will lose their votes. The good news: there are STILL thoughtful politicos and operatives in both parties who are trying to keep their tents from shrinking. There ARE many thoughtful liberals, conservatives and centrists who aren’t buying into the politics of demonization and intellectual intimidation. They vigorously defend their views but don’t do so by trying to tear down others.
You could make the case that folks attacking the center for not supporting them 100 percent must be moles for their opposing parties. But, more accurately, they sometimes seem moles for the politics of polarization and intellectual intolerance.
Many Americans in the center look at all of this and use the “s� word. And many grope for answers.
Although perhaps not as joyously as Mr. Bush.
Cross posted (with some minor edits here) on Unity08
(This post does not necessarily reflect the views of cobloggers on The Moderate Voice)
Share This
A little jumpy big guy. Maybe we can get back together and all be one big happy family again after we defeat this authoritorian dismemberment of everything that is great about America. But the pendulam must swing back to a more realistic middle.
And swing it will.
And giving the Presidency and both houses of congress was lunacy. Who’s idea was that?
I don’t support eradication of the Republican party. I spent most of my life believing I was one. But I do advocate that people who care about that party do some housecleaning.i dont care about them anymore as they completely sold out the conservative principals that I do hold. You know, fiscal sanity, respect for privacy, things like that. At least Joe, you got the sequence right about who did what.
Enter Karl Rove and the “mobilization election� where you aim to get YOUR side out and don’t worry about the center.
Which has worked handsomely. Which begs the question of why change, if a thing has proven to work. And it would have never worked without enablers. And I am pretty sure those enablers were not in the Democratic party (excluding Joe Lieberman of course) A big tent is a wonderfull thing, but I hardly think someone who likes to throw rhetorical bombs more damaging to his own party than the other should find much welcome there.
If you dont think old Karls strategy is the right one, then how about taking the high road? If that was a winning strategy, how come it wasn’t president Kerry at teh G-8 showing that he at least knew how to chew with his mouth closed, and not talk while eating?
I know you find my determination not to take being lectured due to yet another act perpatrated by the opposing party with the good graces to nod and agree, to be frusterating. But I feel as much frusteration in your determination to keep doing it.
How about this. Why dont you lecture the Rs when they do something you find untolerable, and my side when they do the same. We know for instance, that you dont approve of the voters in CT deciding that Holey Joe doesn’t represent their intrest anymore. I maybe could do something about that, although I would much rather throw gasoline on him to hasten the end of his trainwreck of a career. If that makes you go out and pull the lever for R, than I don’t know what to do for you, but so be it. If the Moderates want to form a third party…please do. have dreamed of third and fourth parties all my life. Put up a good canidate, and I will vote for him in a New York second. But the so-called left learned a valubale lesson about all that in 2000. So this is the world Republicans have made, te world that they feel they can win in (and they are correct), so it is the world that the Dems must now operate in. I dont like it. In fact I hate it. But if 15 second ads and Jingism is what it takes to capture the elusive middle, then we will just have to man up and do it that way.
But doctored 9/11 ads? I doubt there is anything I, or anybody I know in the reformest Dem heirarchy could do about that. Maybe if we ask real nice, but that hasn’t shown great results in the past. I think maybe the partisans on the R side could do something, but I think it more likely they will ignore you and keep with the strategy that has been working for them.
Joe I too long for the unity that we temporarily had after 9/11, but their are certien elements who place their own selfish agenda above that. I think a better use of your limited time would be to shine the light on those people. Of either party.
In one respect I am so completly on your side that no one could ever seperate us apart. When someone does some sleazy crap like what DeWine did, vote them the heck out of office. Punish them instead of rewarding them. Of either party! That is the only way to make it stop.
Thank you for the Bandwith, and I look foward to your reply.
PS, I am not trying to analyze you but give an honest assesment about how I feel about your piece.
Rush became the model for much of progressive talk.
I call BS on this. What progressive talk? AA? Not even close. The righties will tell you AA is not a drop in the Bucket compared to Rush, Hanity, Sevage, Ingrham, et al. NPR? last time I listened to them, they sounded distinctly right wing. Nope, the righties own this one.
Try again. I’m sure you dream up something
Doctored images are the next step after swiftboating.
So please keep calling b^llshit!
