Partisan Moderation
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall August 14, 2006 09:27 PM
Great post here by Josh Marshall that I can find no way to do justice to by excerpting. The essence of Josh's point (as summed up by Kevin Drum), however, is that instead of viewing bloggers as some sort of "angry left blogosphere," it's worth asking why so many mild-mannered moderate liberals have become radicalized during George Bush's tenure.
I relate a lot to what Josh writes in conclusion to his post:
I guess I'm one of those partisanized moderates Kevin Drum has spoken of (not sure that's precisely the phrase he used.) That leads to a certain loss of nuance sometimes in commentary and a loss in the variegation of our politics generally. As a writer, often it's less satisfying.But I cannot see looking back on all this, the threat the country is under, and saying, I stood aloof.
Agreed, there often comes a time when people throughout various parts of the political spectrum find common cause in standing athwart history and yelling "Stop!" There have certainly been a number of signposts along the way that are enough to make anyone maddened by what they see happening on the right ... acceptance of the Swift Boat lies was certainly one critical element in erasing any sympathy I might confess for Republicans; watching the twisted contortions of accepting George Bush's big government conservatism have certainly had an illuminating effect on the fact that it might not be ideology that drives Republicans, so much as a more common affinity to the excercise of power for power's sake; and there's something to be said for watching our Republican bloggers continue to type away more and more of their own credibility by flipping and flopping every which way but loose when it would just be far easier to say "Ya know, I got something wrong." Heaven forbid that we confess our own human-ness lest someone else discover something so obvious.
Yet, I've never been one to subscribe to the belief that, in order to hold views somewhere between the far left and the far right, one must express those views in a moderate manner. The political dueling between the far right and far left certainly makes a bit of sense due to some sort of mental equation that pairs extreme views with extreme statements and extreme actions.
But, as we see in Connecticut (yes, there will be a lot of Connecticut observations, reflections, etc over the next 3 months), the battle to hold the center ... the battle to express those moderate views in the act of governance, requires the use of the same methods in order to succeed. To me, that's perhaps why I don't share the cognitive dissonance in Joe's stated desire to see a politics shorn of polarization and his campaign rhetoric that suggests a Lamont win might be one that encourages terrorists (we've already got fresh evidence for seeing how precious little it takes to plant this idea in their minds). When positing a view of political moderation against one of extremism, there's nothing that suggests keeping one's mouth shut, or one's words overly measured does little good if, in the end, all you've done is allow the voices of the extreme to be the one that stirs up the imagination ... and worse yet, votes.
Like Drum & Marshall, I can likely trace a similar trajectory in terms of my own sense of dissatisfaction over the discourse offered by the right. It's not enough merely to engage them and hope that some sensible agreement might take place in a pixelated format if, in the end, there's nothing matching that in the real world. Right now, there's not. And our friends on the right still believe John Kerry isn't a war hero, they still believe the big, bad liberal media is out to get them, they still believe that they're voting for genuine conservatives, and they're willing to change any political view currently held if it means electing another Republican. It's hard to be polite and point that out when there are so many examples to back it up with.
Barry Goldwater's famous statement is "Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is No Vice." I'd suggest a new spin on it for this current combative era of politics: "Activism in the Defense of Moderation is No Vice." Our friends on the right have certainly embraced extremism ever since Goldwater muttered those words. Embracing activism is hardly anything to bemoan.
"I don't share the cognitive dissonance in Joe's stated desire to see a politics shorn of polarization and his campaign rhetoric that suggests a Lamont win might be one that encourages terrorists."
Then you must be blind. This trope--"a vote for X is a vote for Al Quaeda" is the dispicable modern version of that '50-'60s classic of implying that your opponent is a n*****r-lover. When that stuff started circulating, I had to conclude that Leiberman had gone too far. It's beyond the pale. I hope he loses.
I agree the battle should be about the center, but where is it?
The other day in Hopkins County I was asked if I would reach across the aisle and work with Republicans. I said, "Yes." Every sensible human acknowledges that necessity. Every sensible human being recognizes his or her own fallibility.
But here’s the problem.
In the first several years of the Bush Administration and Republican Domination in Congress DID reach across the aisle and got slapped: No Child Left Behind (Teddy Kennedy), Medicare Part D (John Breaux) and IRAQ!!! These are the most complete disasters in modern public policy.
Why should voters reward failure? You can cite all the statistics about Joe’s voting record, but when the chips were down, he supported fear and failure. He continues to support fear and failure.
I say it’s high time the political center rejected fear and failure. We are America, not some third world thug state. We have faced greater challenges in the past and we survived. Why? Because we faced are problems honestly.
Bush’s Iraq dream was not, is not and won’t be some admirable plan. It’s all about image. As long as he is “commander-in-chief” no one can question him or his party. Well, he’s not my “commander-in-chief.” He is my President, and the Constitution of the United States of America says he works for “We the People.”
We have a moral and constitution responsibility to lead in a new direction. What are our options?
1) We can put 1 million American troops into Iraq and try to stabilize the country. Remember, the US had over 500,000 in Vietnam, but South Vietnam actually had a functioning army. The situation is so bad now that the U.S. is “mum on strength of Iraqi troops: Pentagon stops revealing number prepared to fight.”” Today the US has about 700,000 ground troops TOTAL! Can you say draft?
I guess since the Isreali occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and South Lebanon turned out so well, we need to follow that example?
2) The death and violence in most of Iraq is part of an Iraqi civil war. On which side should the US be? The thugs and murders who want to return the secular Baathists? The thugs and murders who want to reestablish the Caliphate (Osama’s buddies)? The thugs and murders who want to establish a Shia theocracy? When you get down in the gutter, you start to stink.
3) We can redeploy US troops to concentrate on terrorists instead of an Iraqi civil war. The two are not the same.
Finally, as “centrists,” Americans have to reject the false choices offered by Bush, Cheney and Lieberman. By opposing their fear and failure we are not giving aid and comfort to the terrorist. It’s just the opposite. Fear and failure are feeding the terrorists. Hope and success will defeat them. Hope and success will only come when we start acting like Americans. It's time to stop acting like Charlie Brown when the Administartion acts like Lucy.