Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen has gotten a lot of press (and some blog coverage) for his interview in the London Times in which he complains about the rush to coronate Hillary Clinton as the presumptive Democratic candidate. Note that at this point in the cycle, I think three things about Senator Clinton:
# She’d probably make a pretty good President in all areas but one;
# She’s arguably one of the most polarizing and divisive figures in national politics today and her nomination would be a train wreck for the Democratic Party;
# I’d pay money to see a Hillary – Condi election, or at least the debates.
The one issue where she’d fall down as President comes directly from the divisiveness of her persona (used to mean the public projection of who she is); the President’s job is to bridge the gaps (yes, Bush has done a horrible job as well) and forge a national consensus.
But Bredesen said a few other things worthy of note (tip to Instapundit for noting them first):
Bredesen, a former mayor of Nashville, believes his party has “somehow gotten itself divorced” from the blue-collar constituency it has always relied on for presidential success: “I’ve always felt the Democratic party was a kind of alliance between the academics and intellectuals and working-class men and women. I think what happened is that in my lifetime, the academics won.”
As a result, the governor said, the party had lost its broad appeal. He mocked other Democratic candidates who think connecting with middle America means quoting a few verses from the Bible or being photographed with guns.
That’s the key – the class and cultural bond that once tied the academics to the working class. This was rooted in the fact that the financial engine for the Party was the labor unions. Once they were supplanted by Hollywood and the media business – as labor unions declined in membership, as Hollywood unleashed the power of celebrity in politics – they were cut adrift from those roots, and what had been an alliance became a rhetorical device.
The Democrats’ problem, Bredesen believes, has little to do with bullets or the Bible. “The point I’m trying to make is that you’ve got to stand up for some clear things,” he said. He is tired of listening to members of his party attempting to appeal to both pro-gun and anti-gun voters: “When you do that, you’re left with nothing.”
In a recent speech to southern Democrats in Atlanta, Bredesen summed up the Republican party platform as follows: “A traditional view of family, no abortion, no gay marriage, a central role for faith, gun over the mantel, low taxes, an assertive and combative view of American interests abroad.”
He then challenged his colleagues to sum up the Democratic party in less than 30 words. Nobody could oblige. Asked what his 30 words would be, he replied: “I don’t have any yet. I’d be delighted to tell you if I did.” He may be waiting until after his re-election to unveil his national vision.
Right on. I’ll be watching Gov. Breseden with a lot of interest.
I’ve said in the past that if the Democratic Party stands for one thing, it should stand for balancing the tables to create fairness between the powerful and powerless. And that in pursuing the Skybox politics of Lakoffian self-fulfillment (laws that don’t do much, but make the legislators and their supporters feel better about themselves), they are acting fundamentally immorally, because they are failing to protect those who progressives ought to exist in order to serve. The Democratic Party has a moral obligation to both stand for something, and to do so in an effective way. All the consultants and elected officials who make a damn good living from the Party seem to forget that pretty frequently.
I don’t know that the problem for the Dems is a lack of a central vision. You could but a “no” or “not” in front of Bresden’s Rep. platform and get a pretty good and accurate one, I think.
It’s just an electorally extremely unpopular program, so no one was willing to say it out loud when Bredesen asked.
And since most of those issues are cultural, not economic, the question becomes: will Democrats be willing to surrender in the culture wars in order to make gains on the economic policy side? Not so much “What’s the matter with Kansas?” but “What’s the matter with urban culturally-liberal soft-socialists?”
The odds aren’t good, Rob, because they go to issues of class and identity that are deeper than politics, let alone the Democratic Party.
Amidst today’s post on the Polidata district-level analysis of Election 2004, take a hard look at Oxblog’s profile of “the ‘Bohemian Bourgeois’ dark side.”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006620.php
They sound a lot like the old stereotype of WASPY Country Club Republicans, and that certainly tracks with my experience of the Bo-Bo set. If Oxblog’s analysis is right, those exact alientating tics (academic, condescending, vocal about their superiority relative to ‘ordinary’ middle-to-lower class Americans) are actually fundamental to the self-definition of one of the Dems’ biggest constituencies.
