Shorter David Brooks

Ceding the Center, 10/26/2008:

• Here are 800 words about an ideology I just made up called "progressive conservatism," which encompasses both everything and nothing, and is not an oxymoron at all.

Above: "Any questions? No? Well good then!"

Seriously. Go read it if you don't believe me. It is complete, total, utter, unadulterated nonsense from beginning to end. Basically this "progressive conservatism" amounts to supporting state intervention in the economy without actually being a scary state-intervention-supporting liberal; Brooks cites land-grant colleges and Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting -- not generally considered a case of prudent centrism -- as examples, but my favorite is when he appropriates Alexander Hamilton for supporting "a vibrant national economy so people can grow and thrive." As opposed to, you know, everybody who opposes a growing and thriving economy. OBAMA '08: POVERTY AND SQUALOR FOR AMERICA!

I've always thought David Brooks is basically a bullshit artist, but it's been especially bad lately; did you see last week's column, which is about "Patio Man"? Patio Man. It really seems like the impending Obama landslide has scrambled his brain.

I understand that Brooks, and his crazed musings, still have a lot of fans at Harvard and in the Times' elite readership -- but why?

Missing the point

Ed Kilgore at Democratic Strategist, who has been refreshingly readable in recent years, is back in the old DLC mode today with a silly argument attacking criticism of Obama's perceived move to the center. Basically Kilgore's case comes down to "Obama's not moving to the center, but if he is it's just because he's awesome, SHUT UP ARIANNA HUFFINGTON," and it's not really worth our time. (Especially his dreamy-eyed contention that Obama is a "remarkable man" who can operate outside existing political paradigms, which is startlingly credulous for a man of Kilgore's intellect and experience.) But there's one bit I do want to take issue with, because it's important -- it has to do with concepts of "swing voters." Kilgore writes:

Second of all, as the TDS Roundtable on swing and base voters earlier this year illustrated, there's plenty of disagreement about the definition and nature of "swing voters." They don't necessarily all reside in the ideological "center" of the electorate on every issue, and moreover, "base" voters don't necessarily have inconsistent or antagonistic points of view from "swing voters." The two things that are pretty hard to deny are that (1) undecided "very likely" voters are indeed a disproportionately important electoral prize because winning each of them produces two net votes, and (2) most successful campaigns in a competitive environment manage to energize the partisan base while expanding it into the ranks of independents and even the other party's base. Huffington's horror at swing-voter pandering, and her manifest contempt for swing voters themselves, probably reflects the fashionable but very dubious Lackoffian belief that swing voters are cognitively confused, perhaps even stupid or amoral people who can only be appealed to by an even more strongly expressed partisan "frame."

This is wrong on a very profound level, and it misunderstands both Lakoff and the entire political-strategy argument of the netroots (which Huffington is making a facile version of). If I can arrogantly presume to speak for Lakoffian progressives for a minute -- we don't think that swing voters are confused. We think they don't exist.

Longitudinal research has shown, consistently, that people who claim they are "independent" or "nonpartisan" or whatever overwhelmingly display identical voting patterns to partisan voters. They may not say they're affiliated, but they vote like they are. A few people are out there whose votes regularly switch from Democratic to Republican or vice versa depending on the election in front of them, but there are so few of them that they're politically and statistically insignificant; most are just partisans who won't admit it. What DOES actually define that self-identified nonpartisan group, meanwhile, is that they're predominantly lower-information voters who are much less engaged with the political process and turn out much less frequently. (Which makes sense: the more time you spend following politics, the more likely you are to take a side. It's not that they are "stupid and amoral," and frankly it's rather offensive that Kilgore put those words in Arianna Huffington's mouth. It's only that they're politically disengaged.)

Therefore, outcome-decisive changes over the course of an election, so often assumed by the best analysts to be the product of swing voters changing their minds, are more likely the product of these marginal voters deciding whether or not to vote. (Traditional polls, not being longitudinal, cannot measure this.) Hence a focus on turning out the "base"; there is nobody else to turn out! Of course that's a controversial thesis, and I imagine Kilgore and lots of other people disagree, but it sure makes more sense to me than the alternative (that elections are decided by a tiny cadre of cerebral David Brooksian independents who are somehow engaged in the political process yet fail to identify with a political group).

