The Markos Mafia

A recommended read, with two additional comments.

(1) An "Elitist Democracy" is inherently contradictory because Democracy is, by definition, a system in which the political will ultimately reflects the will of The People. In Democracy, The People are the sovereign and are thus always the masters of their fate (even unto a complete surrender of their power to an elitist cabal). Even in a representative Democracy, where delegates are selected to represent the will of The People, it is still The People from which that power ultimately derives (cf., The Declaration of Independence). Therefore, an "Elitist Democracy" can never be a Democracy. It is simply "The Diving Right of Kings" with a more modern name.

(2) The elites are in a fight against the "rabble" that is nipping at the heels, most prominently represented by the political blogosphere, for just the reasons pointed out in the link above. But the fact that they have chosen to take the fight directly to the most prominent bloggers, under the mistaken assumption that taking down a Markos or an Armstrong will weaken the blogs, is just another manifestation of their elitist philosophy. Since they believe that only the elites can be effective in achieving political change and they see blogs starting to bring about effective political change, they can only rightly conclude that the blogs must be led by its own form of elite inner circle. They have manufactured in their minds some cyber equivalent of the smoke-filled back room because that is the only model they have for understanding the world. The Markos Mafia must exist because it is the only thing that explains the growing power of the blogs without violating their own conception of the universe.

Soundbites R Us

Whenever anyone raises the question of the fundraising disparities between Democrats and Republicans (Republicans traditionaly outstrip the Democrats in the money race), Democrats should just say, "Well, we Dems are better at managing money so we don't need as much as the Republicans."

Liberal Dems a dying breed?

The problem I have with data like this can be summed up in one question, "What is a Liberal?"

Do fewer Democrats self-identify as Liberal? I can believe that. But does that mean that, ideologically, fewer Democrats hold "Liberal" positions than they did 20 years ago? Or could it just be that "Liberal", as a label, has gotten such a bad rap that a lot of otherwise Liberal Dems just don't want to think of themselves as being Liberal?

Simplistic interpretations of this data suggest that Democrats need to become more Conservative in order to appeal to an electorate that is increasingly leaning right. But, if Dems are still Liberal in their hearts, even if they don't want to be called that in public, then adopting more conservative positions will just push them even further out of the Democratic camp.

The real problem for the Dems is not that the nation is leaning further to the right (I have serious doubts about that). It's that Dems are so afraid to self-identify with their traditional positions that a lot of Americans, both Democratic and not, are simply throwing up their hands and saying, "Screw you guys! At least the Republicans seem to know who they are."

"Vote for me you scmuck!"

What Athenae said, with one addition...

Some Democrats (let's call them The Joes) seem to think that the road to the White House is paved with the blood of their fellow Democrats. The Joes think they need to demean everyone else in their party in order to make themselves look better and more "electable". As Athenae so rightly points out, The Joes are asking Democrats to vote for the guy who is most able to humiliate them in public.

"Hello! I'm the guy who made everyone laugh at you at the prom! Vote for me!"

But what The Joes forget is that, even if they manage to get the party nomination, such tactics will undermine their chances in the general election. People are smart (generally). They know that when they vote for a President they aren't just voting for one guy. They are voting for an entire cadre of strategists, planners, thinkers and movers who will take over all the prominant positions in the Executive Branch. Hell, many people who were hesitant to vote for Bush in 2000 comforted themselves with the notion that he would be surrounded by "grownups" (guess that shows how not smart people can be).

So what does undermining his fellow Democrats do for The Joes when they win their party's nomination? It tells the general electorate, "Hey, you better not vote for me, because if you do you'll get all these other idiots as well."

Republicans win by convincing the voters that their "people" are at least as good, if not better, than the candidate. The Joes want to win by convincing the voters that they are better than their people even though it is their people who will ultimately run the country.

I guess we know how well that has worked.

Unity in Disagreement (Part II)

Just to clarify something: The point of my previous post was not whether the Democrats have plans or ideas but that those plans and ideas cannot coalesce into a unifying platform for the party so long as major segments of the party are simply unwilling to engage other segments seriously about the very serious problems this country is facing. Unfortunately, some of those segments reflexively reject such engagement because they think even acknowledging the other segment is somehow a surrender to their position.

