 |
Beyond Centrism: Why Polarization Is Good For The Left |
 |
A couple things have been coming together today to make me think about whether I want to support centrist candidates or more polarizing, farther left ones. First came a discussion on the recent FISA capitulation, and revelations that the Democrats might have faked procedural blunders to screen their support for warrantless wiretapping. Jane Hamsher has the rundown.
That revelation brings to light the more serious thought that perhaps a significant portion of the Democrats really harbor some right wing ideals, ideals that most liberals I know wouldn’t vouch for. All signs seem to be saying that the Democrats passed FISA on purpose, not out of fear or bad framing (as I initially thought), but because they either believe warrantless wiretapping is necessary to fight that nebulous war on terror, or they want to inherit that power when (if?) they win the White House in 2008. Either way, something stinks. This wasn’t Democratic capitulation, as many netroots blogs have said, this was Democratic betrayal. It makes you think about electing more true blue leaders, leaders who won’t sell out like this.
Coming on the heels of that discussion, today is the one year anniversary of Ned Lamont’s primary victory over Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. August 8th, 2006 will stand out as a watershed date for the progressive movement, one where real Democratic values triumphed over the “establishment.” Of course, Ned Lamont went on to lose to Joe, who after being kicked out of the Democratic Party ran as an independent.
The question at the heart of these two events is simple. Do we, as progressives, vote for candidates who pay lip service to our ideals and who, by traditional measures, are electable? Or do we say to hell with it, electability be damned, I’m voting for the candidate I believe in, even though he or she is pretty far left? After thinking about this all afternoon, and knowing that many people have reached this same conclusion way before me, my answer seems to be the latter.
The passage of the FISA bill was a traitorous move by someone(s) in the Democratic party, either the Blue Dog Democrats, party leadership, both, or the whole caucus. If we don’t want our candidates to say one thing in the primaries and do something very different when they get elected (for example, say they are going to end the war and then fail to do so), we need to elect leaders who have our back no matter what. Democratic voters need to stop playing defensive. If you think you’re right, don’t compromise. If you keep talking about centrism or electability, all you are going to get are weak, right leaning Democrats.
A similar lesson can be taken from Lamont’s upset. Joe Lieberman won not because of support from Democrats, but because 70% of right wing voters backed him over their own party’s choice. Lieberman was a spoiler candidate, an exception, not the rule. If Lieberman had quit like he was supposed to after he lost, Ned might be a Senator. Either way, Lieberman’s effect was to move things a bit leftwards. Even though he votes with the GOP on Iraq/Iran issues, he does caucus with the Democrats a lot of the time. As much as myself and others love to hate on him (and would never vote for him), I’d rather have him in office than Schlesinger, the GOP loser.
Critics say that the ultimate effect of moving the Democrats to the left will be to marginalize the party and to lose elections. However, so far voting left has had little downside, and I feel we can expect similar things in the Presidential election. Right now, with Bush at 23% approval ratings, most of the country is tired of King George’s rule. To date, no Republican candidate has really split with Bush on any significant issues, meaning that as things stand, if a Republican gets elected in 2008 it will be four more years of the same. America clearly doesn’t want that, and so the time is right for a more left leaning Democratic candidate. Democrats already have the ears of the centrists and the independents. It is time to give them what they want. And that doesn’t mean centrist policies. That means a big move left on the important issues like Iraq, terrorism, and healthcare.
Right now for the Democrats, centrism is a stance of weakness, especially in this election. If we offer someone on the left, I think we have the political climate to really convince people all over America that a move left is what we need. I don’t think electability is a good argument anymore, mostly because I think America is ready to elect a real progressive.
Thoughts?
Update: Matt Stoller is thinking in similar ways, analyzing the progressives in the House and Senate and concluding that their number has increased and will only continue to do so.
Politically speaking, it can’t hurt Democrats to go even farther left than before. Nationally speaking, to push the polarization of the country the way the Republicans have done is a recipe for disaster. We need healing, not ideology. We need to plan for a way to resume civil debate instead of cutting down our ideological opponents.
I don’t plan on voting for anyone right-wing, but I do hope we can find leaders who can establish a dialog instead of winning an election because they can come up with the best dirt.
Well, the key as I see it is to pursue cooperation without capitulation. That is, to pledge to work with the other side, and to do it, but to stand up for core values when necessary. That’s the problem with the Democrats right now. They hear compromise, and they end up giving Republicans everything they want. It’s a fine distinction, but I’m sure someone out in Washington could figure it out.