It has always been so, and not just in America; nevertheless, a broad far-left-to-center Popular Front always remains a possibility. Look at the coalition the conservatives were able to put together after 1964 – bizcons and paleocons and neocons and theocons and libertarians and white supremacists and John Bircher nutbars, such strange bedfellows, all under the same tent, and all marching out of it in formation and roaring. Why can’t the left do something like that?
So? It would still be an improvement if the egotistical charismatic leaders are LW rather than RW – Hugo Chavez sux burro balls, but far, far better Chavez than Uribe or Pinochet or Somoza or Franco. (Or Sarah Palin, for that matter. I don’t care if we have to change the Constitution, or even pick a war with Venezuela and surrender, I’ll accept Chavez as POTUS in preference to Palin.)
I’m tempted to add that the vitriol need only apply at the grassroots-and-media-and-electoral stage, and that once elected officials actually sit down to work, then it’s time for “nuance, or compromise, or with reasoned consideration of other viewpoints, or really with appreciation of the nonideological aspects of any political issue.” That has worked before many times in American history.
But, at this stage of American history, the GOP has made it clear enough and often enough that whether they’re in the majority or the minority, “nuance, or compromise, or with reasoned consideration of other viewpoints, or really with appreciation of the nonideological aspects of any political issue” just ain’t gonna fly. So it goes.
I don’t think so. Look at the amount of criticism Obama gets from the left for being “just like Bush.” Look at the criticism of Clinton for being the “best Republican president in history,” or however that gets phrased.
In my view, the big business Republicans only care about taxes. The religious right only cares about social issues. Neocons are only interested in foreign policy. They can agree because they don’t care about what the other cares about. (I’m exaggerating slightly for effect here, but really those groups do a good job of not stepping on each others’ toes.)
The left, for better or for worse, seems very interested in social justice – something that covers not only social legislation but also economic matters and foreign policy. I think this is a good thing from a personal view, but it makes politics difficult, because folks left of center (myself included) tend to care about everything, and that makes it hard to compromise in the manner you propose.
God, I hope this doesn’t become the DNC’s campaign slogan in 2012.
My only comment would be that the Left needs to go BACK to when they USED to have these types of events. I remember Jesse Jackson marching across my campus, the Million Man March, hard core Labor strikes, and other open vocal protest and shouting movements.
Guess who the Tea Party learned this from?
Go back to your roots - get your people out there showing real support. You used to do it well, what happened?
The Boomers aged.
Good point. We’ll go with “Pick a war with Venezuela and surrender.”
Some people would rather feel good than actually accomplish something.
Interesting flip of the coin - the boomers aged, and nobody stepped up. At the same time, a generation of right wing kids grew up under Reagan and decided to take the same tactics of the Left of their youth.
The choice in America is not, currently, between Hugo Chavez or Sarah Palin. However, if we want to force a battle between ideological demagogues or absolutists, yours is certainly a path toward constructing a crucible which could distill such a choice.
I don’t think American history teaches the lesson you’re suggesting. I think it teaches that vitriol and major activist movements go hand in hand with the breakdown of governmental effectiveness, and that [nuance, compromise, and reasoned consideration] go hand in hand with “elected officials actually [sitting] down to work.”
It wasn’t vitriol from the left that brought about the social economic changes of the 30’s, it was compromise and consideration by FDR and the Democrats in Congress in response to the great social demands of the Depression. It wasn’t strident demonstration that effected major civil rights changes in the 60’s, it was images of right wing overreaction combined with peaceful marches and impassioned nonviolent rhetoric from the victims which convinced the majority of Americans change was due. And it wasn’t leftwing radicalism that ended the Vietnam War, it was Walter Cronkite and the “Silent Majority” becoming sickened by its continuation.
Let the right wing noise machine destroy itself in its own feedback. Provide a sane background alternative that gives fair hearing to those “biased” viewpoints and believe it or not the chaff will get taken by the wind, and we might produce something better than left wing ideological purity.