You may be able to rebalance that via an influx of “swer socialists” who make the Bo-Bo academic types a minority. But you won’t be able to extract the traits from the Bo-Bos themselves.
When the Republicans went from Country Club Republicans to Rotary Club Republicans, they didn’t set out to change the country club types. They just broadened the base until that subgroup no longer defined them in any meaningful way, and supplanted them with other vibrant constituencies who could contribute one of the 3 political keys (volunteers, money, consistent turnout at the polls).
he’s running for sure.
The Dems are never going to win working class red-states as long as “liberal” is a dirty word in those same areas. “Bohemian Bourgeois” is a great example of how effective this slander is. Going back to OxBlog’s original post we come across the big lie: “The ignorant middle-class is the shameful Other that helps Bobos reinforce their identity.” Of course to a certain extent this is true, but the reverse is much more profound. It is the Bohemian Bourgeois who are the “shameful other” to the ignorant (rightwing) middle-class.
Want proof? Please, turn on the AM dial. If the “bohemian bourgeois” spent half the time that conservatives do defining themselves from their “shameful other” then Brooks and Adesnik might have a point. Fact is, at least since 1994 it’s been the other way around. Today’s conservatives spend more time pedalling their ressentiment– defining themselves as what they “aren’t” rather than what they supposedly “are.” The main reason for this is because most of their leaders damn well know they aren’t what they say they “are.”
As far as “creating fairness between the powerful and the powerless” I don’t see that as something we could achieve with the working class. It’s not like the turn of the century when a progressive movement could have direct economic impact on a large segment of people (say unions or small farmers– when they existed). Back then an equitable, efficient central government could mean a huge difference in a person’s monthly income, and people understood that their interests were indeed divergent from the big trusts.
There’s just no way they’re going to convince people today that the “powerful’s” interests are any different from theirs, even when Bush is serving up their largest entitlements to Wall Street on a silver platter. Today “Populism” equates to some sort of rhetorical protectionist-nationalism. For all the talk John Kerry did on “Benedict Arnold” companies I don’t think it did him a bit of good. Instead of “unions” I think the Dems need to turn to “Consumers,” the middle class, or anyone who is educated enough to recognize that the last 4 rounds of large corporate tax-cuts (that barely got mentioned in the press) don’t do them any good. Of course, if we could actually affect the direction of a media cycle (e.g. no more Schiavo bullshit), we might have a chance.
Can I paraphrase? “People are stupid.”
I’d have to say that SAO just spelled out the thought process that has carried socialism to communism to fascism in every nation it has been attempted in. Essentially, the working class doesnt act in accordance with their ‘obvious interests’ as the elites see them. This leads to the rejection of democracy and the gradual (or acute) adoption of fascism.
The truth, of course, is far different. By any measure, every class of American is far, far better of than they were 50, much less 100 years ago in virtually every way. Progressivism has always been more about tearing down the haves than raising up the have nots, and that has become clear to the working class who in fact _are_ operating in their self interest, which to the dismay of liberals doesnt necessarilly reflect reigning in Bill Gates’ fortune.
How the massive middle class entitlement doled out by Bush in his Medicare expansion is a hand out to Wall Street is problematic. The bottom line is that both parties have found that pandering to the middle class with wealth and age distributing entitlements is where the gravy is in politics. Far more is being (and will be) transferred from the young lower middle class to the aged upper middle class than ever dreamed of by the anti-supply side paranoids. The lower classes have a host of resources available to them that for the most part they take advantage of and advance into the middle classes. Those that remain are generally correctly regarded by the electorate as chronically bad decision makers or substance abusers. That basically leaves two issues the parties widely are held to be different on, foriegn policy and morality. Recent history tells us which party is favored in such a contest, and likely will continue to be. Calling the electorate stupid isnt likely to remedy that. Challenging the other party in a constructive and innovative way could. Maybe someday the Dems will try it.
SAO,
if you want proof of how much time BoBos spend defining themselves as different from “ignorant right-wing middle class,” go to a dinner party with people from my educational/social/economic bracket. I have a wonderful time twisting their tails. Actual snippet of conversation with a friend after the last election:
Friend: “You voted for Bush? Wouldn’t you prefer a president who knows how to spell?”
