Let's anatomize defenders and critics

[jpgray]

Defenders live the political reality. That isn't necessarily praiseworthy or even practical at bottom, because the political reality constantly shifts. If you aren't doing the shifting, you're constrained to a very short view on major questions of policy. In other words, at one moment you demand a modest stimulus to fix the economy and claim it works after it has passed; at another, you demand a modest anti-stimulus to fix the economy and claim that will work if passed. At one instant, you're deriding your opponents as reckless hostage-taking terrorists, while at another you're praising yourself for having common ground with the monsters and appealing to their responsible civic spirit.

These are utterly contradictory approaches. There is no sense of continuity, but any contradiction can be excused by appealing to political reality: for example, we can't pass a stimulus and everyone is talking about debt; if we aren't in the business of shifting the debate, we have to be in the business of getting the best anti-stimulus possible. Right?

Critics live for what should be. That isn't necessarily praiseworthy or practical either, because without institutional clout, money or influence none of it matters. The most exquisitely documented take-down of all the Democrats' lackluster, dithering policies will do nothing to move the party, let alone our politics, to the left. There is no sustained or organized support from the influential or wealthy for policies to benefit those who are poor and without influence.

What good is it to correctly identify Obama as a moderate conservative when the public believes he is a leftist? Should Heritage-style health care reform fail, it will be seen as a failure for socialism. Should our party's more moderate austerity fail to stimulate the economy (which it must), the public will buy a GOP argument that we failed to deregulate, reduce taxes, or cut spending enough to spur hiring. When the policies or politicians of the Democratic Party fail or displease, it is seen as the left failing and displeasing. It doesn't matter how loudly we say they aren't -true- leftists, even if it's true that they aren't.

Nobody wants to see the bad people win. Defenders want to beat them in elections by any means, critics want to beat them in the public discourse by very uncertain means. It's unclear to me how either of these approaches by itself results in better politicians or policy.

[sabrina 1]

1. Rec'd for a thoughful post.

I guess I'm in the 'critics' category and agree that it is a bad place to be without any power. Being right is not enough, you must have good leadership willing to fight for those rights. But we don't have that, that is the reality. So we keep doing the same thing over and over again and things just keeping getting worse and worse.

That makes the critics as responsible as the defenders. What is needed is a change of course. But what should that be is what everyone is asking, especially the critics.

I think maybe we had to go through this process. During the Bush years we thought if only we could win a majority in Congress and the WH, then things would start to change. But now we see that that tactic didn't work. The defenders make excuses, but no one buys them.

However, I don't think it's a bad thing that we have discovered that what we thought would be the solution did not work out. We had to find out eventually. Now we have arrived at a pivotal moment. Knowing what we know, should we continue with the same, failed tactics? I think 'no' is the answer. That would be foolish.

But we are not the only ones who have finally faced this reality, we have discovered we are not alone, and that is where I am placing my hopes, maybe foolishly again. The Unions have drawn a line in the sand and said 'no' also. They have money and are now planning to freeze their donations to a Party that they feel does not represent them. They will put their money into candidates of their choosing.

This could be a beginning of a new way to start changing the makeup of Congress. I think it is an exciting turn of events and I'm surprised the Dem Leadership didn't see it coming. You can't trash your most loyal supporters forever and expect them to keep coming back for more. Sooner or later they will treat you the way you treat them.

As the leader of the Firemen's Union said recently 'we will no longer be told 'you have nowhere else to go'. They too are keeping their money to spend only on candidates that represent their interests.

I think these events are going to begin the change we thought we were going to get in 2008.

[jpgray]

9. I'm not sure that winning or losing sends any kind of message

Losing for Democrats means winning for Republicans, which could be argued as reason to move to the right. Winning, even a wholesale rejection of the other party, is seen as license to intrench with the influential and powerful in order to consolidate power, not as a mandate to move the debate leftwards. It's difficult to see the ballot as any kind of reliable means to influence political debate.

[Marrah_G]

2. Thank you for giving us something to ponder a bit

Rec'd

[Electric Monk]

3. Excellent post. K&R before the poo-flingers get here

and you know they will.

[emilyg]

4. Knr

[Electric Monk]

5. kick nt

[SwampG8r]

6. an interesting read

i am sorry that the poo toss will soon start
but i liked it
insightful

[WonderGrunion]

7. K&R as a defender.

If we don't stand together, we will surely hang alone. Perry calls social security unconstitutional. Bachman wants the minimum wage laws relaxed. Mittens actually endorses the Citizens United decision. I've decided to stop confronting the critics. It's counterproductive and we need every hand we can get to keep everything from falling to hell in 2012.

[WonderGrunion]

8. Kick

for the evening crew