Michael Crowley on the House Democrats' Dilemma
At TNR.
The dilemma, of course, is whether to retaliate against the last ten years of Republican abuses or to turn the other cheek in an effort to return civility to the House. Crowley notes that the Dems favor the latter course of action, but that House Republicans haven't made it easy...and still aren't. He writes:
Still, the impulse for payback is easy to understand. In 2003, I wrote a story about the misery of being a Democrat in the GOP House, which had come to operate with all the parliamentary freedom of the North Korean Communist Party (see "Oppressed Minority," June 23, 2003). My subject was Van Hollen, whom I followed for a few days as he tried in vain to secure a vote on an amendment critical to his civil service worker constituents. After one summary rejection, Van Hollen suggested that Republicans should bring democracy to the House before imposing it on Iraq. (Miller fumed to me at the time that the GOP was running the House in a "fascistic" and "corrupt" manner.)
Republicans aren't making it easier for Democrats to forgive and forget these traumatic memories by screaming bloody murder over any perceived slight. Although Democrats have vowed to make several rules changes affording the minority more power, the House GOP has already shamelessly offered up a "Minority Bill of Rights"--copied verbatim from a 2004 Democratic proposal (which the GOP ignored). Democrats found it especially maddening to hear a complaint last week from California Republican David Dreier, who, as outgoing chairman of the House Rules Committee, smothered countless Democratic bills and amendments in their cribs. Dreier pronounced himself "very disappointed" at the lack of a GOP role in the 100-hour agenda. "I couldn't believe my ears," sighs Louise Slaughter of New York, Dreier's incoming successor as Rules chair. "If Alice in Wonderland can believe six impossible things before breakfast, David Dreier can do better."
I spend a lot of time pondering fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives--largely to no avail. But one thing I come back to time and again is that conservatives tend to be less adept at or willing to take up an objective perspective when their own interests are involved. Liberals (real liberals--not zany leftist types) seem better at what I think of as the table test--that is, better at asking "what conclusion would I draw in this case if the tables were turned?" That is, they seem to be better at preventing self-interest from clouding their judgment. This is largely responsible for the fact that they are more consistent than conservatives. In the case at hand, they sought to defend the rights of the House minority when they were it, and they're also seeking to defend those rights now that they're no longer it. On the other hand, when Republicans were in the majority, they abused their power and refused even to consider rules that guaranteed rights to the minority. Now that the tables have been turned, they not only immediately begin screaming (whining?) for such rules (before they've even suffered any abuse, incidentally), but they copy the Democrat's formerly-dismissed proposal and call it their own.
I have a tendency to be one of those liberals who's so open-minded that he has a hard time taking his own side in an argument. I actually think that's not entirely a bad thing. But, anyway, people like me are ecstatic when irrefutable evidence like this arises. There's no way to finesse it, spin it, re-interpret it or second-guess it: here's a clear case in which the actions of the Democrats are noble and those of the Republicans are craven. Moreover, the case seems to be a representative one, one that merely highlights certain virtues and vices that seem more-or-less characteristic of the respective parties.
I wouldn't be a good liberal if I didn't point out that our friends across the aisle do have their virtues, some of which we'd be well-advised to emulate. But as for the virtues in play in the case at hand...well, they'd be well-advised to try to learn a thing or two from our boys.
At TNR.
The dilemma, of course, is whether to retaliate against the last ten years of Republican abuses or to turn the other cheek in an effort to return civility to the House. Crowley notes that the Dems favor the latter course of action, but that House Republicans haven't made it easy...and still aren't. He writes:
Still, the impulse for payback is easy to understand. In 2003, I wrote a story about the misery of being a Democrat in the GOP House, which had come to operate with all the parliamentary freedom of the North Korean Communist Party (see "Oppressed Minority," June 23, 2003). My subject was Van Hollen, whom I followed for a few days as he tried in vain to secure a vote on an amendment critical to his civil service worker constituents. After one summary rejection, Van Hollen suggested that Republicans should bring democracy to the House before imposing it on Iraq. (Miller fumed to me at the time that the GOP was running the House in a "fascistic" and "corrupt" manner.)