The republicans own all three branches of government and YOU want the Democrats to “get along” with them? You loosely recite history as supporting dogma.
Might as well just become a republican. No need to stand up for what you believe in at all. Just placate, bow and scrape because Joe would rather get along than have his own belief.
Joe your whole premises is to suppress debate and dissent for the sake of “tea time” politics which does nothing but support the republican Master Party by cowering to their power.
Surrender Joe, with nothing to stand up for but neighborly advice debate and dare not complain dissent shall never take center stage. It’s just to risky.
I don’t know what country you came from Joe, but mine has a history of fussing and fighting all the way back to 1775. We INVENT new ways to argue!
I listen to NPR all the time. I’m a member of my local NPR station. They’re the best news network on the air, IMO. However, I have no illusions as to their political leanings. Sincere and talented, yes, but definitely left of center. Listening to their letters column (on Thursdays) I find NPR gets labeled right wing not when they come out with a right wing story, which they do rarely, but rather when they miss an opportunity to emphasize the left wing viewpoint. In other words, any time they stray into the center.
like that really matters? the only thing that matters is money. whoever has the dough controls isht ’round here…and right now the repubs have the dough. now if the dems had the dough, they’d be in power. politics is a farce anymore.
“Don’t buy a single vote more than necessary. I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide.â€? -Joseph P. Kennedy
Brian, spot on as to the NPR slant. I listen to them frequently despite disliking much of what they have to say on matters. No truly intellectually honest person can claim NPR is anything but left of center .
Infact , how timely todays NPR should feature this
NPR : Liberal Radio
Talk of the Nation, February 20, 2003 · Rush, Dr. Laura and other conservative talkers hit the airwaves everyday and draw big audiences. So where’s the Liberal Limbaugh? Join guest host Lynn Neary for a look at a new attempt at a liberal voice on the talk radio scene.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1169811
Snarkyshark wrote: A little jumpy big guy. Maybe we can get back together and all be one big happy family again after we defeat this authoritorian dismemberment of everything that is great about America. But the pendulam must swing back to a more realistic middle. And swing it will. ****************************************************
Perfecto Snarky…the pendulum does swing. Wish it would swing no more than about five degrees to the left and right off dead center. Its a dream but it would be sweet if it happened.
****************************************************
Salmenio wrote: The republicans own all three branches of government and YOU want the Democrats to “get along” with them? You loosely recite history as supporting dogma.
****************************************************
Sal…the left had better find some mutual ground to stand on with the right, or the next two and one half years (or longer) are going to be a worsening living hell for us, and just about everyone else on the globe.
Increasingly, moderates and centrists are being asked to choose sides or someone will define them as being on one side whether they like it or not.
I post on this blog instead of the left-wing blogs I used to because of mindless partisanship that finally turned me off.
At the same time, I’m one of those calling on you moderates to choose sides when for whatever reason you’d rather not.
I can only conclude that we have a different view of what the sides are, especially of what risks (and rewards?) are involved with picking one side or another. But more than that, what the risks are of not choosing sides.
The right wing unquestionably has a huge advantage in finances and political resources. They have radically altered the universe of political discourse. They have demonstrated the ability to work the US government so as to initiate a war on America’s behalf we now know we didn’t have to be in, and to do so with relatively little noticeable domestic opposition and almost no real debate.
Meanwhile, critical government agencies such as the CIA and FEMA (and many others) have been gutted of career professionals in the course of turning the entire govermnment into a political empire.
Do you think people like Paul O’Neil, John Dean, Richard Clarke, Larry Johnson (CIA), James (?) Wilkerson (Powell’s second in command), etc., are excessively partisan?
More importantly, are they making any difference? Do you think they should?
What if all the opposition to the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush doesn’t really make any difference? So far it hasn’t done much more than slow them down, and not that much.
Presumably the Democratic Party is in charge of providing opposition, and dominated as their leadership has been since ’92 by third-way types while the GOP has become increasingly shrill and radical, you’d think the Dems would have stemmed the right wing tide by now. Obviously, you’d be wrong.
I was, and in truth still am, a Deaniac. Howard Dean, who governed in VT as a centrist, is seen as crazy and radical for adopting views and rhetoric much like Harry Truman. He’s for fiscal responsibility and health care reform, and thought maybe the Iraq War wasn’t such a good idea. I’ll never understand why his rhetoric, silly as it sometimes is, is such a big deal when his political positions are mostly very sensible.
