Thursday, August 03, 2006
Mods vs. Rockers in the Democratic Party
So there's this discussion going on, prompted by what's going on with Lieberman, about whether there's a gap between how different types, and/or different generations, of Democrats see the political landscape. It seems like it's kind of devolved into an argument about whether the increase in political partisanship over the last eight years or so is a blip, the significance of which has been played up (Ed Kilgore's view), or if it's a long-term phenomenon that's unlikely to change during our lifetimes (Digby's).
My feeling is that I just don't understand why it has to be either of these. History is all about unpredictable change. Things are one way, then they're another way, then they're yet another way. Why can't we just say that politics were more collegial in the past and now they're more adversarial, without making a judgment about the permanence of the change? One way of practicing politics made sense fifteen years ago, now a different way makes sense--and ten years from now who's to say how things will look?
My reason for being so concerned about this is that I hope that in the future today's generation of activists don't make the mistakes that we're criticizing in yesterday's. It's true that a lot of older-generation Democratic politicians, activists, and pundits are making mistakes because they don't recognize that (to put it histrionically) yesterday was a time for peace, but today is a time for war. But let's say that in ten years we win the war--it'll be just as destructive if we don't know when to stop fighting. After all, that's why the Republicans are in trouble now--they're so used to fighting a scorched-earth battle with us that they don't recognize when they've taken it too far. If the Republican Congress had recognized that the Bush Administration was overreaching and acted to rein them in--that is, consolidated their gains rather than overreaching--they wouldn't be in danger of losing control of both houses right now. So what I'm saying is that it's important for the Democratic party to fight, but I'd like it if we could do that while avoiding an apocalyptic mindset about the fight that we're in. Whether that's possible, though, is yet another question.
On another note, I like this frame because it allows me to oppose Lieberman without vilifying him. It's not that he's bad, it's just that, like Tom Hagan, he's not a wartime consigliere.
My feeling is that I just don't understand why it has to be either of these. History is all about unpredictable change. Things are one way, then they're another way, then they're yet another way. Why can't we just say that politics were more collegial in the past and now they're more adversarial, without making a judgment about the permanence of the change? One way of practicing politics made sense fifteen years ago, now a different way makes sense--and ten years from now who's to say how things will look?
My reason for being so concerned about this is that I hope that in the future today's generation of activists don't make the mistakes that we're criticizing in yesterday's. It's true that a lot of older-generation Democratic politicians, activists, and pundits are making mistakes because they don't recognize that (to put it histrionically) yesterday was a time for peace, but today is a time for war. But let's say that in ten years we win the war--it'll be just as destructive if we don't know when to stop fighting. After all, that's why the Republicans are in trouble now--they're so used to fighting a scorched-earth battle with us that they don't recognize when they've taken it too far. If the Republican Congress had recognized that the Bush Administration was overreaching and acted to rein them in--that is, consolidated their gains rather than overreaching--they wouldn't be in danger of losing control of both houses right now. So what I'm saying is that it's important for the Democratic party to fight, but I'd like it if we could do that while avoiding an apocalyptic mindset about the fight that we're in. Whether that's possible, though, is yet another question.
On another note, I like this frame because it allows me to oppose Lieberman without vilifying him. It's not that he's bad, it's just that, like Tom Hagan, he's not a wartime consigliere.
