We’re privileged to watch good tactical politics in action right now, and the Democratic media operatives have finally found an issue that got some traction in the media, as questions about the intelligence quoted by President Bush concerning Saddam’s efforts to get uranium ‘yellow cake’ from Niger. A lot of pro-Bush commentators are unhappy about it. Instapundit wrote:
There are lots of real issues (hey, I’m giving ’em away for free here, every day) that they could use, but they’re running with this one because they hate Bush more than they care about the truth. Or, seemingly, about winning.
He’s wrong. He shouldn’t be, but he is…Porphy gets it better:
In a Republic, all those things are fair game. Indeed, the way the Democrats are behaving now is fair – it’s not, IMO, illegitimate. But it’s also legitimate to then draw conclusions about what this says regarding their attitudes not just towards their political opponents but the country as a whole – and what their priorities are.
Sure, the out Party is going to go after the in Party. But how they do it is not mechanistic – they decide how they’re going to go about it.
What we’re seeing is the way modern tactical politics works.
We have a small number of people onstage, fighting for a place in front of the people with microphones. What those people with microphones feel compelled to ask – and who they feel compelled to ask it of – defines the national ‘attention’ that political actors crave. They crave it because it is the fuel that drives their rise to greater amounts of attention, and which allows them to define the ‘buzz’ of what is discussed.
So what this looks like on the ground is a series of probing attacks, as operatives go through their list of issues and try and find something that sticks.
The fact that the specific papers discussing Saddam’s efforts to get uranium ore from Niger were forgeries was out and about in March. (On March 17, Henry Waxman wrote the president and demanded to know
In the last ten days, however, it has become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and other Administration officials have cited regarding Iraq’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. What’s more, the Central Intelligence Agency questioned the veracity of the evidence at the same time you and other Administration officials were citing it in public statements. This is a breach of the highest order, and the American people are entitled to know how it happened.
So this charge has been laying around since before the war, and is somehow now becoming an effective weapon against the Bush Administration. How is that?
Because somehow, in the cloud of Democratic operatives looking for an issue, and journalists looking for a story, this particle of dust gathered water and became a droplet.
Is this a good way to do politics?? Of course not. But let me make a connection for you.
I’ve done strategic consulting for several companies in the automotive retail industry, and looked at buying a related company.
And was amazed by a few things that I learned in doing research in the area. Everyone says they hate the experience of buying a car; the blatant posturing in negotiation, the trips back to the ‘manager’s office’, etc. But the dealers who did away with that model, and simply tried simplified ‘fixed price’ selling, didn’t translate the customers’ dissatisfaction into sales, and have largely gone back to the traditional model.
Consumers hate the process, but for some reason, they won’t buy into another process that apparently deals with their stated objections.
People are funny that way.
Similarly, the kind of Perry Mason-like tactic of seizing on a detail and refusing to stop gnawing at it while your opponent vainly tries to escape is the core tactic in modern politics. Typically, what happens is either that the issue gradually fades away, or is replaced with something deemed more interesting (Laci Pierson). Sometimes, though, the story sticks, and because the story is a story, other reporters pile onto it, and suddenly it is The Story. This is the political operative’s Holy Grail.
Public figures lead much of their public lives on tape. They are captured on video and audio, and their words are preserved forever. One of the core jobs of any political operative is to build up a library of their opponents’ words, and to sift through them for nuggets that can be tossed out, like chum, to the media, in the hopes that one will take the hook and a story will be landed. In the specific case of the Niger yellowcake story, it was in the media in March, and yet is somehow only dominating the story cycle now, in mid-July – testimony to the echo chamber that passes for political journalism in this era. There’s an interesting exercise to be done in tracking the story through its various appearances; someone with more time than I have may want to pick it up.
Now I don’t know about you, but I feel pretty comfortable that my core beliefs haven’t changed dramatically over my adult life, but I’ve certainly said and written some things which might call that into question. That doesn’t bother me much, because as a theorist rather than a philosopher, I tend to believe the human life is messy, complex, and often self-contradictory. People change their understandings and beliefs, and speak in half-formed ideas. Public speech, even when it rises to the level of a campaign speech or a State of the Union address, ought to be less messy, but will never be pure or absolute.
Tactically, the goal is to seize on that imperfection and use it to claim that the political actor’s actions or thoughts are false or defective.
No one likes it. Commentators get frustrated at the low level of public discourse, and voters see it for what it is – a game designed to pin “gotcha!” on a less-crafty opponent.
I don’t think this is a good way to discuss foreign policy. In fact, I think it’s a terrible way to discuss foreign policy. But it’s the environment in which we operate, and have done so for quite some time. LBJ summed it up well; in the story he explained to one of his political operatives that he was going to accuse his opponent of having intimate relations with a pig. “I just want him to deny it in public,” he explained.