I wanted to start a thread concerning a truly insightful blog post that I came across*, Endogenize ideology, which I interpret as tangential to your point. Short version: not gonna happen, because having an ideological “noise-machine” is a winning strategy (from both real-world and game-theory perspectives). Snipping mercilessly for a slightly longer version:
I’m still pondering and processing what he says; really, it’s worth reading, particularly for those who are economics-oriented. But I see too much truth in the footnote, which supports (my reading of) BrainGlutton’s thesis:
*Thanks to Doper Hellestal for bringing this blog to my attention.
Well, soon the Boomers will reach retirement age and have a lot of time on their hands . . . maybe then things will heat up again. 
I think the essayist is just pointing out that perceptions don’t actually follow reality, and that arguments from morality are more persuasive than arguments from optimized outcome. (This may be rather more obvious to those of us unencumbered by too much familiarity with economic theory.) He then immediately undercuts that valid point with the observation and assertion that ideologies can be changed as consequences of policy decisions. I agree with that, and with his example of using deliberately corrupt and incompetent public officials to reinforce the ideological belief that government is incompetent and corrupt.
But I don’t think the lesson here is “fight blind ideology with blind ideology”, but rather to combine outcome based pragmatism with unabashed ideological movement and passionate salesmanship of the moral bases for that ideology.
The money quote is here:
So I believe the essayist is echoing my appeal towards a politics which gives fair hearing to all -even biased- viewpoints and works towards best results. His point is that this will drive ideological change in favor of ‘the reality based community’. My point is that this will produce a better and stronger nation.
One problem with the tea baggers besides their ignorance is their bug-like rate of procreation. We really just can’t keep up. I think we just have to concede, vote with our feet and truly embrace Red State/Blue State America. They may use states rights to force Muslims in Alabama to pledge allegiance to President Jesus, but when they come up to the civilized world to fix our Volvos, we’ll make their kids read about evolution and get their dreadful teeth fixed.
But are we ready to lower ourselves like that, abandon polite civility, simply to wrest our country from their greasy, porcine grip? Oh, hell, yes!
Liberals are smarter than conservatives, and a strategy of using simplistic slogans and moronic lies to appeal to our emotions simply won’t work as well as they do on conservatives. Sadly, our intelligence hinders our resolve
Such a heavy burden to bear…
Actually, libertarians trump you all in terms of intelligence. It’s such an obscure political philosophy that you have to read your ass off just to find out about it!
Actually, it seems as though most of the tea baggers are past the age of procreation so I have doubts about whether than scenario is probable. And while it may be tempting on a visceral level for liberals to also play Red State/Blue State, we should keep it mind it’s the Republicans’ game with the Republicans’ rules played (mostly) on the Republicans’ home field.
Couldn’t agree less about comparitive intelligence. Appeals to emotion don’t need simplistic slogans but they do require easily communicated moral analogues. That’s why slogans are more persuasive than essays, but that has nothing to do with the intelligence of the target audience and everything to do with the emphasis on which aspect is being communicated.
Slogans distill a basic moral outlook into a simple statement, leaving any development of implications or methodologies out of the picture. More nuanced discussions tend to concentrate on assumptions and methodologies and possible outcomes, and conservatives have no more trouble following these discussions than do liberals; however, these consequence-heavy debates fail to satisfy the need for a moral frame of reference required by all humans, regardless of political affiliation.
IMO, conservatives are more naturally adept at describing policy preferences in terms of their moral foundation, and thus can be more persuasive on a broad level. Liberals are more naturally inclined to test their policy preferences against their moral foundation, and thus are more effective at producing policy reflective of the desired outcome.
ETA for John Mace - Libertarians are good for both the left and the right, as they make liberals look persuasive and illuminate the superior policy acumen of conservatives.
I agree, but to be honest, they won. They have been able to set the rules my entire lifetime and that includes rebounding after Watergate and the invasion of Iraq.
Florida sealed it: essentially a Republican coupe, they transformed American politics. After Florida, the Republicans made it clear that American politics were now a zero sum game and the winners would rig the game so that the losers never really get their hands on power again. At this point, I just want to see how much longer they can loot the nation while distracting the mouth-breathers with guns, gay marriage, and Kenyan Presidents.