So even if we grant Kilgore the argument that Obama's not moving to the "center" per se in his pursuit of swing voters, it doesn't matter, because pursuing swing voters at ALL is a wild goose chase. The way to win those valuable marginal votes is to campaign confidently and persuasively, using -- here comes Lakoff -- a cognitive FRAME which can be easily adopted by voters who aren't particularly political in nature. Republicans have done very well since Reagan in establishing their frame (and winning over all kinds of marginal Democrats, both so-called independents and their "Reagan Democrat" cousins, in the process); Democrats are only starting to do so. (I'm beginning to think that Obama's "Change" thing is a good step in that direction, actually, which is for another post.)

From this perspective Obama's movements away from progressivism, then, actually do direct damage to both the Democratic voter coalition and to his own electoral prospects (which are closely tied), by cutting up the party's frame for no damn reason. Hence Arianna Huffington's outrage, and hence the netroots' frustration at those within the party who still (insanely) think nonpartisanship and "triangulation" is a route to victory. Kilgore's total failure to understand this, and to instead treat the argument like he's defending Obama from hordes of raging hippies, is a saddening reminder of how out-of-touch -- how ignorant -- DC-elite centrism is of the way politics works in real life. But what else is new?

A moment of deja vu

So I read that Glenn Greenwald is railing, as he does, today about "New Republic syndrome" as part of his continued jihad against the FISA compromise. While this particular issue fails to move me, I'm with Greenwald in spirit -- I've spent a long time decrying elite, establishmentarian, "serious," nominally liberal journalism and how it consistently enables the worst conservative evils.

This topic sends me on a Vietnam-style flashback to my Dem Apples halcyon days, in 2006 and 2007, when I spent much of my time arguing these matters with the brilliant Josh Patashnik '07. Josh and I, with help from people like Kyle Krahel and periodically Garrett Dash Nelson on my side and Third Degree & Max Mishkin on his, would spar over things like centrism, bipartisanship, and Joe Lieberman, all of which Josh was for and I continue to be against. Josh used to write things like this, from October 2006:

Certainly it's pretty clear at this point that the invasion was ill-advised. But the fact is that in 2002 and 2003 a lot of calm, thoughtful, intelligent people were in favor of the invasion.

[...] We now know that Saddam did not have WMDs and that rebuilding the country and establishing a new political order have proven to be exceedingly difficult. The question is, should we have known those things back then? We certainly should have been more diligent in asking questions. But I still don't think it was unreasonable to believe that Saddam had WMDs and that we might be able to help the Iraqis set up a better form of government. [...]

If the U.S. had gone in, found WMD, and set up a moderately stable, moderately liberal democracy with limited American and Iraqi casualties, I think Iraq would have to be counted as one of the greatest successes in the history of American foreign policy. I don't see a huge downside here.

Or this from the Lieberman/Lamont fiasco of August 2006:

[Democrats should] be careful not to swing too far in the opposite direction, toward dovishness and partisanship. I believe in a Democratic Party that eschews both Lieberman's kowtowing to the GOP and the vicious, narrow-minded partisanship of the Daily Kos wing of the party. There are any number of Democrats--Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, Barack Obama--who stand on principle and are proud members of the party, but who maintain civility and are willing to work in good faith with the other side when it is willing to do the same. I believe in a Democratic Party that thinks seriously about our problems in Iraq but also recognizes that we are indeed locked in a struggle to the death against jihadism. Joe Biden and Tony Blair understand this; I agree with Jacob Weisberg that many on the left don't.

Yes, Josh actually cited Jacob Weisberg. (He also regularly referred to Peter Beinart.) Today, on any liberal blog, this stuff would receive an immediate and righteous smackdown; but the atmosphere, on Dem Apples and in liberal politics in general, was different then. There was still a substantial contingent that was completely establishmentarian in character, earnestly advocated DLC politics, recoiled from antiwar or other progressive rhetoric, and despised everything Howard Dean and the lefty blogs stood for. This was before the magnitude of the 2006 midterms and the total vindication of Dean began to push those ideas backward into elite journalism and the margins where they belong (a process which, as we can see, is still ongoing). Harvard was and is an incubator of this kind of thinking -- Josh in particular was editor of HPR and active at the IOP, two of our most noxiously centrist and elitist institutions (the Crimson completes that trifecta). Those of us who were further left and outside that establishment had to push hard against it, and spend weeks arguing about crap like "civility" as a result. It was one of my formative political experiences.

