The Crucible

I recommend reading the latest from David Sirota on the debate going on about the direction of the Democratic party and his role in it. David openly admits to being provocative in his writing on the matter, but he does so with a purpose:

I make no apologies for saying some of the taboo things Democrats� have for too long ignored (ie. corporate money has hurt the party, support for a corporate free-trade policy has hurt the party's ability to communicate with working class voters, etc.), and I make no excuses for naming names. I have made a career fighting in the trenches of the partisan wars � on Capitol Hill, on campaigns, and in my writing. My loyalty to a Democratic Party that has the guts to stand up for working people is clear.

It is in keeping with that loyalty that I engage in this current debate. The party will only get stronger if it finally has a discussion about what has happened to its core ideology, and how to get it back. Many of the debates over the DNC chairmanship and direction of the party right now are focused on a shallow debate over �new� vs. �old" - with Beltway-centric Democratic elites shamelessly bashing grassroots organizations like Moveon.org and other constituencies. As this USA Today story shows, the debates among the party�s elites still seems more like a forum for shamelessly self-promoting operatives to try to grab power, rather than a discussion about the fundamental principles of the party and its leadership moving forward.

But in my writing, and the back-and-forth with my hard-fighting opponents, I am trying to push a debate about more than just which hack is going to get ahead, and which operative is going to climb the ladder. I am trying to get us all talking about what the party actually believes in. And the more we have this discussion now, the stronger the party will be in the future.

David's is a crucible style of debate: It deliberately provokes in order to burn away the weaker parts of the argument. It doesn't allow people to rest comfortably on talking points that have become like life-preservers in a sea of turmoil. It encourages people who otherwise haven't given much thought to core principles to do just that. When people have to defend themselves it can lead to a better understanding on their part as to why they actually believe the things they do.

Years ago I used to participate in Usenet discussion groups. I made the comment then that I wasn't participating in online debates in order to persuade others to my side so much as I was find out more about my own stance on the issues. Without that test there was no way to know whether my beliefs will held up under fire.

David is right that this kind of debate, as uncomfortable as it may sometimes be, is essential. If we are going to argue our values we first have to know what those values are. Democrats became too comfortable in conventional wisdom and lost the ability to argue their beliefs. They replaced it with wonk-speak and knee-jerk rhetoric.

We have to argue our core values before we can argue over the finer points of policy. If we can't sell people on our values then we are lost.

Selling the other guys brand

Chris Bowers of MyDD (link) quotes this Arianna Huffington/George Lakoff passage (link) that I have seen popping up around the blogosphere (I've quoted it myself):

As cognitive psychologist George Lakoff told me: "Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are." It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from.

I'd like to add something to this: Some political strategists interpret recent Republican success as an indication that their program sells better with the swing voters. They argue that it is therefore logical that Democrats base their appeal on the same program in order to win the swing voters back from the Republicans.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding a swing vote psychology. They don't vote for a particular candidate or party because of ideology. By definition a swing voter is someone who does not have an ideology. What is really happening is that the swing voters are buying into whichever program is most successfully marketed to them. It is marketed by the Republicans, of course. But the Democrats are selling it as well by openly making the same appeal.

Democrats are going into the red states trying to win back votes while wearing the "Vote Republican!" slogan on their shirts!

What does this mean? It means that Republicans don't have to try as hard to sell their program to the swing voters because the Democrats are doing it for them!

And don't think the Republicans aren't getting a big laugh out of that!

Dirty DeLay

The Pigpen of modern politics

(Admittedly this is unfair to Pigpen).

Don't be telling me there is nothing we can do

Digby provides a timeline for the Republican's defeat of Clinton's 1993 Health Care Reform effort (link). It is a helpful reminder to people that being in the minority does not mean you are powerless.

The Day Journalism Died

Gary Webb is dead

Since hearing the news yesterday I've been trying to compose a tribute to Mr. Webb, but every time I start I just seize up in anger and frustration. The death of Gary Webb is a journalistic tragedy of the first order. It is a tragedy of the first order not just because he was an excellent journalists unfairly drummed out of the corps by an establishment media more interested in protecting their turf ("How dare some Podunk hack think he can break an important story like this?") than in actually committing journalism. It is also a tragedy because so many journalists won't even understand just how much of a tragedy is his death. That is how complete Webb's contribution has been expunged from the journalistic record.

If you want to understand Webb's contribution, buy, beg, borrow or steal his seminal work, Dark Alliance. Then understand this: for all the poo-poohing of this story by the establishment press, virtually all of Webb's original reporting has been shown to be correct (note: the story linked about about Webb's death continues the lies).