Republicans aren't making it easier for Democrats to forgive and forget these traumatic memories by screaming bloody murder over any perceived slight. Although Democrats have vowed to make several rules changes affording the minority more power, the House GOP has already shamelessly offered up a "Minority Bill of Rights"--copied verbatim from a 2004 Democratic proposal (which the GOP ignored). Democrats found it especially maddening to hear a complaint last week from California Republican David Dreier, who, as outgoing chairman of the House Rules Committee, smothered countless Democratic bills and amendments in their cribs. Dreier pronounced himself "very disappointed" at the lack of a GOP role in the 100-hour agenda. "I couldn't believe my ears," sighs Louise Slaughter of New York, Dreier's incoming successor as Rules chair. "If Alice in Wonderland can believe six impossible things before breakfast, David Dreier can do better."
I spend a lot of time pondering fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives--largely to no avail. But one thing I come back to time and again is that conservatives tend to be less adept at or willing to take up an objective perspective when their own interests are involved. Liberals (real liberals--not zany leftist types) seem better at what I think of as the table test--that is, better at asking "what conclusion would I draw in this case if the tables were turned?" That is, they seem to be better at preventing self-interest from clouding their judgment. This is largely responsible for the fact that they are more consistent than conservatives. In the case at hand, they sought to defend the rights of the House minority when they were it, and they're also seeking to defend those rights now that they're no longer it. On the other hand, when Republicans were in the majority, they abused their power and refused even to consider rules that guaranteed rights to the minority. Now that the tables have been turned, they not only immediately begin screaming (whining?) for such rules (before they've even suffered any abuse, incidentally), but they copy the Democrat's formerly-dismissed proposal and call it their own.
I have a tendency to be one of those liberals who's so open-minded that he has a hard time taking his own side in an argument. I actually think that's not entirely a bad thing. But, anyway, people like me are ecstatic when irrefutable evidence like this arises. There's no way to finesse it, spin it, re-interpret it or second-guess it: here's a clear case in which the actions of the Democrats are noble and those of the Republicans are craven. Moreover, the case seems to be a representative one, one that merely highlights certain virtues and vices that seem more-or-less characteristic of the respective parties.
I wouldn't be a good liberal if I didn't point out that our friends across the aisle do have their virtues, some of which we'd be well-advised to emulate. But as for the virtues in play in the case at hand...well, they'd be well-advised to try to learn a thing or two from our boys.
posted by Winston Smith at
8:40 AM
14 Comments:
I think that this comes from a view of politics-as-war. Once politics is a black and white, us or them, we win or we lose sort of an affair, then all of this makes sense.
When you're in the majority, you do everything you can to exploit that advantage, and when you're in the minority, you do everything you can to make it harder on the other guy. it's not about fairness or decency, it's about winning. Because this is war.
It's not really inconsistent, as long as you're in that mindset. Now, that may be a repellent mindset (and it is), but that's another issue.
Digby had a post up yesterday about empathy and the ability to think abstractly. GOPers have no empathy, nor can they think abstractly. It is not that they don't, it is that they can't. The idea of being in a position of vulnerability or somehow needing help is simply not considered.
As a result, and as Digby points out...they only take up "liberal" causes when they themselves have been affected. Wife with breast cancer, brother with AIDS, cousin without health insurance...unless it is personal, it isn't real. They are mental midgets of the worst kind.
Andrew Sullivan personifies this, riding his intellectual high horse when it comes to gay rights (which affect him) but allowing others who are not treated fairly in our nation to fend for themselves. Again, no ability to apply principles and ideas to groups of people that do not include yourself.
GOPers are not principled. They also are not smart. A smart person without principles can get things done, likewise, a principled person who is not the brightest bulb can also have good effects. The current GOP combination is toxic, as it rewards stupidity AND mendacity. It really is a race to the bottom.