Anyway, so off I go to read Greenwald and WHADDAYA KNOW -- turns out the TNR post that infuriated him so was by none other than Josh Patashnik himself! Josh after graduation went on to bigger and better things, now blogging full-time for TNR's The Plank, and apparently he's doing the same damn thing to Greenwald he used to do to me. The genesis of the argument is different -- and weirdly, I lean to Josh's side on the issue, if only because I lack that part of my brain that makes you libertarian -- but Greenwald takes it to familiar territory:

The reason these posts are worth noting is because they so perfectly capture the mindset that needs to be undermined more than any other. It's this mentality that has destroyed the concept of checks and limits in our political system; it's why we have no real opposition party; and it's why the history of the Democrats over the last seven years has been to ignore and then endorse one extremist Bush policy after the next. It's because even as The New Republic Syndrome has been proven to be false and destructive over and over -- even its practitioners have been forced to recognize that -- it continues to be the guiding operating principle of the party's leadership.

The defining beliefs of this Syndrome are depressingly familiar, and incomparably destructive: Anything other than tiny, marginal opposition to the Right's agenda is un-Serious and radical. Objections to the demolition of core constitutional protections is shrill and hysterical. Protests against lawbreaking by our high government officials and corporations are disrespectful and disruptive. Challenging the Right's national security premises is too scary and politically costly. Those campaigning against Democratic politicians who endorse and enable the worst aspects of Bush extremism are "nuts," "need to have their heads examined," and are "exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s." Those who oppose totally unprovoked and illegal wars are guilty of "abject pacifism."

...[Institutions which should restrain conservative lawbreaking] have failed because they have been, and continue to be, defined by the meek, amorphous, principle-free New Republic Syndrome, which thinks that its restrained tolerance and complicit embrace of patent Bush extremism is some sort of mark of political sophistication and Seriousness... Good, smart, adult Democrats -- like the sober, Serious geniuses at The New Republic who have been so right for so long, and like Steny Hoyer -- understand that these matters are very complex and difficult and it's best if the Right not be opposed with too much vigor, if they should be opposed at all. It's precisely that mindset, and those who are guided by it, which needs to be targeted if the guaranteed Democratic majority is to mean anything other than an endless perpetuation of The New Republic Syndrome.

Preach it, brother. He's like a more eloquent and less profane version of me.

I don't really have a larger point here, except to point out how interesting it is that Josh is now having the same fights on a national stage that he used to have in this little sandbox. The more things change...

The IOP likes to reinforce its own stereotypes

Seriously? Among the IOP's spring study groups:

Drawing from her experience in American politics, Morella will head a study group on the past, present, and future of political moderates in Congress.

[...] Morella, who was also an IOP fellow in 2003, said she is pleased to return to Cambridge to discuss issues such as redistricting, special interest groups, and globalization with students.

Why not just cut out the middleman and rename it the Lieberman Institute?

...I remember the outcry when Garrett wrote about "neutered mandarins" and the "catechism of centrism" last month... everyone was so very upset...

...In fairness, the other newly-announced spring fellows seem inoffensive (two reporters, a former Indianapolis mayor, an Irish parliamentarian, and some environmentalist guy), but this just absolutely takes the cake. Are they trying to be walking caricatures of themselves?

Above: "OMG OMG OMG! I HAVE TO TIVO THIS!"

(Also, I'm having a bit of trouble with "redistricting, special interest groups, and globalization." Do those three issues have anything in common at all? Other than that they're all unbelievably boring crap that nobody other than junkies and D.C. insiders cares about? I guess I just answered my own question there...)

