Donate today and get a free, signed copy of Rick Perlstein's new book Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America!
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Features > October 17, 2005 > Web Only

Partisan War Syndrome

The left falls victim to a debilitating affliction

By David Sirota

Is the left really as ideological and principle-driven as it seems?

A disease is running rampant through the American left these days. Its symptoms are intense and increasingly pervasive in every corner of the self-proclaimed “progressive” coalition. A good name for the disease could be “Partisan War Syndrome” - and it is eating away at what remains of progressives’ ideological underpinnings and the Democratic Party’s ability to win elections over the long haul.

The disease is simple to understand: It leads the supposedly “ideological” grassroots left to increasingly subvert its overarching ideology on issues in favor of pure partisan concerns. That may sound great at first glance. Democratic Party officials always talk about a need for “big tent unity” and subsequently try to downplay ideology. But as a trait of the grassroots and not just the party, Partisan War Syndrome could be positively devastating not just for issue advocacy, but also for Democrats’ political aspirations as well.

The main symptoms of Partisan War Syndrome are hallucination, delirium and obsessive compulsive behavior, with those afflicted losing almost all perspective about what winning politics really is all about. Washington, D.C., of course, could be declared a Hot Zone outbreak area, with this disease afflicting virtually every self-described strategist, operative, and lawmaker that operates in the progressive name. But it is starting to seep out everywhere-even on the Internet blogs that the mainstream media reflexively defines as the “left,” “liberal” or “progressive” base.

Certainly, this disease can be difficult to detect. The mainstream media regularly portrays the so-called Democratic base as a highly ideological, “liberal” or “progressive” monolith, supposedly pressing an insulated, spineless D.C. Democratic establishment to move to the “left.” This portrayal creates the image that there really is a cohesive, powerful ideological force on the left, one that is committed to convictions and issues before party-much like there is on the right. This image is reinforced by the mainstream media’s constant characterization of Internet blogs and the “netroots” as an extension of this monolith-as if a medium automatically equals an ideology.

As proof that such a monolith exists, the media writes stories about this or that Democratic politician-no matter how conservative he or she is - pandering to or courting the “left” by once in a while taking a mundane Democratic Party position and then blogging about it. We also see an entire counter-industry to this mythical monolith in the form of organizations like the Democratic Leadership Council, which raise corporate money, put out reports attacking the supposedly all-powerful “left,” and commission polls to discredit what, in reality, is a straw man.

And it is a straw man. To be sure, there used to be a powerful ideological force on the left that constituted the Democratic Party base. And there are still remnants of that ideological movement left in various progressive labor, environmental and civil rights organizations, and disparate Internet blogs. But look no further than the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries to see that the ideological movement as a whole is in tatters. In that race, primary voters - supposedly a representation of this “ideological” base -supported John Kerry on the basis of his personal profile as a Vietnam War veteran and his supposed “electability.” It was the most non-ideological of choices in what we were supposed to believe was the most ideological of races.

This blunting of the left’s ideological edge is a result of three unfortunate circumstances. First, conservatives spent the better part of three decades vilifying the major tenets of the left’s core ideology, succeeding to the point where “liberal” is now considered a slur. Second, the media seized on these stereotypes and amplified them - both because there was little being done to refute them, and because they fit so cleanly into the increasingly primitive and binary political narrative being told on television.

And third is Partisan War Syndrome - the misconception even in supposedly “progressive” circles that substance is irrelevant when it comes to both electoral success and, far more damaging, to actually building a serious, long-lasting political movement. This is the syndrome resulting from the shellshock of the partisan wars that marked the Clinton presidency. It is an affliction that hollowed out much of the Democratic base’s economic and national security convictions in favor of an orthodoxy that says partisan concerns and cults of personality should be the only priorities because they are supposedly the only factors that win elections. It is a disease that subverts substance for “image” and has marked the last decade of Democrats’ repeated failures at the ballot box.

Again, just look at 2004 for proof of Partisan War Syndrome’s negative effects: Kerry’s “profile” and “electability” - venerated by the supposed “ideological” base as the most important asset - were made impotent by the vicious attacks on his military service, and more importantly, by the fact that his lack of an ideological rudder allowed him to be vilified as a “flip-flopper.”