I think Don McLean expresses my feelings best in the song he wrote about the death of Buddy Holly:

A long, long time ago,
I can still remember how that music used to make me cry.
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And maybe they'd be happy for a while.
But February made me shiver,
With every paper I delivered.
Bad news on the doorstep.
I couldn't take one more step.
I can't remember if I cried
When I read about his widowed bride.
But something touched me deep inside
The day the music died.

Wanted: Democratic Hacks

The left side of the blogosphere spends to much time in meta-level self-analysis. That is the verdict of Daphne Lasky of "Left in the West" (link).

I agree. I've come to realize that I spend an inordinate amount of time talking about what Democrats should do and not enough time actually doing what I say we should do. It's the old rule in writing: don't tell me when you can show me. Lead by example instead of by analysis. I would suggest that the best bloggers of the left do just that (Atrios being the best example).

Of course, both Daphne's post and this post are yet another example of meta-level self-analysis. But sometimes it takes a dragon to slay a dragon.

Brad Plummer also has an excellent post on this topic (link). Shorter version: "Too much 'Let's do it this way.' Too little: 'Yeeeeaaaargh.'" His suggestion: we need more hacks, people who will take the fruits of the analytical side of the left and actually put it into action but who won't spend a lot of time doing their own (public) analysis.

The hacks are the foot soldiers of a political war and the Democrats just don't have enough of them.

Got Wood?

Digby gets hard.

Dean on MTP

The Left Coaster has the transcript of Howard Dean's appearance on today's Meet The Press (link). I won't comment on the whole thing, otherwise this post would go on forever, but there were a few passages that really stood out for me:

MR. RUSSERT: You just spent the weekend in Florida meeting with the state Democratic Party chairs. Are you close to running? Were they encouraging to you?

DR. DEAN: I am going to run if I think that I can win, if I think that they really want me. This is an institution and the people in the institution know that they have to change, but the pain of change is always greater. Until the pain of changing is less than the pain of staying the same, they aren't going to change.

I had a lot of debates with myself about whether to try to change things from the outside or change things from the inside knowing it was going to be a significant institutional resistance if I try to change things from the inside, but I concluded it's faster to change the party from the inside.

Dean wants the job. But he doesn't want it unless the people on the inside are willing to let him have it. In other words, he isn't interested in the job if he is going to have to spend all of his time dealing with party insiders who will be sabotaging his efforts. He recognizes that real change can come faster from the inside, but only if those on the inside are really willing to change. As he says somewhere else in this interview, the DNC has to reach the point where they realize the pain of changing is less than the pain of not changing. It is not yet clear whether they have reached that point.

MR. RUSSERT: Harry Reid, the new leader of the Democrats, was on the MEET THE PRESS last week, and he said he would be open to Antonin Scalia being appointed chief justice of the Supreme Court. There may be some ethical problems, he said. If he could get by those, he was very much impressed by the brilliance of his mind.

DR. DEAN: I like Harry Reid a lot. He's a straight shooter, and I think he's going to be a good leader. I disagree with him on this one. I think Antonin Scalia ought not to be on the Supreme Court, let alone chief justice, because I think he lacks judicial temperament.

MR. RUSSERT: Why?

DR. DEAN: I have appointed a great many judges [in] my career as governor. The second thing - after a work ethic that you look for when you're appointing a judge or a justice - is judicial temperament. That means - in our judicial system, it's very important for the loser and/or the winner in any case to feel like they've been treated fairly and respectfully by the court system. That's the glue that binds us together as a society. When you are sarcastic and mean-spirited, as the justice [Scalia] often is from the bench, it leaves the loser in that case feeling as if they were not respected by the judicial system, and that's why you don't put people with bad temperament on any court, and I certainly don't think they should be on the Supreme Court of the United States.

I like Dean's approach here a lot. He avoids the whole question of ideology or qualification and gets right to the issue that is most important in judicial appointments: can you trust a judge to give a fair hearing to those they might be otherwise inclined to disagree with? Dean is absolutely right that the cornerstone of our system of justice is that the results of deliberations be acceptable to the loser. If the losing parties start consistently refusing to accept the results then the process fails. If this loss of faith becomes endemic then the entire system of justice collapses.

We need judges that even the losers can say they feel they got a fair hearing and Scalia just doesn't pass muster on that test.

Neither does George W. Bush for that matter.

BTW, Dean shows an increasingly adept talent at dealing with potential hostility within the party. He praises Terry McAuliffe where he deserves to be praised, but points out his failings as well. He doesn't take the criticisms of Bob Kerrey or The New Republic personally and says that there is always going to be a diversity of opinions. He doesn't back MoveOn in their recent "We bought it, we own it" email, but he lauds them for the great work they have done. I think he has learned a lesson from the primary campaign that it doesn't help the reform effort to personalize the fight over reform.