Ed Kilgore: Close, But No Cigar

Ed Kilgore at Democratic Strategist takes apart an interesting NYT article about Democratic populism and economic policy. To my utter shock, I mostly agree with him, especially when he recognizes that Democrats are far more unified on economics than you'd guess from press coverage (which, he correctly notes, focuses to a fault on the trade argument -- while that is a hot issue, and one that illuminates clear divisions within the Democratic coalition, 1993 is over and it's hardly the whole kettle of fish anymore). This bit is good:

Meanwhile, it's simply not accurate to typecast Democrats as pro- or anti-trade. Yes, there are some highly visible "populists" who believe trade agreements are the single largest factor creating economic inequality and insecurity, and advocate repeal of past agreements along with systemic opposition to new ones. But as Will Marshall and Ed Gresser usefully pointed out in these pages recently, another Democratic faction, which they call "social democratic," favors an aggressive international economic strategy focused on emulating the high-wage, high-benefit policies of European nations, instead of reflexive opposition to trade and globalization. And in practice, many Democratic politicians and voters combine elements of all three of the "pro-trade," "populist," and "social democratic" philosophies.

There are obviously very large omissions in [the Times]'s picture of Democratic economic policies preferences. Democrats are united as never before in making universal access to health care; universal access to college; and a serious assault on global climate change, major goals for the party and for the country. They are equally committed to a broad and progressive income tax (not unimportant at a time when Republicans continue to flirt not only with regressive tax cuts, but with "flat tax" and national sales tax schemes); to reductions in corporate subsides and measure to insure corporate accountability; to a strengthening the social safety net; and to a restoration of the endangered right of workers to organize unions.

It's encouraging stuff, especially coming from a former DLCer; his attempts to unite the party rather than just demonize the left are atypical for someone of his background. But Kilgore hits the skids in his last paragraph:

Indeed, while maintaining an open atmosphere of intraparty debate, Democrats need to remember two fundamental facts that transcend factions: we are all "populists" now in opposing and seeking to reverse Republican policies aimed at entrenching wealth and privilege in every aspect of economic policy. And we are all "centrists" now in seeking to explain to the American people that their interests and the national interest have been subordinated to an ideological and partisan-power-building agenda which is far out of the mainstream of economic thought and practice.

Uh... how's that with the "centrists" again?

we are all "centrists" now in seeking to explain to the American people that their interests and the national interest have been subordinated to an ideological and partisan-power-building agenda which is far out of the mainstream of economic thought and practice.

That doesn't sound like something "centrists" say. That sounds like something Daily Kos diarists say. If being "centrist" means you recognize that the Bush-Republican position is extreme and dangerous, then centrism encompasses everyone in this country left of Mussolini.

In fact, look again at the positions Kilgore lays out, especially in conjunction with the points Robin Toner makes in her article -- Democrats are uniting behind things like social safety nets, progressive tax, high minimum wages, unions & job security, etc. These are not characteristically centrist positions -- these border on socialist positions. Centrism, in the sense of fiscal caution and dedication to the free market, is largely anathema to the economic agenda today's Democrats are laying out.

So I tend to think that Kilgore's argument there is informed by a bit of wishful thinking, or maybe just a stab at some old-fashioned swing-voter-palatable spin, in saying that Democratic centrism and populism have somehow merged. They have not: populism has won, at least for the time being, and is clearly the dominant mode of Democratic economic argument today. I personally think Democrats are better off for it -- that's a different debate -- but we should all at least realize where we are on the issues, as a party, and not get lost in inaccurate labels.

Mike Bloomberg: Punk

Please, please, please spare us a Mike Bloomberg presidential run. Please. Can you imagine it? Twelve months, or more, of that smarmy centrist bilge dripping out of our TV screens -- Mike Bloomberg! A Better Way -- until by November his Holy Moderate Image is encrusted all over the living room floor. People's dogs will lick it up and get sick. (That's right, America: Mike Bloomberg HATES YOUR DOG.) Between the vapid television and the veterinary bills, this will drive many good people insane.