Some may argue that putting partisanship ahead of everything else during the 2004 presidential election was only a fleeting trait of a progressive base desperate to defeat George W. Bush. But a look at the left’s current landscape shows that’s hardly the case. Partisan War Syndrome rages on today like a pandemic in parts of the left’s grassroots base.

Hallucination

The first major symptom of Partisan War Syndrome is wild hallucinations that make progressives believe we can win elections by doing nothing, as long as the Republican Party keeps tripping over itself. You can best see this symptom each time another GOP scandal comes down the pike. The scandal hits, Republicans respond with a pathetic “I am not a crook” defense, and both Democratic politicians and grassroots activists/bloggers berate a “culture of corruption.” Yet, then these same critics largely refuse to demand concrete solutions such as public funding of elections that would actually clean up the system, and would draw a contrast between the left and the right. We see hallucinations of a victory in the next election as long as we just say nothing of substance, as we have for the last decade. But like a mirage in the desert, it never seems to materialize.

These hallucinations are the only logical explanation as to why the Democratic Party remains without an official position on almost every major issue in Congress. Just look at the last year: Democrats have no clear party position on Iraq, energy, bankruptcy, trade, tax cuts, Supreme Court nominees or corruption, other than to criticize Republicans.

In fairness, Iraq may be an exception when it comes to the grassroots. There is undoubtedly a palpable - and growing - core of progressives outside the Beltway who put their desire to see American troops withdraw above their partisan loyalties. Much of this base flocked to Howard Dean’s campaign for the presidency, and still fuels the blogs’ teeming traffic. It is why in recent weeks we have seen 2008 presidential hopeful Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) make statements in support of withdrawing troops - because he feels the power of an ideological force within his midst, and he sees that in order for Democrats to capitalize on the Bush administration’s mismanagement of Iraq, Democrats have to actually take a position of contrast.

But then, even an issue as critical as Iraq can be subverted by the hallucinations that come from Partisan War Syndrome. As just one example, take progressives’ constant genuflecting anytime Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) name is mentioned. She is forever portrayed as a champion of the left, with everyone who’s anyone in politics assuming that she will have rock-solid support from the Democratic base despite her loud and continuing support for the Iraq War, and rather quiet Senate record on other progressive issues. The assumption speaks volumes about a “base” with an ideology so afflicted by a haze of hallucination that it believes the best politics even in such a polarized environment are those that avoid contrast.

On almost every other issue it is the same. The hallucinations subvert overarching ideology or concrete actions on issue after issue, save a few disparate pieces of token legislation that the party refuses to seriously push, and which the supposedly all-powerful “liberal” base does not demand through the blogs, liberal pundits, or any of its other powerful channels of influence. Unions, environmental organizations and others fight the good substantive fight. But with the base in a state of hallucination, there is no cohesive ideological grassroots movement to push along those substantive efforts.

As New York Times columnist Frank Rich recently wrote, the tragedy in allowing the hallucinations to continue indefinitely goes beyond just election losses. “The Democrats are hoping that if they do nothing, they might inherit the earth as the Bush administration goes down the tubes,” he wrote. “Whatever the dubious merits of this Kerryesque course as a political strategy, as a moral strategy it’s unpatriotic. The earth may not be worth inheriting if Iraq continues to sabotage America’s ability to take on Iran and North Korea, let alone Al Qaeda.” The same could be said for every other issue that progressives are trying to avoid in the face of the 2006 elections.

Delirium

The next most obvious symptom of Partisan War Syndrome is delirium. Out of power for so long, the left is desperate for anyone that has the appearance of an electoral winner, no matter what the actual positions of that winner are. Other than maybe the war in Iraq or abortion, it increasingly does not seem to matter to the Democratic base where a candidate stands on much of anything, as long as that candidate has the so-called right “profile.” Intangibles like a candidate’s personal background and charisma - while certainly important - are now seen by parts of the grassroots as the penultimate asset for a candidate. In vogue today are macho males - tomorrow, who knows? As long as you are the “in” thing and put a “D” behind your name, much of the supposedly “ideological” base doesn’t really care what positions or record you have. It is as if progressives believe Democrats have been losing elections only because their candidates aren’t out of Central Casting.

What’s troubling is that this kind of delirium is most commonly found on the Internet blogs, supposedly the progressive ideological bastion, but increasingly a place only of traditional partisan prioritization. Case in point was the recent brouhaha over Ohio’s upcoming 2006 U.S. Senate race. Iraq War veteran Paul Hackett, who had recently lost a high-profile House race, decided to run for the Senate after Rep. Sherrod Brown earlier said he would not. Brown, however, reversed himself just as Hackett was preparing to announce his intention to run.

