Views » December 10, 2004

A Little More to the Left

By Craig Aaron

A month after the election, I’m still nursing a hangover from downing too much Kerry Kool-Aid. (My previous column taught me a valuable lesson: Never drink and divine.) And the Democratic Party seems similarly sluggish, mired in its quadrennial period of self-flagellation, sniping and backbiting about why they lost this time.

If previous setbacks are any guide, the same consultants and pollsters who lost the election will again win the battle to interpret its results. Almost inevitably, they will conclude that the party needs to shift further to the right, ignoring the base (who else are they going to vote for?) and cozying up to the stockbrokers or gun owners or home-schoolers (or better yet—all three!) with new proposals for “budget reform” and hints of “flexibility” on abortion rights.

The only thing wrong with this strategy, of course, is that it loses every time. By tacking rightward, Democrats not only alienate their base, but encourage swing voters to think like Republicans. They “activate the other side’s models,” in the words of the unexpectedly in vogue linguist George Lakoff. The Republicans seem to understand this concept: The harder they push, the further they shift the whole country’s political discourse. Without a countervailing force, what else would you expect?

Consider how much more moderate Reagan’s Republican Party was compared to the current “majority of the majority.” And some progressives have grown downright nostalgic for the halcyon days of Richard Nixon. No matter how far the Democrats move to the right, the Republicans can always go further.

Notice that no Republicans are talking about compromise or catering to moderates. “Now comes the revolution,” Richard Viguerie, one of the main architects of the New Right, crowed to the New York Times on the day after the election. “If you don’t implement the conservative agenda now, when do you?”

Viguerie has waited 40 years for this moment. As he recently reminisced in Salon.com: “Conservatives had never nominated anyone for president. That was our first challenge, and we did that in 1964. Then, we needed to nominate and elect somebody, and we did that in 1980. Then our next goal was to nominate, elect and govern. And that’s what we have not yet done. We have not yet governed.”

That long-term focus—not on the next election, but on the next generation—isn’t the only thing liberals could learn from the right. They’ve also built institutions outside the Republican Party, while never abandoning the GOP as a vehicle to take power. They’ve trained local candidates and talking heads, nurtured intellectuals, and invested in “alternative media”—from direct mail and magazines to talk radio to the Internet. (Much of this effort is detailed in Viguerie’s terrible but terribly important new book, America’s Right Turn.)

Instead of borrowing the right’s policies, Democrats should have been stealing their tactics. Of course, that’s exactly what they did to us. “We’ve taken close to 100 percent of the left’s tactics,” Viguerie admitted in a 1979 interview with In These Times. “We’re into making a list of all the things they do and doing the same things.”

Viguerie literally stole our playbook, cribbing from solicitations used during the 1972 McGovern campaign. “I’m studying it,” he said in that same interview. “I’m trying to build a movement. I don’t know if you’ve heard that word much. Among us conservatives that’s a word that’s used constantly. The movement.”

The fundamental elements of that movement are infrastructure and ideology. When it comes to the former, liberals are starting to catch up—with their own nascent think tanks, rapid-response operations, small-donor mailing lists and get-out-the-vote efforts. But on the latter, they suffer from an acute case of hypocognition—Lakoff’s term for a lack of useful ideas.

Part of the problem is how deeply the Democrats have internalized the attacks from the likes of Viguerie. They’re so afraid of being tagged as liberals or tree huggers or doves by the other side’s echo chamber that they’ve lost their convictions. But the way to deflect charges of “class warfare” is not by providing more corporate welfare. Being the kinder, gentler pro-corporate party—a Costco to the GOP’s Wal-Mart, a Starbucks to its Cracker Barrel—does not a movement make.

Instead of middling centrism, the Democrats need bold ideas to counteract the right’s lies, especially the “cultural populism” they rely on to mask a massive upward redistribution of wealth. These ideas aren’t necessarily new ones: embracing economic populism, fighting inequality, challenging corporate corruption, providing universal healthcare, protecting the environment, rejecting imperialism.