I’ve never understood why politicians don’t refuse to play. I’m told (was looking for a source and haven’t found it yet) that when Mitterand was PM of France, he was at a press conference and was asked about the daughter he had by his mistress.
“None of your f**king business. Next question,” was his reply.
Democrats latching on to this issue as a political weapon are just plain wrong on the facts.
A.L.,
Don’t confuse the media with the real world. Traction in the media means nothing if the public doesn’t give a rip, especially if what they don’t give a rip about is the media.
This goes both ways too. Most people fall asleep when the subject of gay marriage comes up.
I’ve explained to Telenko many times that what he thinks of as evidence of conspiracy, evil, or flatulence is really just fund-raising activity among the faithful suckers. Democratic candidates have a grand time promoting your issue on television because (a) it gets them on television and (b) it gets them campaign contributions from people with money for whom the issue is one of quasi-religious faith.
Republican candidates have a grand time denouncing gay marriage on television because (a) it gets them on television and (b) it gets them campaign contributions from people with money for whom the issue is one of quasi-religious faith. Sure they say it really is religious faith, but it isn’t. Consider what Jerry Fallwell said about the Panama Canal Treaty.
Again, sure this is the media issue-de-jure that the politicians are responding to.
But to parallel the argument I made in response to the mail by M. Simon, *HOW* they respond isn’t determined by the media, but by themselves. I don’t think of them as androids, or as bundles of responses to external stimuli. I give them credit for thinking (I tend to give everyone credit for having a viewpoint, a world view, rather than accidentally stumbling into their positions on particular issues they instead arrive at their positions and responses to issues – like this one – based on their viewpoint, world view, and the like). They’re moral agents, too, and as such responsible for their own behavior, their own responses.
The fact that, at least to me, the responses of the prominent Democrats to this evidences misplaced priorities, at best (as I put it in the post to which that quote of mine was a follow-through on); driven more by “gotcha” and antipathy to Bush rather than really addressing whether there is a problem with the intelligence agencies (agencies that, let us not forget, people like John Kerrey were voting to cut in the ’90s).
Also, this isn’t entirely media-driven; it’s somewhat mutually-reinforcing (the media raise a topic and then the rest of the thing is spent quoting various politicians responses to it); the type of response they have given has been very revealing of a lack of seriousness in prosecuting and winning the war that you think should be fought and fought seriously.
There are significant critiques that can be made of Bush on this score, I think. But they fail to make *those* kinds of critiques because they are, in their hearts, as I described in my extensive critique of their reaction to this and why they are driven to react as they have (which is, IMO, an analysis I stand by; media-related issues is not the reason why the two Democratic candidates that are arguably most serious on this conflict, Gephardt and Lieberman, had “disappointing” fundraising quarters and Dean had one that “exceeded expectations”).
As I think I mentioned somewhere in those posts (I’m too lazy and sleepy to go back and re-read them now), I too have been critical of the “strategery” of modern politics.
Oh, and these guys have had lots of opportunities to perhaps rethink some of the more hysterical statements they’ve made in response to these things. There response has been to get more, rather than less, melodramatic. Kerry and others, indeed, are at the point where (as chronicled by multiple people in multiple blog posts and web articles) they are contradicting their own earlier statements (ones made in, say, ’98, where they acknowledged they had seen intel reports and were gravely concerned about the weapons programs that they now say Bush is lying about).
Bob Graham is particularly shameless, IMO, because he was, until fairly recently, the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and is now acting like he hasn’t ever seen any of the things that Chairs of Senate Intelligence Committee are privy to. This is deceptive.
Indeed, throughout all this, one thing stands out in the way quotes are being distorted, facts selectively manipulated and massaged, and this matter being presented and hyped: these people are ENGAGING IN THE VERY ACTIVITY THEY ACCUSE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OF DOING (sorry for screaming that). This is telling.
What we’re seeing is a whole lotta projectin goin on. They are manipulating things and distorting the truth, while claiming to be candid.
This is *their* responsibility, *their* reaction. Sure, the media outlets are doing that, too, for which it’s right to hold them accountable. But I for one don’t let the pols off the hook for their behavior. They are equally culpable.
I *do* expect better and until we all do, then we’re going to get what we have here. Do you want to fight the War on Bad Philosophy, or just explain what drives it and accept it as a force of nature (a analogy I referenced in my “Student!” post)?
Now, ok, some of this is a matter of degree. But on an issue as important as the success or failure of our country in a major war, I expect better. I think we should demand better. Explaining why we don’t (with the car analogy) is not sufficient. Shame on us if we accept this.
I better stop ranting.