Next page »Page 1 of 2
David Sirota is a senior editor at In These Times and a bestselling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," was released in May 2008. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network -- both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

More information about David Sirota

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    “Today’s Republican Party, for instance, could not win without the corresponding conservative ideological movement that gets that party its committed donors, fervent foot soldiers and loyal activists. That base certainly operates as an arm of the GOP’s party infrastructure - but few doubt it is fueled less by hollow partisanship, and more by their grassroots’ commitment to social, economic and religious conservatism.”

    While I agree with the broad points that you make, I don’t think that you recognize the value of the “partisan war” mentality.

    We have certainly seen Republicans who sway and “flip flop” according to the desires of their fired up conservative activist base. Naked partisan power plays have been a key to the current Republican take over of all branches of government. Perhaps there is a need for these types of players within a political power or perhaps we should listen to the wisdom in the adage “your enemies are not your teachers.”

    In either case, I don’t think the Democrats can successfuly articulate a coherent message of hope that translates into overarching policy themes because the party is still trying to figure out where it stands. To date the party has been unable to take up the legacy of FDR, Truman, and even Johnson. It has not been able to speak clearly as the party that empowered more people to reach the middle class than ever in history. Rather than defend the policies that enabled this to happen, Democrats are unable to say openly that taxes contribute to the common good, that when we act together we accomplish more individually.

    Democrats perhaps are gunshy about pushing for the types of progressive reforms that led to the civil rights act. The loss of an entire region of the U.S. was an enormous price to pay and may contribute to the fear of taking too strong a position on issues of civil liberties and justice. An example of this cowardice has been the Democaratics response to the Republican attack on the rigts of Gay Americans.

    The Democratic party was most inspiring when it pursued an agenda of equal opportunity, building infrastructure (including human capital), and pushing itself and America to overcome prejudice and fear. But thse messages are challenging. And if the pary expects to lead, it needs to give people something to follow. How many people in the last election “voted for Bush with reservations.”

    Instead the Democrats, like the GAP, have tried to become everything to everybody and have instead become nothing to anyone.

    A part of the solution must be to identify the most courageous Democratic leaders and spread their name. A part of the solution has be debating amongst ourselves as the party base.

    Posted by Neruda on Oct 17, 2005 at 8:23 AM

    One of the most progressive presidential candidates was Dennis Kucinich. He stood for everything that true Democratic progressives believe in. Yet, many progressives would’nt support him because they wanted someone who they thought could win. They wanted image, not substance. The rest is history.

    Kucinich is still one of the few politicians that stands up for “We The People.”
    http://www.kucinich.us/

    Posted by Deb C on Oct 17, 2005 at 9:51 AM

    So long as we continue to associate the Democratic Party with “the Left"--neither of which really exist, as the “Democratic” party is merely one half of a centrist corporate-defense party, and “the Left” in the US bears no resemblance to actual Left politics--we will continue to remain trapped in this vicious cycle of political schitzophrenia known as American socio-political cognitive dissonance.

    The so-called “anti-War movement” has been co-opted and subsumed by the Democrats, so that rather than a real movement that challenges government, we have Cindy Sheehan and her celebrity friends having a folk-song party in front of the White House, waiting for the next photo-op. United for Peace & Justice, purportedly the largest anti-war coalition in the nation, has steadfastly done everything in their power to not actually make any real challenge to the government nor create any real disturbance around the war, aside from the tired old ineffectual, unseen, unheard and unheeded marches and rallies that no one but the choir ever sees or attends.

    In short, activism has become entertainment, and the Democratic Party has hoodwinked us all into thinking they care about us, when in fact, they give as much money to the Pentagon as the Repukes, and wouldn’t dare challenge the corporate system which keeps them rich and fat and liars.

    I encourage you all to read “Regulated Resistance: Is it possible to change the system when you are the system?” which asks, Does the American “anti-war movement” really have the ability to bring about change when they are closely monitored, financed, and regulated by the same system they purport to oppose?
    http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/articles/30

    The only way our of this morass, out of this one-way ticket to collapse, is to completely change our political system and have real democracy, which means ending the empire and kicking the corporations out of the political process.