But if the Democrats want to take back the country, they need to start talking less about positioning and more about these principles. The good news for those of us to the left of liberal is that the Democratic Leadership Council and the rest of the party leadership no longer has much of a choice. Moving further to the left, it seems, may be the only way to save the center.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  “By tacking rightward, Democrats not only alienate their base, but encourage swing voters to think like Republicans.”

  Craig’s right.  And if Joe LIEberman’s “little buddy” is made DNC chair, it’s telling the base we don’t want you, we don’t need you.

  Simon Rosenberg is DLC, is disgusting.  For info on him see:

  http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2004/12/questions-for-questionable-simon.ht tml

  The party needs to reach out to their base, stop ignoring us, stop silencing us.

  Posted by Ryan on Dec 10, 2004 at 2:37 PM

  I THINK IN LIGHT OF THE SITUATION, WE CAN NOT GIVE HOPE FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT, REGARDLESS, WHOEVER IS IN OFFICE. PLEASE BE ADVISED THOUGH WE WILL NEVER REST UNTIL THE TREES OF THE ANCIENTS ARE SAVED. UNTIL THE WATER IS CLEAR OF TOXICS, AND UNTIL OUR FOOD IS SAFE TO EAT. ANIMALS HAVE THEIR RIGHTS TO A HOME. AND THE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS FOR REAL. THE NUCLEAR ACTIVISTS AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE TO JOIN TOGETHR AND WORK TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF OUR MOTHER EARTH.
  PEACE & BLESSINGS! LET THEIR BE REAL PEACE ON EARTH FOR REAL.

  Posted by LINDA SAFLEY on Dec 10, 2004 at 5:41 PM

  I agree completely—Democrats don’t need to go further left. The people want an ALTERNATIVE, and they’re definitely not getting it. It cracks me up when people call Kerry a liberal. “I am a liberal,” I say. “he’s got nothing on me.”

  Posted by Brad O'Donnell on Dec 10, 2004 at 11:39 PM

  *correction, Democrats don’t need to go further RIGHT.

  I apologize for my ignorance.

  Posted by Brad O'Donnell on Dec 10, 2004 at 11:42 PM

  It’s been a long time since the ‘left’ was actually left of center. I was a young boy when The Duke carried only his home state, and since then we’ve not had much to cheer about. Clinton was okay, but too many bad policies slid thru under his watch. Gore would have been worse, and the thought of Joe Lieberman as VP makes Cheney almost seem pleasant (sarcasm! sarcasm!). Kerry—I actually liked him but would his policies have really been anything better than watered-down versions of what the left truly wants? I doubt it.
  Does anybody remember reading about the Bull Moose Party, or the Know-Nothings? Why is it that every left-leaning third party has to be so closed and insular—so tied to a narrow agenda that they fail to draw even a marginal amount of votes? If democracy is truly about the will of the people, and voting is our opportunity to state our will, why is it that we often end up voting for the lesser (and often weaker) of two evils?
  I’d love to see the Democrats go more to the left, but maybe they should just change their names to Republicans 2.0 so we can get on with the real challenge of building an honest-to-god leftist third party.

  Posted by matt on Dec 11, 2004 at 4:01 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 49 posts.

Also featured Cutting Our Benefits
People vs. Empire
A Long Climb

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Craig Aaron

• Comcast: Worst. Company. Ever.
  Inspired by March Madness, the folks at the Consumerist blog recently set up… morePosted on April 17, 2008
• Untangling the Next Telecom Act
  If what they say about those who fail to learn from history is… morePosted on March 6, 2006
• Country’s Jingoistic Jingles
  Country music is the nation's most popular genre--with nearly twice as many stations… morePosted on December 28, 2005
• In and Out Burglars
  Washington didn't invent the revolving door. Theophilus von Kannel of Philadelphia patented the… morePosted on November 29, 2005
• How the Right Has Won
  Sometimes schadenfreude just feels so good. There's nothing like watching Tom Delay get… morePosted on October 27, 2005