I guess I’ll sum up with why I think Democracy is the best system. It isn’t because it always produces the right answer (though IMO the people are far more likely to recognize a mistake and change their position than an elite that can insulate themselves from the consequences of a decision, and thus often impose things that fit a preconcieved notion and the costs affect others, not themselves, so they are slow to alter their position). Democracy is the best because, ultimately, it means people get what they deserve (for good or ill).
If this is what we accept, then we get what we deserve and since you read those posts you know what I think that will be.
Chuck, I don’t engage with idiots unless they threaten me, which you certainly don’t.
To the rest of the WoC audience:
I banned Chuck from commenting at Armed Liberal because I believe comments are a forum for discussion and debate, not for demonstrating one’s inability to do either by screaming nonsense at the top of one’s lungs.
I’m making up my mind whether to ban him from my posts again, and discussing it with Joe.
If his comments vanish, well, you’ve seen why.
A.L.
“Do you want to fight the War on Bad Philosophy, or just explain what drives it and accept it as a force of nature (a analogy I referenced in my “Student!” post)?”
That was an unfair shot. I apologize for it. I know A.L. better than that.
What I do mean, though, is I think that things like this are driven by the “other side” in the WoBP; this is bubbling up from that font, and shame on the Democratic Candidates for playing to that audience.
Like I mentioned in those posts, no Democrat today could talk like JFK or Truman did, there’s a reason for that, and it’s not a reason that I think a Democrat should be sanguine about. The activist, donor, and organizational base of their party DID, in my (observed and not uninformed) opinion become the New Left (taking over from the old political machines. I now understand why Tip O’Neil could be so whistful about the Boston machine politics as he was in his book, “Man of the House”. He couldn’t be too direct about it, though. . .)
THIS too, IMO, is part and parcel of the WoBP – issues like this becoming the topic of the day (the “silenced” dissenters set the agenda, set the terms of civic discourse though not its content. Democratic Presidential candidates dance to their tune. We won’t have won the WoBP until that is no longer the case, and the agenda is set on more healthy topics of discussion. Then, ok, have it out on them; there is, as I said, lots of grounds on which IMO a healthy Democratic party, that wasn’t dancing to the tune of the mood-music played by the New Left, could be incisively – and even viciously – savaging the Bush Administration over. Why aren’t they calling for a major increase in the military budget to match our troop needs? Because the wrong sorts of “tune” are being played and they dance to that. WHen that changes, we’ll have won, and not before).
Porphy –
My point was meant to be that what the Dems are doing is just what you accuse them of – but that it works, and that as long as it does, we may be unhappy about it, but it’s not likely to go away…
A.L.
Maybe it’s just me, but I found Chuck’s comments unintelligable so I MEGOed half way through them.
Well, that’s something I think we need to fix.
Tom is onto something in that for too many politicians it’s all to easy to play to the fringes. The rest of us need to be more pro-active IMO in not just being disinterested in that but repelled by it and not letting that be rewarded. Otherwise they’ll keep feeding the forces that I think we’d agree should be given the hook rather than the spotlight in center stage.
I mean, the rest of us have money and therefore clout, too, as far as that goes. Ennui is no excuse for letting the jokers have control.
Porphy et al –
I agree, but who’s gonna bell the cat?? How do we get from here to there? I think that blogs – as form of discussion, and as a template that I think bigger media will inch toward – offer a good mechanism for the kind of topic- and issue- based politics that I think we both want.
I vaguely see the connection between this (politics as tactics) and the WoBP, but haven’t managed to articulate it yet. I’d love to see your take on it.
A.L.
A.L.
The best marketing and salesmenship in the world won’t sell a car lot full of Edsels.
That is what the Niger ‘yellow cake’ story is, a car lot full of Edsels.
Porphyrogenitus,
Tom is spot on WRT the politico’s money games.
I first spotted this of playing to the fringes for money game with the National Rifle Association’s flame out over “cop-killer bullets” about 15 years back.
The rank and file of the NRA gave lots of money when the subject was brought up and the extremist factions, and the money raising professional suits, used that as a tool to displace more moderate members of the NRA board with the more extreme faction.
Having a business management and not a poli-sci background like Tom does, I did not see the pattern beyond that until I explained what I saw happening then to him a few years ago and he pointed out the template’s wider use in partisan politics.
The point here was that the NRA lost the issue, but the suits got the money and the extremists got control of the organization with a burning issue that would keep both well feed in rank and file cash for a long time.
What is going on right now is the same game of “grab the cash” by the various Democratic presidential candidates as well as the shaping of the acceptable issues for the Democratic primaries so as to influence who controls the party.
Like the NRA in the “Cop-killer bullet” debate, winning the wider Presidential election battle is besides the point.
The revelation of the uranium charge being based on questionable evidence was, indeed, before the war and therefore a poor representative of “lies” used to push the nation into deposing Hussein – like you said, A.L., it just wasn’t an issue until now. Nobody jumped on it.