And oh, God, can you imagine Harvard. Holy shit. We are just the kind of place that swoons for this sort of smirking self-assured Sensible Governance. Bloomberg embodies everything Harvard's political class dreams of: respectability, seriousness, and fucking boatloads of money. I can see the IOP now! All aflutter with grinning moderates ("Unity08!"), holding breathless forums about Mike Bloomberg: The Paradigm-Shifting Candidate, heaving and palpitating from all the nonpartisan excitement. Every political douchebag you know will have a Bloomberg button on his polo shirt; and naturally, the collar will be popped.

...There are two things that bother me about a Bloomberg candidacy. The first is that, being a multigazillionaire, he apparently has the privilege to inject himself right into a general election without first subjecting himself to primary voters or, well, anyone. But that's a financial fact of life. The second, and more serious, thing is how totally free of ideas he seems to be; Bloomberg, in contrast to most independent candidates historically, would add NOTHING of interest to a presidential campaign. His intellectual system -- such as it is -- is a totally arbitrary junkheap of ideas grabbed from various ideologies and arranged purely for expediency. It's a pale imitation of a real political agenda, in much the same sense that American Idol imitates real music; this of course makes it pervasive and extremely dangerous.

There's a great quote from The Big Lebowski: "Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."

The upside is, I don't think he'll run. Quote me on that. Bloomberg's shallow but he isn't stupid, and I think he realizes (or will realize soon) how futile an independent bid would be; not to mention the sizable possibility that, if things didn't go as planned, he'd become a national laughingstock. Ross Perot, bless his heart, never cared whether he was embarrassing himself -- but Bloomberg seems like the kind of self-important guy who would. When Tom Harkin describes him as "the little rich kid that if he can’t have it his way he’s going to take his little balls and go home", I'm sure the Senator's on to something.

Nevertheless even the specter of his candidacy gives me the creeps, and it doesn't help that the TV pundits have already decided he's the Second Coming. Let's hope this fizzles, and sooner rather than later -- if nothing else, at least for the sake of our pets.

Calm Down, Stoller

Matt Stoller's feeling bad at MyDD this afternoon, complaining about the Iraq capitulation and the continuing omnipresence of sellout DLC Dems. It's the usual stuff, the same cognitive dissonance any progressive Democrat runs into, and I think we all understand his frustration. But Stoller has a bit of a lapse this time and takes his logic in a very destructive direction. Read:

Progressives are in a bit of a bind these days. The Republicans are still sadistic extremists, and with the challenge to Hagel in Nebraska, they will remain that way for at least another few cycles. Despite the victory in 2006, liberal Democrats are still cut out of power and policy-making... [many valid examples...]

Now, this might sound depressing, and it is. But it's also a reality of politics these days, and it's the consequence of 35 years of organizing by the right wing and only around eight years on our side. The people in charge of the political system are the swing votes and the people that those voters want to work with. Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel have positioned themselves to be this swing vote, and they have chosen to basically throw some crumbs our way (minimum wage) while voting with the Republicans on the big issues, like Iraq...

The ultimate point here though is that we are not a partisan movement and should no longer think of ourselves as such. We are an ideological movement. We have ideas, and want to see those ideas driven with power. This means that we need to get down to the hard work of disabusing ourselves of candidate-centric politics, and work to create primary challenges wherever possible, as well as keep building forums for the dissemination of new ideas.

I respect Matt Stoller immensely, but this is horseshit. First: modern progressivism, i.e. the ideology espoused by the blogs and many young/outsider Democrats, would be suicidal to reject partisanship. The only way progressives have ever managed to claw their way into power has been on the backs of people like Howard Dean or the 2006 netroots candidates (Tester, Webb, etc); the only way we have made any difference has been through Democratic-led legislation.

Second: a pragmatic partisanship is at the very core of this progressive belief system. For Stoller to call for a transformation to "ideological movement" is nonsensical and redundant -- our ideology holds that ideas are useless until they're implemented, and as a result we focus on results as the ultimate source of value, hence our interest in political gamesmanship and the destruction of conservative infrastructure. A puritan idealism would be totally in contradiction with our ideals.

(This, after all, is how progressives strive to avoid the marginalization that ruined the 1960s New Left -- we come down hard on the Kucinich-vintage flower children who present ideas without regard for their practicality. One must keep one's eye on the ball.)