I think that Mr. Smith's reference to "crazy lefties" or other appellations refers to those who allow their principles to override their intelligence, that is, the pragmatic and real world consequences of ideals are rejected or ignored. On the other hand, it is my opinion that "centrists" allow their supposed intelligence to eviscerate their ideals, arguing pragmatism and incremental change (or even against their own party) where the principled position quite clearly indicates that no such compromise should be made. Exhibit A: Iraq war. Exhibit B: health insurance. Exhibit C: bankruptcy bill. You get the idea.
Large, bad, and damaging institutions and procedures do not get changed by "tweaking" them while appealing to pragmatism. They get changed by a forceful voicing of principles, what is important, and that certain things are paramount no matter how "inconvenient." Witness Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, GI Bill, Earned Income Tax Credit, Pell Grants, etc. These are all programs that were wildly unpragmatic when instituted, but have paid huge dividends.
Principles require looking long term, recognizing that initial sacrifice is necessary...and worthy. GOPers can't abstract to this level. Shit, they can't think past next week. Deficits don't matter, breaking the military is fine, etc. The only long-term goals they support are ones that pay immediate dividends to their supporters in the form of money such as star wars missile defense, or going back to the moon, building more prisons.
The main point is that GOPers are stupid, and they are unprincipled. They are the true hedonists, interested in pleasure without consideration of the consequences either to themselves or others. Watch for it this weekend, as we learn that Republicans were the true champions of MLK, while those on the left endorsed segregation.
Adhering to principles and not reality can make you a crazy leftist. Adhering to neither makes you a Republican. Adhering to both makes you a thoughtful citizen, regardless of which party you vote for based on your personal views (although it seems to me you will be on the Democrat side). It is a fact that adherents to Burke, Goldwater, and other "conservative" thinkers who had principles simply cannot recognize the GOP as a party that shares their views. The GOP is, fundamentally, about the GOP, not about anything larger or more noble.
Rant finished. For now.
GOPers have no empathy, .... It is not that they don't, it is that they can't.
I agree with some of your rant, AF, but this is wrong. GOPers do have empathy, and their refusal to extend it more widely is a greater moral failing than if they were merely sociopaths.
Conservatives love their children; they have empathy for them, wipe their noses and behinds, cuddle them, comfort them when they cry. Often, though, they fail to extend their empathy to anyone not in their immediate family. (Ironic that they completely miss the message of Jesus even while they insist on inflicting their version of it on everyone.)
Conservatives also learn empathy when they experience needing it, as your examples show. What they refuse to do is extend their empathy outside their in-group. It's a very tribal and prejudiced way to live.
I have to disagree fairly strongly with A-funk. Most conservatives are not simply evil or stupid, and any theory that makes them come out that way should be suspect.
Furthermore, you're way off base when writing of nutty lefties. The nutty lefties of which I speak (rather rare in America at large, but reasonably common in Academia) are not simply persons of strong principle. You try to spin it so that those folks are simply idealistic. But that's wrong. Their principles are wrong. Why anyone who had read this blog would think that I have any aversion to idealism or sticking to one's principles is beyond me.
I'm speaking of e.g. the "all intercourse is rape" feminists, the Marxist dead-enders, the postmodern misologists and suchlike. Liberals often deny that such folks exist, and my only response there is that we must move in different circles.
At any rate, I stick to my original post, and am baffled by this particular misunderstanding.
And, incidentally, why pick out one parenthetical aside which merely notes what every rational person must recognize as true--that there are *some* wacky extremists on the left--in a post devoted almost entirely to discussing one way in which liberals are better than conservatives?
Have you, A-funk, joined the ranks of those who think that no criticism of liberalism is ever permissible (unless, of course, one is criticizing it for not being liberal enough)?
Wnson, I think we have a bona fide misundertaning here, one that I will admt I have done my fair share in contributing to. That said, I will try to clarify.
First, there are wacky extremists on the left. I attribute this to over-abstraction, that is to say, an adherence to "principles" without regard to practicality. I certainly would not claim that such extremists are purely on the left or the right.