What I didn’t know was that Waxman accused the president of dishonesty. Which means, of course, that indeed, nobody jumped on it.
Why? For a good time, enter “Waxman accuses” into a Google search string. The man has no better claim to fame.
Back to the debate…
If you want to know why America has these political dynamics, it goes beyond PACs and their funding role. A.L. is actually the one who identified it, in his article on gerrymandering (“fixing” district boundaries).
The results include political approaches and tactics that often win battles, but make the public much more apprehensive about both parties. The radical base, in either party, will only become less effective when the politicians in their districts have a realistic possibility of losing – and so need to be careful. Without that check, the downside of disappointing the crazies is HIGHER than the downside of disappointing moderate voters. QED.
Re: Banning/removing comments, recall the Winds of Change.NET Comments Policy. A.L. already has that power within his own posts, without input from me.
I second the motion to ban Pelto.
re: the fixed price thing, doesn’t it depend on the price the dealer was offering? What people hate is the feeling that the dealer is pretending that you beat him down, while in fact he’s waiting for the ink to dry to whoop it up at the massive profit margin. Offering a fixed price guarantees you won’t get jobbed in relation to other customers of the same dealer, but it doesn’t assuage the fear that the dealer is offering a fair price on a reasonable margin (what’s “fair”? Good question. let’s not think about it.)
The biggest misconception among the bigshot Democratic politicos is the notion that they have to drive Bush’s approval numbers down, and damage Bush’s personal reputation, in order to win elections. It worked for the Republicans with Clinton/Gore, but they have a lot of advantages that we don’t, among them more money, the corporate media, and a number of partisans in judicial positions willing to shamelessly abuse prosecutorial and subpoena power in order to damage Democrats, while either refusing to investigate Republicans, or simply letting them off the hook for the same offenses.
But I digress. My point is voters don’t have disapprove of Bush to vote Democratic. They simply have to approve of the Democratic candidate *more* than they approve of Bush. That is, they have to be persuaded that they personally, and the country as a whole, will do better if the Democrat gets elected.
What’s wrong with the DNC’s current approach is that they’re talking a great deal about how the Bush administration has failed, and how their motives are often malign, but it doesn’t seem to talk very much about how much better the country will do if the Dems’ get the keys to the car.
That said, I think an ideological Republican should be madder at the RNC than I am at the DNC.
Look, these fellas have control of all three branches of government. That’s a big deal, and it’s not going to last for very long. What has the current administration been doing with all that power?
F!@#-all, as far as I can see. I think the ideological conservatives are being kept in line with the message “Wait until 2004”. *Then* we’ll get started on that conservative utopia.
Summer news crap. We won’t still be talking about this in October.
I wondered, since the Nigerian forgery deal was made clear BEFORE the war, why it has come to the fore NOW.
Because it is something. And when stuff turns up, these people will abandon it for something else.
And there will be no recriminations.
oh and on Iraq, I’m waiting for a Democratic candidate to make these three points:
1) the national security case for going to war with Iraq was very weak, and only looks weaker post-war
2)the moral/humanitarian case for removing Saddam was very strong.
3) Whether or not you supported the decision to go to war, all of us can agree that now that the war is over, it is very important to American interests, and the right thing to do besides, that we give substantial help in rebuilding Iraq, and give the Iraqi people every chance to make their country a success story
The two Democrats that have essentially been making these three points, thought not in these exact words, have been Gen. Wesley Clark and Al Gore (god, I love that guy!).
The other Democratic candidates have not made an explicit distinction between the humanitarian and national security cases for war, which I think is very important.
A personal expansion on point #2:
I do not say this with any smugness or certainty, but I do not believe that going to war in March 2003 was the wisest course of action, even from a humanitarian POV. The costs in war of American blood, toil, treasure, and prestige, and Iraqi blood and Arab humiliation & resentment, have been high enough that it makes sense to ask, as Nancy Pelosi did, whether we could have brought down those statues for a lot less, by pursuing a more patient, long-ranging, semi-covert, “surgical” policy of regime change, with a stronger and more authentic Iraqi opposition.
I think a bit of humiliation was completely intentional. Also, am I the only person who thought we’ve been trying to take out Hussein internally for quite some time now? And it just wasn’t working?
Wesley Clark… please runnnnnnnn!
remind me not to comment before reading. If you want the definitive take on why “yellow cake” has been getting lots of play, read Timothy Noah’s article in Slate:
I’d love for the Democrats to beat Bush with this issue just like a shoe on a picture of Saddam. But, alas, there’s far more here than meets the eye. The British continue to insist that uranium purchases were attempted, and they have proof… but are hamstrung and can’t show us. The trail is long and convoluted, and some senior US officials believe that France is blocking the release of the intelligence for her own purposes.
More here.
