Features » October 17, 2005 » Web Only

Partisan War Syndrome (cont’d)

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

The situation was inarguably awkward. But what followed was illustrative of the delirium plaguing the progressive base.

Within hours of Brown’s announcement, “progressive” Internet blogs lit up with intense criticism of Brown. And let’s be clear - Brown’s move was tactically clumsy. But the attacks went well beyond criticism of his decision to be a candidate to the core of who he is, showing that the supposedly “ideological” base is, in part, anything but. In many parts of the base, there is no ideology at all.

How does the Brown-Hackett controversy show us this? Because nobody - not even the critics - disputes that Brown has been one of the most effective, successful, team playing, outspoken and articulate heroes for the progressive ideological movement in Congress for more than a decade, while Hackett has no voting record on any issue at all. Even on his signature issue, Iraq, Hackett never supported withdrawing troops. An activist base motivated by ideology would have rejoiced that one of their ideological brethren, Brown, was running for higher office, especially against someone with so little record. Remember the 2002 Pennsylvania Republican primary? The right-wing’s ideological base cheered when archconservative Pat Toomey decided to challenge moderate Sen. Arlen Specter.

Instead, parts of the progressive base did the opposite, attacking the ideological champion; calling him “untrustworthy” for his tactical decision despite his years of steadfast trustworthiness casting the tough progressive votes; and venerating the other candidate with no ideology or voting record to speak of but whose “profile” they liked. Even Mother Jones magazine published an article on its Web site lamenting the fact that Brown’s candidacy meant Democrats were supposedly “shooting down” Hackett. The magazine, one of the supposed progressive ideological lions, then pumped up Hackett attacking Brown as a “very liberal Democrat” - as if its base readership should think that was a strike against him.

This delirium in parts of the grassroots left is not limited to Senate races - it is afflicting the early 2008 presidential jostling. In straw poll after straw poll on Internet blogs, former Gen. Wesley Clark leads other potential Democratic contenders. This is the same Wesley Clark who, according to a recent edition of Roll Call, was on Capitol Hill trying to convince progressive Democratic lawmakers to back off their support for legislation that would withdraw troops from Iraq.

None of this, of course, is meant to imply that “profile” isn’t important - of course it is. But there is little - if any - rock-solid evidence that it is far and away the most important factor. And yet even without such evidence, “profile” has superceded actual issues as THE most important quality to not only the Democratic Party apparatus but also to parts of the “ideological” base - a distressing signal that the delirium is intense.

Similarly, none of this is meant to slight either Clark or Hackett, both of whom certainly have assets beyond just their profiles, and who could end up turning out to be progressive champions. The examples provide far more of a telling commentary about the grassroots base than about these particular candidates. And that commentary is clear: parts of the grassroots have taken on the establishment’s condescending, self-fulfilling prophecy that personality, charisma, image and “profile” matter more to voters than anything of substance. It’s hard to say which is more troubling - that this profile-always-trumps-substance delirium both insults voters’ intelligence and has no actual basis in reality, or the fact that many who claim to speak for an ideologically motivated base actually don’t care about issues at all. Either way, it is troubling - and dangerous - for the left.

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

The third symptom of Partisan War Syndrome is a version of obsessive compulsive disorder that focuses on incessantly on “framing,” “narrative” and building “infrastructure.” No matter what you read about Democratic politics these days, everything seems to come back to these concepts - as if the left’s problems are rooted exclusively in how politicians, activists and leaders talk about issues, and how these folks can get out that rhetoric, rather than the actual positions - or lack thereof - they are taking.

No one doubts that “framing,” “narratives” and “infrastructure” are important. Republican pollster Frank Luntz, long considered the master of the trade, has certainly helped Republicans frame their odious agenda in the most effective ways. And the slew of right-wing think tanks and talk radio venues has certainly helped get Luntz’s propaganda out. Similarly, University of California, Berkeley, Professor George Lakoff, who has also done some groundbreaking work on the subject, has been an invaluable asset to Democrats, as has the new group of left-leaning talk radio, blogs and think tanks.

But the idea that the left’s big problems are all about rhetoric and delivery systems and nothing about substance is a defense mechanism designed to deny the deeper questions of conviction and guts. Obsessive focus on “framing” economic policy negates a bigger question about why large swaths of the Democratic Party and the “progressive” base aren’t bothered by corporate-written trade deals that sell out American jobs, and are too afraid to support new regulations on Corporate America for fear of being labeled “anti-business.” Similarly, obsessive focus on “framing” Democrats’ current national security policy avoids more serious inquiries into why many Democrats still stand in lock-step with neoconservatives and President Bush on the War in Iraq.