When the dominant party has consistently acted on the view that bipartisanship is like date rape, is it really sensible to refuse to take sides with the opponents unless the opponents satisfy you that they will, in effect, unilaterally disarm in the face of a hostile, dominant force?
Does it really make sense to you, Joe, not to take sides with our government the way it is? Sorry if we partisans sound crazy to you sometimes, but do you really blame us? Does it really matter that much?
I think Bush’s poll numbers might show something nobody has even thought about. Yes he’s down to his base, but that would make the moderates/centerists part of whatever is left. And that includes the far left, the paleo-left, center left, then themselves, and even parts of the center right. Thing is many of the center left, centerists/moderates voted for these idiots we currently have. He’s shed those people over total power issues, social security privitization, spying on americans, and bad war decisions. So Bush’s version, and the majority GOP version of conservatim (ultra right brand) has made these moderates homeless. Either they want a home to shape, decorate, alter or they want more of the same abuses they obviously can’t tolerate. The political winds have shifted to the far right, and even old far left ways in this administration. You in the center can either 1. not vote, 2. vote for more of the same, or 3. vote for something different you might have a voice in. I’ll take choice number 3 because 1 is deafeatism, and 2 is unacceptable. What do you want Joe? We aren’t going to get that magic third party any time soon, so it won’t work voting for brand Z, cause brands A, and B are definately going to rule the day at this moment in time….unfortunately, so don’t think I don’t sympathise with you on the desperate need for a brand Z with thump.
When I vote I will be voting Democratic-even though politically, I consider myself more of a centrist. Why? Because the Republican party has moved so far to the right that John Dean, who considers himself a Goldwater Republican, doesn’t recognize his own party.
Any government that has all three branches of power held by the same party doesn’t hear the voice of the opposition. Making the situation so much worse is what Joe is talking about-the lack of tolerance within the party for differing points of view. Thus we have a party that until recently supported the President in lock-step.
And make no mistake- Tom Delay sought to build a permanent Republican majority through his K Street project, which ensured that Republican candidates received an ongoing flow of money from lobbyists. Taken together with gerrymandered districts, incumbents now have an almost unbeatable advantage. This was the group that came in in ’94 advocating term limits for themselves.
It feels as though we are losing our great democracy-bit by bit-between the erosion of our civil liberties and the autocratic way the Republicans have ruled. I can no longer chance voting for a Republican in a national election.
But have you considered the possibility, Joe, that the reason Lieberman has lost so much support isn’t simply his viewpoint supporting the war without any question but his criticism of the critics. When you say that the members of your own party who disagree with you are helping the enemy you shouldn’t be surprised that your status in the party is dimininished.
Kim, I am in the same position you are; I don’t even care how far left a candidate is anymore, I vote to restore some type of power balance between the parities. Once some type of balance is restored then I can vote for a candidate on what they stand for. The real political power of moderates would be more along the lines of supporting moderate candidates with money and votes during the parties nomination phase. The trouble is that slightly right moderates tend to be Republican, and the slightly left Democrats. In total moderates are a group to be reckoned with but in reality we are split, having only two parties to choose from. I still think that the support of moderate political candidates that once elected could later join and form the nucleus of a political party is the best bet.
Man, what a badass thread. Thank you people, I have been proud to be part of this conversation.
jjc wrote: Increasingly, moderates and centrists are being asked to choose sides or someone will define them as being on one side whether they like it or not.
***************************************************
I’ve already chosen sides….yours and every other U S Citizens…they can take their political parties and stick em where the sun don’t shine.
****************************************************
Pyst and everyone else…if you’d like to know why Liberman is in trouble talk to my left wing liberal Connecticut friend Kevin Wiess look for sellitman at Google’s I Hate Bush Fan Club blog. He can give you his personal slant on it. Turd was mentioned.
PING:
TITLE: Will Lincoln Chaffee Be ‘The Payback For Lieberman’?
BLOG NAME: The Left Coaster
Reports are circulating that a conservative group has announced they are targeting Lincoln Chaffee’s reelection to the Senate from Rhode Island. CNN is showing their ‘reporters’ discussing Chaffee and Lieberman being centrist ‘moderates’ of a certain kind, while a columnist…