Attacking Centrist Dems Before The Electoral Ink Is Even Dry
The metaphorical ink is not even dry on the ballots before Atrios has turned his guns on centrist Dems. There is no "stupid or lying" puzzle in Atrios's case--I'm sure he's being perfectly honest here.
He honestly thinks that civility in politics is unimportant. But smart people who have been in the Senate for a long time disagree with him, noting that the decline in civility has had profoundly negative effects on the proper functioning of the legislature. And anyone who's watched the course of this election recognize a similar point. Much of Obama's strength comes from centrists and conservatives who have been driven away from McCain. One wonders what election Atrios has been watching.
Liberals of Atrios's stripe have the following in common with conservatives of Bush's stripe: they think you can be gratuitously vicious to people without significant effect. Bushies believe that we needn't show respect to other countries--we can bully them and disrespect them as much as we want--and this will not have significant effect on the international order, nor on achieving our national goals. And we can demonize the other domestic political party, and, again, there will be no significant effect on our politics, nor on the smooth functioning of our democracy.
But these things are all false.
Fortunately, Barack Obama fairly clearly recognizes this. (Which is part of the reason why, as I've predicted, leftier Dems will be complaining about Obama within the year.)
Civility is not merely some aesthetic flourish. It's closer to being the heart and soul of the proper functioning of our democracy. A commitment to civility doesn't mean a commitment to giving in on all points; it's nothing more than a commitment to recognize the humanity and rationality of those on the other side of the issue, even when they seem to be wrong.
We don't face only two options here: (a) giving in on all points of disagreement and (b) riding roughshod over the concerns of the other half of the country. There's an obvious third alternative, and it's baffling why anyone would pretend that there isn't.
Winning needn't turn us into Karl Rove.
The metaphorical ink is not even dry on the ballots before Atrios has turned his guns on centrist Dems. There is no "stupid or lying" puzzle in Atrios's case--I'm sure he's being perfectly honest here.
He honestly thinks that civility in politics is unimportant. But smart people who have been in the Senate for a long time disagree with him, noting that the decline in civility has had profoundly negative effects on the proper functioning of the legislature. And anyone who's watched the course of this election recognize a similar point. Much of Obama's strength comes from centrists and conservatives who have been driven away from McCain. One wonders what election Atrios has been watching.
Liberals of Atrios's stripe have the following in common with conservatives of Bush's stripe: they think you can be gratuitously vicious to people without significant effect. Bushies believe that we needn't show respect to other countries--we can bully them and disrespect them as much as we want--and this will not have significant effect on the international order, nor on achieving our national goals. And we can demonize the other domestic political party, and, again, there will be no significant effect on our politics, nor on the smooth functioning of our democracy.
But these things are all false.
Fortunately, Barack Obama fairly clearly recognizes this. (Which is part of the reason why, as I've predicted, leftier Dems will be complaining about Obama within the year.)
Civility is not merely some aesthetic flourish. It's closer to being the heart and soul of the proper functioning of our democracy. A commitment to civility doesn't mean a commitment to giving in on all points; it's nothing more than a commitment to recognize the humanity and rationality of those on the other side of the issue, even when they seem to be wrong.
We don't face only two options here: (a) giving in on all points of disagreement and (b) riding roughshod over the concerns of the other half of the country. There's an obvious third alternative, and it's baffling why anyone would pretend that there isn't.
Winning needn't turn us into Karl Rove.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:59 AM
3 Comments:
WS,
I find that I have a different take on Atrios. In particular, I think to summarize Black's position as:
"He honestly thinks that civility in politics is unimportant."
misses Black's concern.
I would say that Black honestly agrees with Yglesias that:
"What Democrats need to do if they want to prosper in 2010 and 2012 is deliver the goods. In other words, return the economy to prosperity, avoid terrible foreign affairs calamities, etc."
I think Black believes that, historically, Democrats have sacrificed good policy to offer civility to Republicans, even when those Republicans have been grossly uncivil in their treatment of Democrats.
Now, we can debate if:
1) Democrats have allowed being civil towards Republicans to prevent good policies from being enacted, and
2) Republicans have not been civil towards Democrats.
However, given those two beliefs, Black's position is quite rational.
Why? Because
1) Valuing civility over good policy in the short term only makes sense when it allows good policy to prevail in the long term; and
2) Unilateral, unreciprocated, civility is actually servility, and will not allow good policy to prevail in the long term.
I think it is analogous to the position set forth in your post on the assault on the Democratic tracker.
I'm sure this won't be a very popular comment, but I have to say that I got almost as angry at the Democratic victim of this assault as I did at the Republican aggressor. Look, you have to be willing to defend yourself. ... It's immoral to allow yourself to be assaulted in this way. One has an obligation to defend the innocent when possible, and this means yourself as well as others. ... It's just wrong to allow yourself to be pushed around in this way.
Black believes that the Republican party has a long history of political assault, and that the Democrats have acquiesced to that assault in the name of preserving civility. He believes, I suspect, that it is wrong for the Democrats to let themselves be pushed around politically just as it was wrong for the tracker to let himself be pushed around physically.
When the rump of Republican wingnuts (see today's Krugman) restarts the mighty Wurlitzer, claiming that we Dems are cowards for leaving Iraq (slowly, I'm sure) or that we're ruining the economy (!) by making the rape-and-pillage class of feudal lords pay up or that we're destroying everything good about the "real America" by doing things in our private lives that fundies and prudes don't approve of, I'm all for telling them politely to fuck off.
Which of course will entail not using the word 'fuck'. But if the Washington Democrats once again fail to enact the policies they were elected to enact (see 2006), there will and should be hell to pay for them.
My view of the need for civility: The Democrats must remain civil to the people, both their supporters and their opponents. The economic crisis is really a common crisis, and the remedies will need continual explanation, review, and improvement.
But for the Washington Republicans who fucked up (sorry, that word again) everything, the right attitude is a dollop of the sort of benign contempt usually reserved for a self-centered child who won't settle down out in public.
I think you're being overly charitable to Atrios, James. But I'm willing to keep an open mind.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home