I've been engaged in an on-conversation with Dan Gerstein, the former lead strategist for the Lieberman re-election campaign, for the better part of the month. Most of the conversation has been in this blog as well as in my MyDD diary and most of it has been about whether Gerstein is a conservative or not. I've never been convinced that he's not a conservative. In this post, however, I change the ground of the discussion from my criticism of Gerstein to some suggestions for bridging the divide between moderate types like himself and the activist liberal bloggers.
This diary is a response to Gerstein's most recent reply to me. Gerstein's reply is the most recent blog post before this one.
Dear Dan,
PREFATORY MATTER. Thanks for referring to me as a nice guy. But for better or worse, I do enjoy taking a cheap shot. Not only did I play linebacker in high school, but I got my internet start in Slate's Fray rather than the larger liberal blogs. What's different about the Fray is that lefties regularly have to face off with people on the right while debating the essays of moderates like William Saletan, Anne Applebaum and Mickey Kaus. The liberal blogs are pretty homogenous. Working from the Fray, I got a strong idea of how monstrously racist, homophobic, and generally bigoted the right is while also being bewildered about how Slate writers could keep focusing their critical guns on liberals while Bush and his people were attacking many of the fundamentals of democratic government. The moderates seemed to be stuck in 1995 and didn't care that much for the present.
LINKING. I think we both have a sense that the "conservative vs not conservative" aspect of this discussion is winding down. You're right in my still thinking of you as a conservative. But I'm also thinking about bracketing that and seeing if the discussion can move forward. What I want to suggest is laying out some links to bring together the democratic left and the middle. Let me begin with a disagreement. You write that the Netroots thinks as someone as a "bad Democrat" if you "don't detest conservatives and Republicans more broadly, publicly profess my hatred, and generally treat them as the enemy." I don't think this is the case. The Netroots types don't take anything other than a partisan approach to people like Susan Collins or Norm Coleman. They view these kinds of moderate conservatives as political enablers for the right (and are correct to do so) but don't have a lot of moral animus toward them. The Netroots views these types of Republicans more as "opponents" than "enemies" but still works energetically for their defeat.
Link 1. BEATING MODERATE REPUBLICANS. Here's the first link I'd set up between you and the Netroots. I would ask you to start viewing "reasonable" Republicans much more as opponents to be defeated than either as potential friends to be cultivated or friends to be valued. You're a Democratic strategist in the Northeast and there are a lot of vulnerable moderate or moderately conservative Republicans in the Northeast. I assume that you're like the Netroots in being oriented toward defeating these kinds of Republicans. It would help you link with the Democratic left if you took a more consistently oppositional view toward moderate Republicans in your writing and public commentary. Your New York Post op-ed on Giuliani disappointed because it focused solely on his strengths without touching on his weaknesses. Appreciating the strengths of an opponent is fine, but Democratic strategists are also in the business of defeating people like Giuliani. You can connect better with more liberal Democrats if you come down on the side of beating him. By the way, the Netroots is a very good resource for critical commentary on Giuliani. The bank of Netroots criticism on Giuliani is full. I've deposited there myself. It would be a nice link between you and the Netroots if you would draw on it.
LINK 2. LOVING THE COMPROMISERS (if not the compromise). From the Netroots side, I think it would be helpful for liberal bloggers to more openly acknowledge that Democratic liberals need to compromise with conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans to get important legislation passed. Forging these kinds of compromises and selling them is a legitimate function for liberal Congressional leaders, staff people, and commentators. I can imagine you saying something avuncular on the upcoming debates on war funding like "while it would be appropriate to cut off all funding for military operations in Iraq immediately, that kind of legislation can't pass and it is better for the Democratic leadership to seek troop withdrawal deadlines." Conversely, you might be thinking of ways to convince moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats that immediate troop withdrawals are in their interests. The point is that this kind of function is legitimate and that someone is not a "bad" or "weak" Democrat if they're thinking about compromise.
LINK 3. THE WORLD NEEDS WONKS. Also from the Netroots side, the liberal blogs I've seen (Kos, Atrios, TPM, Digby, Feministing, etc.) have an overwhelmingly critical and political focus. My modest blog is the same. The problem is that liberals in the Democratic Party tend to be strong on analysis but weak on policy ideas and especially weak on promoting them to general audiences. In general, the Democrats don't have nearly as effective a convergence of think tank/lobbyist ideas, policy proposals, and policy promotion as the right. Given the activism, enthusiasm, and talent associated with the liberal blogs, the left blogosphere is probably the best way to cover that deficit for the near future and liberal bloggers need to step up to the plate and do the needed policy wonking. In other words, the Netroots should start becoming more responsible for the policy ideas that folks like you would compromise in ways that kept the liberal ball moving forward.
LINK 4. ASSOCIATIONS DO COUNT. Back on your side and back to the associational issue. A whole range of Democratic and liberal consultants, campaign managers, and commentators became much too comfortable with conservatives during the Clinton and Bush eras. Here I'm thinking in particular of James Carville, Paul Begala, and Mickey Kaus but there's hundreds more and my overwhelming impression from our exchanges is that you're in this group. To link better with the left, you and the others would need to start being more closely associated in your own minds with people like Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee in the House, Michael Moore, MoveOn, gay rights activists, and the good government types in Common Cause than they are with people on the right. To be a liberal and a Democrat is much more of a group affiliation than it was before 9-11 and it was necessary for this to happen if we wanted to be competitive with the highly group conscious "conservative movement." Changing your associations or at least better balancing them would be an important element in linking yourself to the Netroots and the Democratic left.
CONCLUSION. Obviously, your association with Joe Lieberman in last November's campaign has poisoned the well between you and the Netroots. I don't know whether you'll ever have a chance to connect or ally with them or not. However, I do believe that the schism between the Netroots/ Democratic left and the moderate Establishment is one of the big weaknesses of political liberalism in this country and would like to see the breach healed.
Best,
Ric
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment