I want to say thank you to Steve for asking me to participate as one of the contributors to this blog. I've long thought it is one of the better places for discussing political strategy and I hope that I'll be able to add something of value to that conversation.
I'm also very interested stimulating discussion -- so feedback and/or criticism is very welcome.
Posted by Mary at June 21, 2003 09:21 PM
Wow. Great first post here, Mary.
Just an observation. You make a very interesting point in your first paragraph; it is perhaps obvious, but you state it so clearly that I realized something about it. We have shifted far to the right of the great majority of first world societies. In most statistical analyses, the further you get from some "center" the more likely it becomes that your next data point will move closer to center. Toss a thousand coins, and 700 come up heads; the next thousand coins will probably bring the average closer to center. Reach for a pain medication when a pain becomes unbearable; it would probably improve anyway, because you're looking to treat it once it has become extreme.
We all know that the country likes a "divided government" - that is, if things move too far in one direction, the people will usually push at least one body of government in the opposite direction. This is just an elaborate manifestation of the statistical principle stated above.
And this is a great reason for optimism. First, all bodies of our government are to one direction of center. Second, the dominant bodies of government are chosing to govern from the more polar extremes of their party. Third, the center is defined by a closely divided electorate, which means it is as far from right-wing as possible while sustaining a right-wing government. Fourth, the current voting electorate sits to the right of the average potential voter. And fifth, the center in this country is to the right of the center in similarly positioned countries worldwide.
All of these things make it more likely that the next major data point (2004) will fall far to the left of the last one. I think you can feel the rumbling of this seismic shift in the rhetoric of our party. Listen to labor leaders. Listen to environmentalists and civil rights activists. Listen to Dean and Graham and Pelosi and Gore. Listen to your left-of-center friends. You will not just hear the voice of the opposition; you will see the growing fury, the tension of a rubber band that has been pulled too far, the convergence of waves into a great rising tide. We are a once-bickering family who, in crisis, is coming together toward a common cause.
We are the living, breathing manifestation of a basic scientific principle. What goes up, must come down. And we will bring these bastards down.
Posted by CTDem2 at June 22, 2003 12:23 AMExcellent post, Mary. I hope Steve has you on again as a regular.
Concerning think tanks and the Dems, it's another fine example of "Me Too!". The time for think tanks was back during the Reagan years when most of these right-wing think tanks were coming to the fore. Now that it's twenty years later, the head start given the right wing in this arena makes them uncatchable.
As much as it saddens me to say this, the Dems need to recognize that the Holy Trinity - FDR, HST, JFK - are all dead. Due to neglect on the part of the party, their policies are now dead as well. And at the rate things are going, the Dem Party will stand idly by, wringing their hands and moaning about how unfair it all is while the GOP turns us into yet another fascist corporatocracy.
The Dems need to find another approach if they are going to stay alive. On another blog, the point was raised that the Dems could find themselves going the way of the Whigs. If they continue to produce such stalwarts as Jay "Don't Want To Appear Partisan" Rockefeller, such a fate is inevitable.
The sad thing is, by the time a replacement party could get organized, the GOP will have been in total control for years. They have already shown they care nothing for the Constitution, so it's likely that there won't be much left for the Replacement Party to fight for.
Posted by pessimist at June 22, 2003 01:23 AMYes, but CTdem2, your argument rests on the assumption that there is no outside force driving the odds, in order to eventually land at the center.
The situation we are in now is not analogous, because of the long-term, coordinated effort to move the whole spectrum to the right, and the effort to keep it there.
I don't mean to be a sourpuss, but misplaced optimism can be as dangerous as knee-jerk negatism. ;)
Mary, thanks for the very thoughtful post. Here's what it prompted me to recognize/ponder. Aside from the enormous resource advantage that the right has, there may be another reason this 30 year project to dismantle the Great Society is apparently succeeding, is precisely because it is about dismantling. The task the right has taken up for itself is to eliminate something that's already there. The task for the progressives is by definition harder: its always been about building something that isn't yet there.
Just adds an extra dimension of struggle to the problem. Thanks for helping me to see this.
Posted by a gilas girl at June 22, 2003 10:01 AMIt's unclear to me, Mary, whether the Podesta think tank is a bellwether of the DLC's declining influence.
We may be seeing a larger voice by the Clintons these days, but that doesn't mean that the party isn't still dominated by the big money DLC guys; indeed, Clinton was the guy who gave the DLC the poitical capital to tell the liberal base to go f^@& themselves.
As the WaPo story puts it, "Washington's two most Clinton-friendly institutions are the Senate...and the Democratic National Committee, where the former president remains a major force."
I felt when I voted Green in 2002 (hey, it was California; cut me some slack) that the DLC came in after the Clinton successes, told me that my party wasn't going to respond to my concerns anymore because I embarassed them in front of soccer moms, and then had the temerity to say that I (and all the other Greens) cost them the election.
The DLC repeated this stunt a couple of weeks ago with a letter designed to repudiate the Gephardt/Dean faction. How long will it take for genuinely progressive think tanks to get their ideas into circulation when the centrists in our own party keep telling us they don't represent our interests anymore?
Posted by Matt Davis at June 22, 2003 10:14 AMD'oh! 2000, I mean...
Posted by Matt Davis at June 22, 2003 10:15 AMIt used to be said that the Right had the wallet, and the Left had the pen. But then the Right figured out that if you had the wallet you could buy the pen.
The Right has invested heavily in its think tanks over the last 20-25 years. This has paid off for them handsomely. I think it is a major reason why mainstream political debate in our country now takes place primarily between the Moderate Right (e.g., Clinton) and the Far Right (with the latter, of course, currently in control).
The two best think tanks we have on the Left, as far as I know are: The Institute for Policy Studies, and Foreign Policy in Focus (which calls itself "a think tank without walls"). Here one can consistently find topical political commentary and analysis of the highest caliber.
http://www.ips-dc.org/index.htm
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/
Posted by theologicus at June 22, 2003 11:16 AMI have this silly idea that we are witnessing the beginning of a turnaround for the left and that in ten years it will be the GOP on the run as we dissassemble all the damage they've done.
I'm intrigued that the Clintons are associating themselves with the AMI if it's a non-DLC organization. After all, Clinton was the triumph of the DLC. Is he shedding the DLC now?
In any event, think tanks are good and they can't be created suddenly with 20 years' experience. They have to grow. I'm particularly glad that the Commonweal Institute and the AMI recognize that they can play together nicely.
I remember in the early 90s listening to the old-school Republicans talking about how they were frightened of the growing influence of the Religious Right; how they would cost the party its ability to compete for the middle. Instead, they have been the core of they GOP's growth through the 90s. Maybe us lefties are the corresponding change for the Democrats.
That is, of course, if we're not all rounded up and shot before November of next year.
Posted by Stephen Charest at June 22, 2003 11:54 AM% of vote to Clinton in 1992:
43%
% of vote to Clinton in 1996:
49%
% of vote to Gore in 2000:
50.3%
Democratic dominance is obviously going to happen pretty soon, as the GOP has been quietly leaking air since 1988. The only question is whether this will happen in 2004 or 2008, and how much damage they can do before we get there.
The whole DLC nonsense is just that. Everyone likes a balanced budget and permissive social policies. Everyone wants a safe country. This is about From's ego versus Nader's ego.
* 2002 was an anomoly, but even so, we didn't lose by that much and ran a horrible campaign. And so did Gore, so his totals should be higher.
Posted by MattS at June 22, 2003 03:36 PMGreat comments, all.
CTDem2 and a gilas girl, I'm not sure how convinced I am that the rightwing will peacefully let things swing back to the center. One thing that struck me on dKos today was vbo's saying:
”What one idiot can make, 10 geniuses can’t fix” my people say…
This is certainly a huge concern.
And I really don't know how much time we have and I also worry that we are starting from behind the eight ball. However, I do think the think tanks can help even now if they can help provide some more coherent and effective messages for selling our view. I know I really am impressed with the fact that both Geoffrey Nunberg and George Lakoff are on the board for the Commonweal Institute. If they can't help shape the message, no one can.
MattD, I stand corrected. The article does say that Clinton continues to have strong ties to the DLC, the DNC and now the AMI. How that shapes the policies going forward will be interesting. I certainly think we've ready for a return to the left and perhaps it can be enough of a swing left that we can land closer to the middle....
Matts, yes, if all things were fair, we would easily win -- but there are so many things that are up in the air right now, it is hard to predict what we can to do to win. It depends on how much more they screw up (the incompetency is really startling) and whether Americans pay enough attention to start to listen to our messages. One thing that is sure, if the election is competitive, the Republicans will do everything they can to suppress the vote -- and the best way to do that is to tear down your opponent so that everyone is dispirited. That is probably what the Bush money will go for -- very negative ads.
Hopefully, we'll get through the primary season without having provided enough ammunition that the right can use and without causing a big rift on our side. I know I'm going to vote for the winner of the primary, but I hope whoever it is will get activist base excited. (That includes us.)
theologicus, thanks for some great links.
Posted by Mary at June 22, 2003 08:43 PMCTDem2 - "Toss a thousand coins, and 700 come up heads; the next thousand coins will probably bring the average closer to center."
Not if someone is catching the coins in the air and then placing them on the ground heads up. This is the analogy to what the right is doing to our society.
Societies do not self-regulate. In fact, once the mechanisms for moderation are removed - as has happened here with the right wing takeover of the press, the courts and the media, history shows that they become more extreme.
We're all going to have to donate our time, energy and money to combatting the right and resoring moderating influences to our society. It isn't going to happen by itself.
pessimist -- I don't think the fault lies with the Democrats. Politicians respond to the public. The right changed the PUBLIC, and that is how they took over the Republican Party. They were able to do this because Scaife and a few others stepped up to the plate and provided the money. On the moderate/progressive side our philanthropists are NOT funding the kind of organization that can make a difference - except in the case of Podesta's American Majority Institute. But while that is a very necessary component of what we need to do, it is a short-term, "hot issues" Washington-focused organization. This is much needed, but without working to change the broad, general public it is only going to fight a defensive action to try to hold back the onslaught.
What we need is for our philanthropists to step up to the plate and start funding organizations that work over the long term to change the public BACK to moderate/progressive principles. We need a Scaife of our own, and a few others, to start funding progressive ADVOCACY organizations, that work to change the broad, GENERAL public back to progressive principles of helping each other, supporting equality and democracy, respecting community, supporting collective bargaining, and other ways that people work together to combat the influence of money. This means things like working in the South and the Midwest and churches - advertising at auto races, football games, writing general-interest books, producing movies, etc.
It's a big task, but the model is in front of us. The right has been successful and we can look at how they did it. They build their system over time using a trial-and-error approach. By following the model they have developed we can take advantage of what they have learned and get this going in a much shorter time.
One thing we need to do is recognize just how broad the right-wing infrastructure is. The people you see speaking on TV are FUNDED. People like Bill Bennett are FUNDED. The organizations that promote their ideas are FUNDED. Their activists are FUNDED! And this is what WE need as well!
But there is MORE money on the moderate/progressive side - and there are MORE people. The problem is that our philanthropists are funding narrow-focus evironmental programs, etc. This is great, but with the right's attack going on it's almost useless - a waste of money. If they would divert 10-20% of that funding to building a broad progressive infrastructure similar to the right's, developing public support of progressive principals in general, then this public support leads to progressive candidates getting elected - and even leads to environmental organizations, etc. having a broader base of funding support - all of which leads to the accomplishment of the very goals that the original narrow-focused programs were trying to achieve! It is an INVESTMENT and it will pay results. So the philanthropic community - the foundations, etc. - need to wake up and see that their money is wasted without building broad public support for progresive principals.
Posted by Dave Johnson at June 23, 2003 09:43 AMDave J
I agree that politicians are to blame, and that they are following the public rather than leading, but the public HAS been swayed to change by these same think tanks. Case in point:
At the time of the election of 1980, the television stations out here in CA tended to dress their anchors and reporters in summer casual wear. Upon the election of Reagan, within three days, ALL of LA's TV stations had changed the required garb to business wear. This was not just a coincidence. Someone had obviously read the signs (maybe from a think tank?) and everyone else followed Dittohead-style. The public was led along by their numb brains.
I agree that the left has to change its methods of communicating, but trying to play the same game as the GOP is a sure loser. There has to be another way to reach the masses without trying to compete on a field tilted so far to the right that it's almost vertical.
Posted by pessimist at June 23, 2003 05:55 PMInsightful post. There's no doubt we need to build up our "message infrastructure" and focus on "them" rather than each other. I have a suggestion about what these new think tanks might concentrate on first. Beginning with Reagan, the Right has had a coherent theme complete with "heart touchin'" imagery that has beckoned Americans to return to an idealized past that never was. Progressives have the more difficult task of inspiring people to work together for a better future. Taking on the Right issue-by-issue and only arguing the merits of each policy choice won't get the job done. We need the kind of poetry and dreams that we heard from people like RFK and Dick Goodwin. My blog last week discussed "Dreams of the Future" and compared the frightening dreams of the Christian Right to our own. Start here: http://www.therightchristians.org/BlogWeek5.htm#june19.
Posted by Allen Brill at June 24, 2003 03:36 AM"right-wing" and "libertarian" have opposite meanings. Cato may be right-wing, but it cannot
be both right-wing and libertarian.
Another Think Tank! Yes indeed. Thanks Mary for the intro.
Let the fittest survive and thrive provided enough 'numbers' can identify with and then, can be goaded, persuaded and convinced to spread the progressive message(s).
Changing indeed dynamic America needs AMI to present a more balanced, realistic mosaic of progressive ideals and ideas.
Developing insitution(s) such as AMI to effectively deliver progressive agenda on a sustained basis requires three things:
1. Supporters - who identify with and could have an active interest especially the young, from middle/high school onwards
2. Supporters - who are committed and skilled enough to carry, spread, broadcast the prgressive message(s), and
3. Supporters with deep pockets and not so thick but open wallets.
In short, its an all round NUMBERS game but not for the short-winded. I visualize an AMI Cell (if that is a politically correct word to use) in every state, county, college...
I invite John Podesta, Sarah Wartell...to inform me of the future agenda and how this concerned American Citizen can chip in.
I have the interest, ability and time to help carry the AMI Ball in/from Las Vegas, Nevada.
Posted by Dr. Jag Uppal at June 30, 2003 10:12 AMI'm certainly fascinated by the possibility of using Heritage-like think tanks as bases of operations for the left. I think there's a ton of good possibility there, and I support the attempt.
It's a good idea to remember, though, that just as disgust with all politicians helps Republicans at the expense of Democrats (as we have seen lately), all serious discussion of issues helps Democrats at the expense of Republicans. That is, all attempts to talk about society and possible policies rationally, thoughtfully, and with respect help get people into the habit of taking politics thoughtfully, which will help the left (if only because there are more of us than there are of them, counting noses rather than dollars).
Insofar as the blogosphere is, like this new-to-me site, thoughtful, rational and civil, it will inevitably help the left. But how far is that?
Thank you,
-Vardibidian.