Second, I do strongly feel that the abstraction is a method of thinking that is often conveniently discarded by the GOP when it comes to enacting and advocating policy. The mode of thinking seems to be "if it doesn't affect me, it isn't real." Reading your posts, I realize that critcizing GOPers for lack of abstraction is a shotgun approach to a situation that requires more accuracy.
It is not that GOPers cannot abstract...peace, freedom, democracy, etc. are all tried and true ideas that form the basis of severely misguided policies. Instead, a refusal to discuss or address the consequences of these ideals in the context of lives at stake, costs, and sustainability make the GOP project unsustainable and deeply unserious in my mind.
On any given day, the realitiy of mass death and destruction is subverted to the abstration of "free markets" or "democracy." In short, the GOP has a hard time recognizing and confronting the realities that occur when their abstract rhetoric actually is the driving force in policy decisions that affect the world.
Dems...not so much. We don't pretend that tax cuts will grow the economy, nor do we pretend that invading countries will be cost-free or that occupying said countries will be short, simple, and easy. In short, Dems honestly try to solve problems (and often fail), but do not propose up-is-down policies. We do not try to convince people that easing taxes on the rich will help the poor, nor do we pretend that imposing democracy at the end of a gun barrel is a perfect solution to centuries old conflicts.
Which leads to the final point...GOP foreign policy and domestic ideas are, in my opinion, stupid. Just won't work, have objectively been shown not to work, and will not work in the future. Tax-cuts, invasions, privatization of basic infrastructure, ets. are all GOP mantras. They are dumb. They do not work. They put human lives at risk, and they only serve to enrich a certatin small class of individuals. As sustainable policy, the ideas are profoundly idiotic.
So...I think we have an honest disagreement. That's all fine and good. I don't think I unfairly criticized your original post. As far as your statement that any theory that most conservatives are evil and stupid...I never claimed they were evil. I do stand behind the idea that they are stupid, for the reasons set forth in previous posts. Intellecutal rigor aside, a person who cannot understand what others not similarly situated might be going through, and might require in terms of government help or support, is not smart. He or she is insulated, and therefore ignorant, that is, dumb.
I do not circulate in academic circles these days, and your examples are no doubt true. That said, I have to deal with people every day insisting on a 9/11 Iraq connection, why gays are bad, ranting against any health care reform, trashing illegal immigrants, etc. And what I do is not even political in nature...these are just office water cooler conversations.
So that's that, hope I clarified my post. As a final note, I would enjoy seeing any response you might have that GOPers simply don't give a rat's ass unless in affects them personally. I think this is true, but would appreciate your thoughts.
please forgive typos, not sure what is up...
Well, I'm just talking about general tendencies... There's no way you'll get me to accept the proposition that NO Republicans care about anything that doesn't affect them personally. For one thing, not all Republicans are conservatives (there are libertarians and some Whiggish types). For another thing, the universal generalization is just obviously false, whereas I'm inclined to accept the claim about tendencies.
Fair enough, my statement is, in fact, obviously false, and making such statements for effect is of intensely limited value. I resolve to be more accurate.
You the man, A-funk.
Did you guys plan this just to give TVD an object lesson?
You rang?
I thought I'd sit this one out, as I found nothing to engage. Some sort of coherent argument could be made that the right is too abstract, that they don't properly consider flesh-and-blood human beings, but the exact opposite tack was taken at first.
I did find worthy WS' argument that the left can be quite abstract as well, and was pleased to see the central thesis take a 180 when exposed to the light of reason.
That conservatives are deemed capable of abstract thinking after all (although flawed, and they still remain unfeeling bastards) is progress of a sort. I'm happy to see the disposal of at least the former calumny, and as for the latter one, my object lesson was I should spend my time elsewhere, examining the facts and not fictions of our underlying philosophies.
But thanks for thinking of me, LL.
Uh...not sure which point you think did a 180...
Remember: my point wasn't that conservatives are incapable of abstraction. Rather, that they value their own self-interest too much, ergo don't act on a certain kind of important principle as much as they should.
A-funk added the stuff about abstraction in general.
uh....huh?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home