Obsessive-compulsive focus on “framing” and “infrastructure,” in short, is only as effective as the principles being framed, and the ideology being supported. George Lakoff is clearly a very talented strategist, but his effectiveness is limited - not by his own talents or work, but by his side’s unwillingness to give him the materials to frame in the first place. Think of it this way: If you frame the original Mona Lisa, you’ve got a priceless portrait. If you frame a poster you bought at the mall of the Mona Lisa, you’ve got something that may look nice, but is in reality worthless. Believing that the public will only look at the frame and not the actual picture may soothe party operatives who purport to have silver-bullet prescriptions, but it is, to put it mildly, wishful thinking.

The importance of being ideological

To be sure, it is impossible to paint a picture of the entire “progressive” base in one stroke. After all, the base is not just a monolith (regardless of what the media would like you to believe). There still remain some institutions, pundits, blogs and grassroots power organized specifically around ideology and issue positions. But a quick glance at some of the most prominent “liberals” on newspaper op-ed pages or at a small but growing segment of “progressive” blogs makes clear that, unlike on the right, efforts to strengthen an ideology on the left face a clear roadblock with the advent of Partisan War Syndrome.

“Liberal” columnists write with little sense of an overarching ideological umbrella. A cadre of bloggers and blog commenters increasingly give and take away their support for candidates based on questions of political tactics and “profile,” not issues. The left’s emerging new ideological infrastructure still at times seems afraid to openly push the Democratic Party to embrace more progressive themes.

Make no mistake about it - we cannot expect political parties to resist Partisan War Syndrome. In fact, we can expect parties to actively spread it. Just like corporations exist only to make money, political parties exist solely to win elections, no matter how opportunistic and partisan they have to be.

But while it may be acceptable for politicians and parties to exhibit cynical, conniving, convictionless behavior, it is quite alarming for the supposed idealistic “ideological” foot soldiers supporting them to operate in the same way. The former has elections to think about. But the latter is supposed to be about broader movements that are larger than just the next November. And without the latter, the best-run, best-funded party in the world will always emanate a self-defeating image of standing for nothing.

This, in part, explains why the Democratic Party emanates such an image today: It is not only the spineless politicians in Washington who have no compass, but also a large and vocal swath of the base that lacks ideological cohesion as well. The politicians are, in a sense, just a public representation of that deeply-rooted lack of conviction. Put another way, looking at the typical evasive, jellyfish-like Democratic politician on the nightly news is like putting a mirror up to a growing swath of the grassroots left itself.

Why should this be troubling to the average progressive? First, it is both soulless and aimless. Partisanship is not ideology, and movements are not political parties - they are bigger than political parties, and shape those parties accordingly through pressure. As much as paid party hacks would argue otherwise, the most significant movements in American history did not emanate from the innards of the Democratic or Republican Party headquarters, and they did not come from groups of activists who put labels before substance: They spawned from millions of people committed to grassroots movements organized around ideas - movements which pushed both parties’ establishments to deal with given issues. Without those movements transcending exclusively partisan concerns, American history would be a one-page tale of status quo.

Second, even for those concerned more about electoral victories than ideology, this Partisan War Syndrome that subverts ideological movements ultimately hurts electoral prospects. 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.

This is why resisting Partisan War Syndrome and doing the hard work of rebuilding an ideological movement is both a moral imperative and a political necessity for the left. A grassroots base that is organized around hollow partisan labels rather than an overarching belief system - no matter how seemingly energized - will never defeat an opponent that puts ideological warriors ready to walk through fire on the political battlefield. If we do not rekindle that same fervor about actual issues on the left, we will continue living in a one-party country, losing elections into the distant future, and most disturbing of all, watching as our government serves only to protect those in power.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 40% 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

  “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 2:23 PM

  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 3:51 PM

  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 4:51 PM

  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 5:04 PM

  “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 5:06 PM

• 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.

Also by David Sirota

• Colbert Conservatism
  Pop quiz--name the political leader who said the following: "We must be willing… morePosted on November 26, 2009
• Intelligentsia Against Intelligence
  In the parlance of our times, the term "Idiocracy" means a nation run… morePosted on November 20, 2009
• Where Are the Real Deficit Hawks?
  Let's say you're a congressperson or tea party leader looking to champion deficit… morePosted on November 14, 2009
• We Are What We Trade and How We Trade It
  Trade and globalization--when not referencing blockbuster sports transactions or raucous street protests, debates… morePosted on November 7, 2009
• TARP on Steroids
  I recall that September day like it was yesterday--the explosion so stunning, so… morePosted on October 31, 2009