Third: we obviously need to protect and promote our ideas, and obviously the results of the Democratic Congress thus far are unsatisfactory, but there is no equivalent need for a departure from "candidate-centric politics". What other type of politics does Stoller have in mind exactly? You can't pry a person's leadership apart from their principles, and you can't keep ideas in a vacuum -- attempts to do that have led to the mute, soulless centrist technocracy that I always thought we opposed.

Ultimately: To reject partisanship is to neuter the progressive movement.

I'm troubled that Stoller, one of the leading lights and sharpest minds of online progressivism, would find himself going down this kind of alley. It speaks to an exhaustion, almost a giving up of hope; a retreat into the easier territory of wonky debate or (at best) interest-group-style scratching at the shins of political leaders. And I can understand why that's tempting given the shock of the Iraq defeat, the crushing vapidity of the presidential race thus far, and all the other things that embitter us daily; I can understand wanting to get away from the Democratic Party and all the problems it entails.

But what this proposal amounts to is a reach for the ceremonial hara-kiri sword. We can't give up on partisanship any more than Harry Reid can give up on legislating -- it's a dirty job, but it's our duty to our beliefs and our country. And Stoller (who incidentally is a Harvard grad, and a resident of my proud Mather House) needs to clear his head, man up, and get back to work.

It occurs to me that we should thank George W. Bush--

--for conveniently laying out a road map of the way a Democratic government should operate. Think about it. Every single thing President Bush has done or tried to do, without exception, has failed. With every stroke of his pen he fucks our country up a tiny bit more. His brand of conservatism, be it neo- or theo- or "compassionate", has the same success rate as Charlie Brown's kite.

Hence, the solution for a Democratic government is fairly simple. With a big tip of the hat to George Constanza: whatever Bush would do, do the opposite! He cut taxes on the rich? Raise 'em. He tried to privatize Social Security? Increase entitlement funding. He started a stupid war? Stop a stupid war, preferably several. Keep that up for a few years and we're golden!

...I mention this, half-seriously, after seeing the immense reaction to the latest report from "Third Way," a bunch of phlegmatic 1992-vintage centrists who believe that Democrats will be forever doomed by the Demon Pessimism or something. It's a silly report from a silly think-tank, and it's really not worth our time -- which every blogger ever, of course, pointed out at length and in excruciating detail. (I love the Internet.) But the response that struck me most, aside from a gripping Kos diary on the middle-class squeeze, came from Whiskey Fire:

The wingnuts have had their fun, and they've dug us into a huge fucking hole. Our way is "up." The "Third Way" is what, sideways? We'd still be buried in shit.

Amen. Writer Thers links to Greg Anrig at TPMCafe, who makes the same argument more politely and intellectually. And it's quite true; the way our political climate stands right now, the kind of reflexive sunny moderation that brought Bill Clinton to power is not only anachronistic, it may well be counterproductive.

The utter and unmitigated failure of Bush Conservatism has left us with a great opportunity: to cast liberalism in stark relief as America's natural and functional governing philosophy. (Which, incidentally, it is.) And these "Third Way" types, for reasons that I do not fully understand or even slightly care about, seem content to waste the moment blithering about "optimism" and advocating watered-down swing-voter-chasing half-assed politics -- which in practice amounts to a grand kowtow to insane Republican ideologues. From our perspective it seems fairly obvious that this is not where we should be going.

What I fear is that our leaders and our presidential candidates, still inhaling Beltway exhaust fumes, do not understand this. It is all too easy to picture them falling back into that comfortable lobotomized triangulation that Grandmaster David Broder taught them. Certainly, Senator Clinton has the half-ass thing down, and my God, Senator Obama can blither with the best of them ("Hope!" "Children!" Always fucking Morning in America with this guy). Even John Edwards, suddenly the self-styled revolutionary leftist, shows hints of right-wing-talking-point infection. Gah.

There's time yet. But it's incumbent on the grassroots supporters -- by which I mean, you -- to remind this party and these candidates that we have our beliefs; that we do not take kindly to appeasers; and that when it comes down to it, we expect them to firmly say No Way to the Third Way.

I know how dumb that sounds. It is, in fact, an egregiously dumb phrase. But, these are people who take Joe Klein seriously. When in Rome...