    Until then, we are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

    Posted by chuckville on Oct 17, 2005 at 10:51 AM

    Sirota’s posting today reminds me that, I too, supported Kerry on the theory that he was the most ‘electable’ candidate.  There’s no question that a candidate with powerful TV charisma, such as Bill Clinton, can go far, regardless of his position on issues.  Unfortunately, with the possible exception of John Edwards, none of the 2004 candidates had Clinton’s charisma.

    Despite Sirota’s leaning for an “ideologically pure” candidate, we really do need a charismatic leader, such as a Kennedy or a Clinton, who will nonetheless expouse a position that will expose the lies of the last 30 years of conservatism. 

    Conservatism has really be “in control” ever since Johnson gave up the South with the Civil Rights legislation.  Jimmy Carter was elected because he was “from the South,” as was Bill Clinton.  The last northern Democrat was JFK, who was elected 45 years ago!

    There is no question that the Bush presidency has exposed the fundamental weaknesses of conservative positions, especially on taxes, and fighting a useless and unnecessary war in Iraq, all in the name of “fighting terrorism.”

    We have had the ‘progressive’ taxation system undermined ever since Reagan, and there are still conservatives and libertarians who want a “flat tax,” austensibly in the name of simplicity, but, in reality, as a giveaway to the very rich.

    Unfortunately, much of the current conservative movement is made up of what I will call “Wal-Mart Joes”, people who are barely middle class, or even below.  They listen to Limbaugh and other hate-mongers of the radical right, who, while catering to Wal-Mart Joes’ hatred of gays and others, bash the tax system that has benefited Wal Mart Joe the most, the progressive tax system.  It is the Wal Mart Joes of this world that used to vote Democratic, that voted for Reagan in 1980, and voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.  The conservatives are also to blame for the health care crisis in this country, nixing Hillary’s Single Payer health care reform for market-driven insurance.  Health Insurance costs have more than doubled over the last five years, which is why GM today announced that it is cutting billions out of its health insurance program for employees.

    Democrats need Wal Mart Joes back, and the conservatives have given LOADS of ammunition to any Democrat that is willing to take a stand on the economic issues of taxation and health care, and the failed Iraq war.  The current Congress only listens to the dictates of the corporations that put them there.  This includes some of the lame and feeble Democrats that are currently in office.  A Democrat who is able to articulate effectively what is wrong with the current path, including the “regressive” income tax, the market-driven health insurance industry, and the war in Iraq, while, at the same time, not appearing “wimpish,” will be able to re-capture the Wal Mart Joes.

    I know that recapturing Wal Mart Joes won’t be easy, especially for those that want to take the correct stand on gays, namely, “let them marry, it ain’t gonna hurt you.” That should be an understated part of any campaign.  JFK didn’t push for Civil Rights in his campaign, although clearly he believed that the time had come to end the discrimination of the previous 170 years of American history.

    Finally, it is really time for Democrats to take a stand on getting out of Iraq.  It is the wrong war, only a “war for oil,” and the American people are ready for true leadership on getting out.

    Posted by farbie on Oct 17, 2005 at 11:04 AM

    “The so-called “anti-War movement” has been co-opted and subsumed by the Democrats, so that rather than a real movement that challenges government, we have Cindy Sheehan and her celebrity friends having a folk-song party in front of the White House, waiting for the next photo-op. United for Peace & Justice, purportedly the largest anti-war coalition in the nation, has steadfastly done everything in their power to not actually make any real challenge to the government nor create any real disturbance around the war, aside from the tired old ineffectual, unseen, unheard and unheeded marches and rallies that no one but the choir ever sees or attends.”

    I think you pointing out something true about the role of activism in American today. However it may be overstated. It does seem that the anti-war movement and Cindy Sheehan, in particular, helped to galvanize anti-war sentiment across the country.

    It’s also true that the Dems are also tied to corporations, it is problematic to jump from that to there being no difference between them. That was the mistake that Ralph Nader made in 2000. Despite the problem with the Dems (lack of vision, unwilling to push corps out of politics, etc.)they are not fundamentalists trying to usher in a more theocratic government or fiscal conservatives trying to take us back to pre-depression economic policies.

    Posted by Neruda on Oct 17, 2005 at 11:06 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 264 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

"To people who say they are sick of the corporate dominated and celebrity fixated news media, I say, "Stop whining and subscribe to In These Times." --Barbara Ehrenreich
Popular Discussions