Sometimes beating on an issue doesn’t simply win you political points. Sometimes it also exposes deeper layers you didn’t realize existed.
this is probably pointless, but. . .Chuck, I wonder why you put ‘think’ and ‘lost’ in quotes, since I never wrote ’em. What I wrote was that I would not have pulled the trigger and decided to invade in March 2003. I would have, at a minimum, strengthened and legitimised the Iraqi opposition, as was done in the Afghanistan war, and aggressively enforced and tried to expand the no-fly zones north and south, along with relatively minor things like destroying Saddam’s presidential palaces, etc.
Roublen:
Tim Noah’s article in slate is itself a lie, and an obvious lie.
The section in the SotU speech being talked about is not untrue; British intelligence still stands by the info. Though Noah claims that someone in the Bush administration “admitted it was a lie”, that too is a falsehood.
This is very illustrative of the tactics on display here; the people who are claiming that Bush hyped and misrepresented information are themselves hyping and misrepresenting things.
It’s easy for the likes of yourself and Nancy Pelosi to claim with airy handwaves that the Ba’ath National Socialist regime could have been brought down for a lot less; neither she nor you offer a realistic plan and both had eight years in which to promote that and did not (either did not succeed, or did not make the attempt).
I also seem to remember that when Rumsfeld et al studied precisely such a strategy in toppling Saddam mainly with S/F and internal rebel opposition groups, guys like yourself were all over them for over-optimism (and Rumsfeld et al eventually concluded the same, that it couldn’t be done this way in Iraq, Saddam’s grip was too strong and the internal opposition too weak after the ramifications of the ’91 uprising and its aftermath, as much as they would have loved to do it this time). But this is the “Have-Our-Cake-And-Eat-It-Too” argument that’s been used; on the one hand ya’ll were pointing, pre-war and durring the war, to estimates by Wes Clark and the like about how it wouldn’t work without many more troops than we had in the area. Now you’re all saying that it could have been done like a snap with much less. This is a “heads I win, tales you lose” position – your strategy is dictated not by sincere conviction but simply by whatever it takes to attack and undermine people. And you call yourselves the principled side in this.
As for your other comments, they are all incorrect and meritricious.
Moving on;
Re. Chuck: he’s an obvious troll. I concur with any motion to ban him. It would declutter the threads a bit and you would lose nothing of interest content wise.
Back to the debate:
Bad intel is a fact of life. In the real world, well I’m going to use an example that is least likely to cause the usual suspects to launch into conspiracy theories (they’re much more likely to give Stalin the benifit of the doubt than they would be with a Western leader): the Soviet Union had plenty of available information to conclude that Germany was about to launch an attack. The Russian army was caught by surprise. Cover up? Stalin wanted it to happen? No, just the usual – it happens.
The heroic IAEA, inspecting in North Korea to insure that the North Koreans weren’t violating the “agreed framework” were completely clueless that they were. Deliberate sabotage on the UN’s part? Deliberately letting them get away with it? Or a simple screw up?
I think it’s somewhat laughable that the same sort of people who worked hard to lower the Intel Budget over the years are now shocked, SHOCKED that our Intel services can goof. Not that, actually, this is an obvious goof (again, with the British still standing by the info and really nothing credible to refute it – guys going around Niger asking “hey, you all aren’t dealing with Iraq in violation of sanctions, are you” and getting “oh, no, not us guys” answers and then concluding “well, the intel is obviously bogus” may be the Gold Standard of Intelligence Verification to some, but I’m not that credulous, myself (some people reserve their skepticism *only* for the activities of the American government).
Joe: I tend to agree; I’ve posted to the effect (last fall some time, around the time of the election, when I was making my “predictions“) that letting the districts be drawn as they are is a bad thing and called for a “compact districts” rule.
I also think we shouldn’t underestimate the effect of the Campaign Finance “Reforms” of the ’70s which had the (possibly intended, considering enacted by politicians) effect of empowering individual politicians and disempowering the parties (say what you will about the smoke-filled-room method, but those party hacks tended to try and weed out fringe characters better. Under the current system any nutjob simply self-finances with their loony constituency or out-of-pocket and the Democratic party will get stuck with a Springer Senate candidacy if he wants to run, whether they want it or not).
Having the parties more powerful – well, it may be too late to turn the page back now – with more influence than they currently have (they have some, I’m not saying they don’t, but the ’70s Campaign Finance laws tilted the balance away from parties and towards individual candidate giving and also towards interest group influence) would be better; it would give the mainstreams of the parties better control.
Also, I don’t think they’ve fixed this, but have you ever paid any attention to the rules the Democratic Party has for selecting Convention Delegates? I happen to not only have studied the process in Uni, but lived through it in ’92; in ’92 I went to the State Convention where Delegates for the National Democratic Convention were chosen, because I had worked as a vollenteer for the Brown campaign.