Me: “The President doesn’t need to spell. He has people in his cabinet to do the spelling for him.”
Friend’s wife: “Honey, he’s in the NRA, of course he voted for Bush.”
(The friend’s wife had earlier in the evening told me I “didn’t seem like the NRA type.” Me, the guy who came home from a year in Germany with $4,000 in guns and knives. The guy who has a gun safe in his dining room. The guy who dresses up in head-to-toe camo and tromps around in the rainy spring woods carrying a shotgun for pleasure. Whose wife offers him guns as an incentive to do what she wants, and who gets guns as her Valentine’s day gifts. But my friends only knew I graduated from a NE liberal arts college and wore a polo shirt and khakis to parties at their house.)
Or, look at your own post, which talks about people be “educated enough” to agree with you.
SAO, Gee. I really am glad that we ignorant middle class folks have people like you looking out for our interests. NOT! Oops did I let out my inner false consciousness again? So sorry. Down with the man!
Rob, I don’t know what to say, except, get new friends? I’m quite “liberal” and I love skeet shooting. Last time I was in Wyoming most the the ranchers were drinking big froofy lattes every chance they got. I guess I’m a little more skeptical of this divide than most.
Mark, can I paraphrase?
“People who disagree with me (or, anyone who doesn’t adopt rigid supply-side econ theory) are either fascists, commies, or soon to be one.
Of course, in real life there are shared interests as well as divergent interests between the rich, poor and middle class.
If you don’t understand “how the massive middle class entitlement doled out by Bush in his Medicare expansion is a hand out to Wall Street<" I'd simply ask you why drug and insurance companies spent millions of dollars lobbying for it? Now it's now a much more inefficient program that will need real reform sooner. Written into the reform package is a clause that states that further revenues for medicare will NOT be taken from income taxes (or the rich)– the very same people who will have benefitted most from its “reform.” I’d call that an example of divergent interests.
“People who disagree with me (or, anyone who doesn’t adopt rigid supply-side econ theory) are either fascists, commies, or soon to be one.”
Hardly, but people who embrace liberal dogma and consider those who dont uneducated and/or irrational certainly betray a rather obvious thought process, and one that seems to inevitably lead back to class obsessed Marxism. If I were better educated I might wonder why a philosophy continues to be promoted by the elites which has done nothing but fill mass graves and gulags. And for the record i am much closer to the libertarian/free market camp, but the supply siders never gave me the vapors either.
“Of course, in real life there are shared interests as well as divergent interests between the rich, poor and middle class. ”
Of course. It is only the arrogance of the elite which judges when those interests are rational (when they agree with them) and when they are based on ignorance, greed, or ill intent. A market capitalist takes for granted everyone is ultimately pursuing their interest, even if we dont understand it fully. Certainly the need to atack peoples intelligence or education doesnt come into play.
“If you don’t understand “how the massive middle class entitlement doled out by Bush in his Medicare expansion is a hand out to Wall Street
Point taken, on the other hand considering those huge corporations are largely owned by 401k holding secretaries, pension fund investments, and profit sharing employees the entire class issue falls on the rocks again, outdated and outmoded in a nation where nearly 60% of workers own stock. Not to mention the untold lives saved by the most advanced medical care and research in the world.
“Now it’s now a much more inefficient program that will need real reform sooner.”
Damn right. But it wasnt Merck that held the political clout (votes) to push it through no matter how much they spent. It was the AARP and their constituents. Middle class America.
“Written into the reform package is a clause that states that further revenues for medicare will NOT be taken from income taxes (or the rich)–”
Thank god. As a young middle class guy looking to settle down and start a family i’d appreciate as little of my income as possible be spent on Viagra for Ross Perot. Start means testing the system and we can talk.
“the very same people who will have benefitted most from its “reform.” I’d call that an example of divergent interests. ”
The seniors able to afford the medicine they need to live might argue on who benefitted the most, however much i disagree with the premise of the program.
supply side?
oy.