And this isn't just an indictment of the "Peter Beinart wing" (though I can see how my previous post could be seen that way). I've met plenty of anti-war leftists who are are similarly unwilling to engage seriously with those with whom they disagree.

Democrats have allowed critics, both internal and external, to define what are "acceptable" ideas to discuss, needlessly hobbling our ability to even begin to form a serious, unifying vision for the party.

I'm not calling for anyone to embrace anyone else's ideas on what should be done about Iraq. I'm simply asking people to call bullshit anytime someone requires them to reflexively condemn certain positions even if (especially if) they really do disagree with them.

Republicans want Democrats to fight with each other about the ground rules for the discussion. They know that this will prevent us from having the discussion. Democrats should not fall into that trap. They should reject outright the suggestion that to talk seriously with someone about his ideas is, ipso facto, an endorsement of those ideas.

Adults discuss their disagreements. That is what makes them adults.

Selling a Candidate

When canvasing for a candidate I don't think it is enough to know the candidate's positions. Really, knowing how they voted or will vote on particular issues is only part of the story. Indeed, it isn't even really a story at all. It's just basic facts, no different then High School history drills on dates of famous battles of the Civil War.

You need to make a candidate compelling and you don't do that by simply reciting a laundry list of policy decisions. You need to explain why that candidate actually felt that voting that way was the right thing to do. You need to tell the real story of the candidate, not just their position on issues. Using the history example again, what makes an historical event compelling is not the names, dates and places but the why behind it. What makes the Civil War such a compelling story is why so many Americans, both North and South, were willing to sacrifice their lives in that great struggle (the same can be said for pretty much any war).

What makes a candidate compelling is not how they have voted or how they will vote but why they would care enough to even take the time to get involved in the first place.

Learn the candidates story. Tell the candidates story. All else is gravy.

No Unity Without Tolerance Of Disagreement

In all the multitude of debates, opinion pieces, conferences, speeches and dissertations I have seen, heard and read over the last few years, all dealing with the question of what is the unifying "idea" behind the Democratic Party (this diary from georgia10 being just the latest example in a long line of examples) I sense a fundamental failure to grasp an important point: it is difficult, if not impossible, to come to some settlement of this question if Democrats are restricted from the very beginning in what they can permissibly talk about.

For too long we have seen debate on this issue hobbled by both participants and outside critics who impose restrictions on what can be discussed before the debate is even begun. How many times have we seen a discussion of what should be the Democratic position on war as an instrument of foreign policy begin with participants refusing to engage in debate with certain elements of the anti-war left? My question is this: how do you develop a reasoned argument that can persuade members of that group to join you in a Democratic coalition if you refuse to even treat them as more then just children who have no appreciation of the finer points of foreign policy?

No one wants to work with people who fundamentally disrespect their difference of opinion.

And how do you deal with the critics of Democrats who love to paint all members of the party as part of the "Michael Moore wing" if you don't know enough about that wing in order to distinguish your opinion from it without unnecessarily insulting those who don't see the problem with the opinions expressed by Moore and others?

If the Democrats are to have a truly unifying vision of government policy with regard to both foreign and domestic issues they will not achieve it by first cutting off 30-40% of the base whose opinions fall into what some consider to be outside the "grownup" category.

I think my words may be failing me here, but I hope I can make my point clear on this: engaging those you disagree with is not a surrender to their opinions. It is instead the first step towards achieving a synthesis of the diversity of opinions within the Democratic/Progressive/Left-Wing sphere. When we allow critics, both internal and external, to restrict who we can talk to and what we can talk about then we are unnecessarily crippling our ability to achieve that synthesis.

Which is precisely what our enemies want. They want to keep us from having that conversation because if we do we may actually discover that the "Michael Moore wing" and the "Peter Beinart wing" are not so very far apart. That maybe there is a synthesis that can work for all involved.

That's what happened with the Republicans in the 70s and 80s. Rather than cutting themselves off from the more extreme elements of their party, the Republicans made a deliberate effort to invite everyone to the discussion table. They didn't give a damn what critics had to say about it. They hashed out their ideas. They discussed their differences. They became aware of their commonalities. And through this process they came to understand that they could work together to achieve power.

And they did it!

When will the Democrats grow up and realize that they will never achieve any grand unity without a similar rapprochement? I'm still waiting. I'm not sure the country has that luxury anymore.