There are, of course, quotas (at least there were in ’92, and as I said I don’t think they’ve changed this. This was part of the rules enacted in ’68 by the DNC. Perhaps it was ’72, but IIRC it was ’68); racial quotas, gender quotas, and the like. Often others set asside for certain constituency groups (teachers are big). Given the composition of the State Convention, it ended up that only a few of the National Convention Delegate slots were really open to be voted on by us State Delegates. The rest were just plug ’em in (Ed Garvey, for years a Big Wheel in Wisconsin Democratic Politics and his name might be familiar to people who pay attention to politics – ran several times for State office and held other positions, failed to be a Delegate though he wanted to and is probably the kind of guy who should have been).
What the system tends to do is hyperbalance things ideologically towards the Left of the Democratic party (not really by accident) rather than the mainstream. And who ends up, then, on the committees writing and revising the bylaws again? So their power is cemented election-cycle after election-cycle (and really an eye opener to what can happen when ethnic diversity trumps intellectual diversity, IMO.)
Indeed, this is precisely the reason why the rules were written this way in the wake of ’68 as the New Left moved into the Democratic Party – they guarantee themselves disproportionate influence this way (which is not the same as control. They don’t always get what they want, even in the Democratic party, especially since a good number of them are willing to listen to reason, from time to time, regarding compromise needed for electability). The “Superdelegates” that are sometimes decried within Democratic circles (not too loudly, usually, but there are grumbles every four years) as undemocratic were introduced to sort of counter-balance this (it being assumed at the time that the Democratic office holders would mitigate the excesses of the fringe types who otherwise filled out the delegations, and this has, by and large and for the most part, proven true and has been the means, quite often the last line of defense, against Really Stupid Self-Destructive Things). Any time someone out there seems like they might be picking up steam, the specter of the invocation of the Superdelegates to block such a nominee gets raised and then certain candidicies *do* tend to fade out a bit, in the interest of “electability” (it’s kind of the invocation of the prospect of a split and open infighting which does compell compromise; no one really wants things to go this far when, after all, there are Republicans out there). So it’s not all one-sided – I’m not saying that. But I think the pendulum is swung too far, and the sorts of people that Roublen is an example of have too disproportionate an influence, and they cause Democratic and Left-Liberal politics to be psychotic and delusional (such as expressed in the Tim Noah piece he believes represents reality).
The National Republican Party’s rules really have no analog to this.
(Btw, I did not become a National Convention Delegate but I didn’t strive to become one, either. I supported a guy – a youngish Union dude who’s name I now, unfortunately, forget. He did get selected as a Delegate to the National Convention).
OK, Chuck’s gone. I’ve left his first comment up as an explanation to those down the road who may wonder why.
Chuck, if you comment again on my posts, I’ll delete them. Thanks for visiting.
A.L.
Porphy, Tim – I think we’re onto something as we are talking about the mechanics of politics and the consequences they have had on the substance of politics.
Something we all ought to be writing about…
A.L.
Armed Liberal wrote:
“I agree, but who’s gonna bell the cat?? How do we get from here to there?”
Did I mention that we were boned? It may be that the rat is too big for the snake (odd, I was thinking the “Rabbit Stew” analogy when I was writing my comments, but didn’t include it. “First catch the rabbit” and all).
Well, parties come and go, but that’s a pretty extreme option (remember I posted awhile back that. . .)
Here’s what *I* would recommend, as a start:
Serious, moderate Democrats need to become more active (I know you are, but not enough are at this stage. As Tom suggests, it’s the nutbars – and the Republicans, yes, have theirs too, though I’d argue they keep them chained a bit better I know that other people would debate me on that).
Why is it that Lieberman and Gephardt are being pulled to the Left? IMO, the majority of the Democratic Party isn’t as far Left as all that. Look, I made ~$14,000 last year, but I’m going to make it a priority to give $50 or so to candidates I support. There’s no excuse for moderate Democratic candidates to be out-fund raised by a candidate who’s appealing to the Leftward part of the Democratic base (for all that Dean, in how he’s governed in Vermont, is fairly moderate, it’s indisputable that he’s running a campaign to appeal to the Left rather than the vital center of the Democratic Party).
Just as with folks who, when guys like us decried the fact that Stalinists like International ANSWER were the organizers of the Anti-War Rallies, there is no excuse for the organizational and activist core of the Democratic party to be drawn disproportionately from the Left. No excuse for mainstream candidates to get “out hussled” on the ground by Dean supporters.