So wait, SAO, I don’t get it. Are right-wingers who disagree with you “ignorant” and “uneducated,” (proven by their disagreement) and thus different from you and worthy of your contempt (and do they spend time on the AM dial talking about how evil you are, as a “liberal”?), or is the red-blue divide under discussion somehow suspect and ephemeral since ranchers drink lattes and you shoot skeet? It seems to me your conduct proves the existance of a, shall we say, “self confident” liberal type who holds Republican voters in contempt, and you certainly assert the existance of a similar conservative type who inveighs against stereotyped liberals. QED. What can the Democrats do about the fact that there seem to be more of the latter than the former?
(Aside on skeet shooting: that’s about the most PC form of shooting possible. Now, I enjoy it a great deal and wish I could afford to get good at it, but it doesn’t shock my liberal friends half as much as carrying a concealed pistol or killing animals and eating their flesh.)
As for “handouts to Wall Street,” food stamps are a handout to big agribusiness, ammunition purchases are a handout to defense contractors, Medicare is a handout to doctors and wheelchair manufacturers, subsidized housing is a handout to the construction industry etc. Whenever you pay for something, the guy getting paid benefits–but so, of course, do you. I am at a total loss to understand why this should be considered a problem. Merck wanted to sell more drugs, so it lobbied for a drug benefit. Presumably Boeing spends lots hyping the grave and gathering threat from the Royal Micronesian Air Force. For my part, I opposed the Medicare expansion for a variety of reasons, but the fact that it makes drug companies money can’t possibly be one of them unless you think drug companies, for some unusual reason, shouldn’t be allowed to make money.
I kind of think most non-incarcerated-Americans understand, without it being said, that when you buy something you have to pay for it. Can’t Democrats come up with a talking point that doesn’t appear to attack this basic insight?
Drug companies making money is great thing for their employees, share holders, and the economy in general.
Drug companies making money at the expense of the federal government and at the endangerment of the well being of old and poor people who depend on that government is not great thing.
There is no socialist, anti-corporate arguement here- unless we’re referring to your red herring.
Judging by the descriptions, there are no liberals that I can find in San Francisco.
SF, btw, is the safest city in the world. Which really blows a big hole in the whole “guns make us safe” theory the NRA likes to posit.
Rob, you say there are more conservatives than liberals, in spite of the fact that the ratio is 51-48 in this country, and liberals are the majority in the rest of the world (at least if you listen to talk radio).
And saying “people are stupid” doesn’t make you elitist if you include yourself in that group.
Oops, I said safest city in the world, I should have said safest city in the country.
t0m, you’re a dolt…take a second and look up some facts, please.
From the “FBI UCR for the 1st six months of 2004”:http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2004/6mosprelim04.pdf
Violent crimes/1000 population for
San Francisco in 2003: 3.72
San Francisco in 2004: 3.79
San Diego in 2003: 2.96
San Diego in 2004: 2.07
Torrance in 2003: 1.29
Torrance in 2004: 0.91
Simi Valley in 2003: 0.76
Simi Valley in 2004: 0.59
This took me three minutes to pull together.
Want to play again?
A.L.
AL, you’re a dolt for feeding the troll 🙂
t0m,
I have many, many legal, constitutional, criminological, and philosopical points I could make about guns and gun control. This is not the time or the place. The “issue,” such as it is, is the cultural and political role of guns in American society and elections. One-line assertions about public safety don’t fit in.
Perhaps there are more “liberals” in the world than conservatives, although in my experience political labels and affiliations do not translate any better than poetry. But since this thread is about American electoral politics, I would have thought my comments would have been understood to be confined to the United States.
SAO,
I’m sure you have many thoughtful and potentially devastating criticisms of the Medicare drug benefit. But you said “handout to Wall Street,” which I think, in the absence of a further clarification, can reasonably be taken to be a socialist, anti-corporate argument, especially when coupled with a complaint about lobbying. It is, after all, entirely possible for Merck to make a profit off of the Federal government while simultaneously benefiting sick seniors.
The point is moot, unless the WoT is over. *No one can envizualize Hilary as CINC.* The results will be isomorphic with the last election.
Of course, Condi could do it. 😉