Dan Gerstein's Disappeared Liberal Self

Continuing my exchange with consultant and Democratic strategist Dan Gerstein:

As any regular readers of Red State Impressions and my MyDD diary know, I have been engaged in a discussion with Dan Gerstein, a Democratic political strategist and consultant, about whether Gerstein is a conservative or not. Gerstein made his name working for Joe Lieberman and as a critic of liberal bloggers. He's now writing for The Politico and appearing occasionally on Fox as well as doing his consulting work. I'm a government professor at Morehead State University in Kentucky. In my opinion, the main significance of this discussion is that it gives Gerstein a chance to connect with the liberal blogging community in a non-antagonistic though still critical forum. My response to Gerstein's post denying that he is a conservative is below.

Dear Dan,

Unfortunately, I'm still sick although not in a major way even though I have a blanket over my legs to keep me warm. But my mother-in-law's 90th birthday was one of the happiest and most loving events I've ever attended and my drive to Philadelphia was uneventful and pleasant. I even got some work done on a book proposal today.

Hopefully, I'll be able to keep this reply relatively short. Nevertheless, I did read all of your blog posts and your linked op-ed pieces for 2007. I still very much see you as a center-right kind of person. From my perspective and my type of liberal-left perspective has become part of the political landscape since the Iraq invasion, that makes you a conservative. At the same time, I also believe that most people with Democratic Party perspectives would look on you as a conservative.

Here's my thinking.

The Disappeared Liberal. In your last reply, you list 20 bullet points concerning views that are consistent with liberalism or the left and opposed to conservatism. Fair enough. I'll gladly concede that you have a liberal heart or a liberal self. But outside gay rights and general (and very brief) references to Bush's "botched handling of the war" (Jan.12), almost none of that appears in your blog or your op-ed writing. I don't see anything on abortion, anything on government regulation of business, or anything on safety net. You have a couple of notices on gay rights and gay marriage, but I wonder if you would have stuck up for such "risky" liberal issues if your mother and sister weren't gay. In general, you seem to have "disappeared" your liberal self. Maybe your liberal self was sent to prison in my original home region of Upstate New York. There's lots of state prisons there. Maybe it was subject to extraordinary rendition. Or maybe you just left your liberal self at a campaign event. Whatever happened, your liberal self is almost entirely gone from your blog and other writing.

If you want an idea of how little of your liberal self is present in your blog and op-ed writing, take a look at your bullet points again. Your disagreements with conservatives and criticism of the Bush administration in your reply to me far outweigh the whole sum of critical comments you made about them in all your published writing in 2007. Your May 18 and June 12 columns for the Politico are exceptions, but otherwise nobody would know that you are a partisan Democrat. There's no commentary on the war, little or nothing in the way of pithy little comments about Republican policies or personalities, and no shots at easy Bush administration targets like Dick Cheney or Condoleeza Rice.

I want to draw special attention to your writing on Rudy Giuliani. Your April 9 New York Post op-ed is so positive about Giuliani that it could have been written by Giuliani's own staff. In fact, it could have been published in TownHall.com as well. All of your criticism is reserved for liberal and netroots misperceptions. Indeed, you seem to find almost as much pleasure in Giuliani's victories over liberals in New York as Giuliani himself would. By way of contrast, when I post on Giuliani, I refer to him trying to sell a "race narrative" in which he's promising to control overseas non-whites in Iraq and Iran the same way he brought African-Americans under control in New York. In a discussion of Giuliani's personality at Matthew Yglesias' site, I (accurately) refer to Giuliani as a "super-asshole" for his treatment of Donna Hanover. Other liberal posters talk about Giuliani's dictatorial character, personal creepiness, and family problems at length. You let all of these things go because you like him as a "strong leader with a deep independent streak" (to paraphrase your March 30 post). You said in your reply that "I guess I just don’t think in those strictly partisan terms." What an understatement! Like I said, your liberal self has been disappeared.

The Real Enemy. I don't want to get too much further into your work with the Politico and appearances on Fox. You're right. You're appearances do nothing to change Fox. You're an extremely Republican-friendly Democratic commentator and I'm sure that's why both The Politico and Fox view you as attractive pundit material. You're their peculiar idea of "balance."

Instead, I want to talk about your "real enemy," the Netroots. If your blog and op-ed writing doesn't offer much criticism of the Republicans and conservatives, you certainly maintain a constant critique of progressive bloggers, the Netroots, liberals, and kossacks. Where the Republicans aren't subject to any kind of negative characterization (except for the two Politico articles), liberal bloggers are viewed as "myopic," "polarizing," "despising Republicans," as filled with hatred, or as containing a "Mao Meets McCarthy" atmosphere. In fact, it would be fair to say that you miss few opportunities to bait liberal bloggers in your blogging and journalistic work. They (more precisely "we") are your real enemy.

Why You're a Conservative. In your last reply, you claim that my argument that you're a conservative "hinges a lot on guilt by association, not on reason and logic." In fact, politics entails associations and much of the reason and logic of politics concerns associations. That's one of the reasons why Aristotle begins his Politics with a discussion of types of association rather than morality or logic. In terms of association, you're a center-right person who looks at Republican figures of the center-right with respect and affection. In a Jan. 11 post, you refer to the "sensible center-right" as a counter-point to Bush's disastrous policies and you like figures like McCain and Giuliani. That is what I was sensing when I asked about Susan Collins versus Maxine Waters. As a "very sensible" center-right senator, Susan Collins of Maine (bias alert--Susan Collins was a year ahead of me at St. Lawrence in Canton, NY and she's always made me proud as an alumni), you would like Susan Collins better than Maxine Waters. That's what makes you a conservative. When you look at people in the center-right or right, you see friends and allies, potential friends and allies, and now employers and potential employers. When you look at people on the left, you see enemies and potential enemies. You're basically the consultant version of Mickey Kaus at Slate. This is also what figures on the right see in you and that's why you're Fox's and The Politico's kind of Democrat.

Perhaps you're last reply to me and your recent Politico articles represent an effort to relocate your liberal self. If that's the case, good for you. From the evidence of your writing though, a relocation effort was necessary.

Sorry I didn't answer all your points, but I wanted to get to the heart of the issue as I saw it.

Best,

Ric