There’s a reason why IMO it’s unarguable on the merits that Pat Robertson isn’t the force in the Republican Party that he was for a time there in the ’80s and early ’90s, and guys like Pat Buchannan are right out of the Republican Party – the more mainstream Republicans made sure they didn’t steal center stage. Now, mainstream Republicans are more conservative than you (and certainly than Roublen and Tim Noah and Josh Marshall would want (after all, they tend to be the former Democrat Neocons and their ilk, like former Truman Democrat Ronald Wilson Reagan, and no hatreds run so deep as those of internecine struggles). Do the Republicans still have a ways to go here? Yah. But it seems the Democrats, like yourself, don’t even know where to start.
This is part and parcel of the demoralization (loss of confidence) I was talking about; it seems like such a big task to club these guys over the head and take the wheel of your own party back into your own hands and away from people who often aren’t even Liberal.
What we’re talking about I don’t think is all that different from other institutions we talk about in the context of the WoBP – not at all. But even if one doesn’t think it’s really that (though perhaps related to that somehow), the tactics are IMO similar; a matter of confident re-assertion. Prodding people who you know who are moderate, reasonable Democrats who roll their eyes at some of the antics that they think hurts the party but end up becoming less involved rather than more and acting as if “well, that’s the way it is, that’s the way it’s gonna be”.
If a tug is re-asserted in the opposite direction, then guys like Liberman, rather than trimming to the Left to try and get attention, will not have to. He can (return to) speak(ing) out on some of the issues he’s dropped because they don’t appeal to the people who are in control of the “pre-primary primary” (and issues that indeed antagonize that constituency, because they – rightly IMO – see Lieberman’s stance on such matters as hostile to them. That is to say, the “old” Lieberman was a Warrior in the War on Bad Philosophy in his own way, and on your side and mine, and that is anathema to them). Similarly with Gephardt (though perhaps to a lesser degree in some ways but a greater degree in others; he and Lieberman aren’t twins, I’m not saying that, but they each represent, in their own way, at least outside of the context of the current political environment, which has caused them to warp themselves in maladaptive ways, healthy positions in the Democratic party); in some ways the Gephardt that’s running for President now hardly resembles the man who ran in ’88, and those changes IMO reflect a bad drift in the politics of the Democratic party. A drift that could be checked if people didn’t just assume that the Conspiracy-Mongering Psychos pull the strings and ya’ll just pick over what they leave you when it’s time to enter the Primary booth.
I donno how it is with you but I know how it was with me and with my mother. Generally even in just get togethers with Liberal friends, when politics came up, it was the more extreme sort who tended to take center-stage and hardly anyone would dare to challenge their points (they might disagree, but would be too polite to say so). Eventually I did speak up from time to time when I thought something was ott. My mom challenges her friends (gets only grief for it) when they go ott (she still considers herself Liberal though I obviously no longer consider myself Liberal). Howver much of that there is, there should be more of it. Too often obviously risible theories and assertions are just left to stand rather than being laughed off the as they should be, and as a result the “Liberal” side of this debate, as seen in the sort of articles referenced by the other side in these exchanges, bear no discernible relationship to reality. That’s not healthy (remember that Thomas Sowell quote I often reference?)
Only ya’ll can pull things back, but it’s going to take widespread work. IMO it’ll have an influence on other institutions, too, if it starts to happen. But to the degree that you point to how the politicians are playing off the media (which then in turn play off the reactions of the politicians, and the initial media play is driven by a political context, in a mutually re-enforcing cycle) and then discern no thread that dangles that, when pulled, will cause the mess to unravel, well then did I mention that we were screwed?
Parties that play to constituencies like the teacher’s unions and professorates (a hotbed of radicalism) and radical lawyer groups and rather out-of-touch but cash-rich starlets (themselves with views that are hardly in the middle of the Democratic party, much less America), and the members of unions of broken government institutions, and takes its intellectual cues from the Paul Krugmans and Robert Scheers (btw, Scheer is a great example of someone who’s NOT a Liberal but is accepted as one by too many Liberals. He’s not alone, either) and their ilk on the Unreconstructed Conspiratorial Left (and similar sorts in academe) (as you’re pointing out in how the candidates are feeding back the feedback they get from the media they want to get the attention and praise of, because it will help them with the sort of constituencies they are trying to catch fire with; “Tim Noah quoted me saying that the President lied when he said the sun shines in the day rather than in the night, and Tim said I had made a devastating point against Bush! The contributions are pouring in now! I just got a check from roublen vesseau!”), and thus cannot assist in reforming those institutions (pace the WoBP) and also cannot be reformed because it is too dependent upon those aforementioned things, then one is buggered right and proper. It might be time to man the life boats. Other people have determined that “the Democratic party left me, I didn’t leave it”.
If there’s no other way, then that way will eventually work. Parties do, ultimately, have to pay attention to shrinkage. And just because it’s been a long time since a major American political party vanished and was replaced by a new one that doesn’t mean it can’t happen again. Will enough people do it? I’m betting they’re afraid of the water (go over the side? The water is icy. There are many things not to like about the idea. Lets stay on the ship. We certainly *don’t* want to get on that other ship, which is sailing in the wrong direction in our opinion, except that at least they’re more serious about staying afloat and keeping us all {to strain the analogy, the country} afloat. But they’re going in the wrong direction).
I got off. I never was much of a multiculturalist in the sense the Left means it and the Liberals have accepted it (I agreed with Arthur Jr. but he ended up deciding to take the better part of valor after “The Disuniting”) and came to disagree on a variety of Liberty grounds (dittoes in many ways; the greatest menace to liberty today are the campus people who declare their dissent so stifled that they simply *must* keep you from speaking out, because it creates a hostile environment for them and intimidates speech when they are criticised and contradicted), and I read Hayek. But that’s my path. It isn’t everyone’s path (I’m rambling, it’s late).
What are you going to do? I donno. Like I said, lots of people like yourself are going to have to be the check-writers for moderates, the activists for moderates, people that get out and out-shout the Leftists at Democratic candidate rallies (the feedback they get from the crowds tell them which lines “work” and which don’t. Right now, the crowds are Leftists, so the lines that “work” are Leftist lines and that is the direction they go).
I know, I know “hey, unlike those bozos, we have jobs and families that we care about. The reason they go to those things is they have no lives outside of politics (for them ‘the political is the personal’ and ‘the personal is the political’ and their idea of a nice family outting is take-the-kid-to-the-petition-drive-rally and the Tots for Peace and Unilateral Surrender Protest and have the kid fold the sheets of paper together for the mass mailing of our local Socialist Newsletter, ‘Still Poorly Mimeographed on Virgin Hypoalergenic Recycled Sentless Paper’), and mainstream Democrats *DO* have lives outside of politics (our idea of a nice family outing is to go see “Finding Nemo” and then out to dinner and maybe walk the dog in the park and play ball or something)”. Well, one has the priorities one has. That’s why they out hustle ya’ll when it comes to politics. Did I mention we were all damned and doomed, not just the Democratic party?
Refa: “what did he really say?”
Londo: “He said we are both damned.”
I’ll write something more lucid and less rambling as a post at my site when I’ve had a chance to think on it more.
I do think that the key is going to be a more assertively activist attitude on the part of mainstream Democrats, beyond just things like DLC (I mean grassroots types), contributing, showing up and making sure that the cheer-lines in speeches aren’t just the ones that appeal to the Left (the people that make up audiences now), and that mainstream Democratic politicians don’t have to try to appeal to the Left in order to garner a few crumbs of contributions/$$$ that fall off Dean’s plate.
It might be too late in this election cycle for that. These things take time especially since it will take more than a handfull of people reacting in this way, it will take a real movement in the Democratic party that says “hey, enough is enough. It’s not enough to simply tell Republicans that we care about the future and security of this country, too. We have to tell that to the Left of our own part in no uncertain terms and wrest control of the internal political dialogue back from them.”
When the applause lines in Democratic speeches before Democratic audiences once again resemble the applause lines that Truman and Kennedy (John in ’60 – and Robert in ’60 as his brother’s aide rather than Robert in ’68 as a candidate himself) garnered, then that will be a measure of success.
(If one really looks at the sort of folks we’re talking about fighting here, what they write and say among themselves and in their own publications, guys like Scheer and Tom Hayden and their like loathe Truman and dislike the real Kennedy – and so have constructed a mythological version of JFK; a doppleganger to replace the Cold Warrior that Kennedy was).
Could it be that the Democratic Party, like the addict, has to hit rock bottom before admitting the problem, and clawing its way out of the hole?
If this is the case, where is the bottom? I don’t think they have reached it yet.
PS-The comments and articles on this site are TOO GOOD!!! I’m going to be late for work this AM because I got sucked into reading all the comments!!
Seriously, its worth being a little late for the insights found here, and I’ll keep coming back.
I like Pelto.
He has a certain military mindset I can relate to. Bigoted no doubt. But in an American way. ie. unless ordered to he will not kill you for it.
I might add re: AL’s son. Should he be Naval minded have him go nuke. You get 2 3/4 years of college in 1 year. If he is up for it an ET nuke (RO). Their watch stations are generally air conditioned. Crew’s quarters buff as well. And still you are a part of a fighting ship.
I suppose Pelto wouldn’t approve of the soft life but it has it’s mental compensations.
Iraq is the key to Iran, Syria, Saudi. Military like real estate is all about location. If Iraq was just a battle in a war and not the war then it was very necessary. For two reasons:
1. Saddam
2. Location
Of course in the current war you can’t say #2 out loud so you invent other plausable but less essential reasons:
a. Al Queda
b. WMD
c. terrorism
d. support of Arafat
etc.
Some more valid than others but the real deal is #2.