The problem of the moderates
Chris at Open Left has a good one today, achingly obvious, yet still worth the read, So-called “Moderates” Have Become the Problem:
These so-called moderates are the real barrier to the progressive change that the country needs right now. As such, we should be directing our fire at them, rather that at the right-wing. Currently, the right-wing has no power whatsoever unless the moderates in Congress choose to side with them. And yet, it is the right-wing that progressive media keep aiming most of their attacks…
Wingnuttery is a tempting and easy target. Further, after eight eyars of the bush administration, attacking it has also grown into a real habit for progressives. However, after the electoral successes of 2008, the political reality has changed, and we need to change with it. Now, we have to direct our ire at the so-called moderates impeding real change, until such point as the congressional leadership and Obama administration have delivered more of what they promised during those long years when we all worked our asses off to get them elected.
He’s right; wingnuttery is a pathetically easy target – if it weren’t, this blog would’ve gone the way of OJ Simpson’s career a long time ago. It is so easy to mock them, due to the outlandish, ridiculous, reality-challenged, Rapture-ready outlook they have. It’s not so easy to mock the moderate corporate sell-outs -what is going on is a bit more nuanced, and there’s no Joe the Plumber/Sarah Palin level of glaring mental deficiency to continually poke fun at and make silly photoshops of. It takes a more measured “this is how they’re fucking up progress” approach, which obviously requires a higher level of discourse (and persuasion).
It’s often easy to say that if you don’t stand for something, you stand for nothing, which is how I tend to characterize a lot of so-called “moderate” positions. Real change comes from the die-hards, whether it be left or right, to use that tired dichotomy for a second. These moderates apparently do stand for something – the preservation of corporate power, nothing more, which is not change by any stretch of teh imagination.
We need more primary challenges. I was talking to Jack about this at the BBQ this weekend. As one who only nominally buys in to the “more, and better Dems” thing (in actuality, I just want more better people there in general, and believe that the Dem party structure is part of the problem, not the solution), I believe there needs to be some serious Stalinist purges challenges to the Dem status quo. We’ve seen glimmers of that with people like Donna Edwards and such, but it needs to go much, much further than it has. And no, I don’t put any hope or faith in the Dems, I’m just realistic that our options are truly limited at this particular point in time, with the way the system is currently structured.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
And liberals. A liberal will find a ‘liberal’ reason for selling out, cashing in, changing positions (Kama Sutra Liberals), and just about anything he/she thinks will be tolerated as long as some ‘greater good’ is attached (or at least, a hug). Yes, the yuppie moderate/liberal has a lot to lose if the nation goes batshit radical.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Yeah, but there’s gotta be something between liberal and radical… realist, perhaps?
June 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
This is pretty foolish. Attacking the people who lean left for not leaning far enough left seems to me self destructive. Especially since the only reason there were any ” Electoral successes in 2008″ came 100% from the moderate. Now but 6 months later it’s time to take the screws to them. Shenanigans!! It’s this kind of strategy that keeps people on the fringe and hinders progress.
Not to mention how many posts have I read on this blog about how wonderful and silly it is to watch Republican party in-fighting after a failed 8 yrs. Seems short sighted to start in-fighting when you have a seat at the table for the first time in a decade. Seems a great way to lose your seat at the table too.
This is why the Republicans are better politicians and pretty much own the Presidency since the 70′s. Embrace the public and work from with in.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:11 am
You said embrace the public and work from within. Ok, well that’s not what these so-called moderates are doing. For example, poll after poll shows high support from the public fo r a public option in healcare reform, yet these moderates are doing thier best to side with the GOP and not have that happen. Are they listening to the public? Hell, no. All these “moderates” do is defend the status quo. Period.
And no, the electoral success didn’t come 100% from moderates. In fact, the candidates that fared best were the ones that took bold, concise positions on things, not ones who were only a shade different than their GOP opponent.
This capitulative moderation is what kept Dems out of power for so long… given the choice between Republican and Republican-lite, people chose the real one.
Ultimately, results are what matters, and if they are hindering progress, yes, we need to take the screws to them. Enough of defending the status quo. You’re right… they need to embrace the public. And they aren’t. Off with their heads.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:56 am
You can ROCK THE BOAT now, it’s been bailed-out. It is appropriate now to demand ‘progess’–radical progress. Electing Obama was supposed to be the first step towards a national turnaround, MJM, not just a “stay in place and be well-mannered at the table or you’ll get no food” scenario. Feeling Good About Obama Time is over. Time to start getting real. The War’s are still on, the Corporate Reich is still in power, etc., and we seem to have no definitive goals for social and economic justice. Just a lot of whacky Republican sex scandals–ENTERTAINMENT wasn’t the goal in electing Obama. I think the word was CHANGE.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
“I don’t put any hope or faith in the Dems, I’m just realistic that our options are truly limited at this particular point in time, with the way the system is currently structured.”
So, it might be fair to say that you’re moderating your political stance towards something less than what you’d actually like or prefer based on the status quo of current mainstream American politics…
July 1st, 2009 at 1:24 pm
wdh3: “t might be fair to say that you’re moderating your political stance towards something less than what you’d actually like or prefer based on the status quo of current mainstream American politics.”
I’m not necessarily going to deny that. I haven’t necessarily figured out what it is that I would like, though. I don’t have a problem with representative democracy or even heavily regulated capitalism, so that probably disqualifies me from the radical camp from the outset, which I’m fine with.
I guess to further comment on that, and I was saying this years ago…we’re at point “A” right now. Radicals talk about what they’d like to see at point, let’s say H or J, very far from where we’re at right now (not saying anything wrong with that, just making a point). I’d like to know what point C is and how we get to E. Nobody seems to have that answer,as “revolution” and “tearing down the system” don’t seem to be working in the least. One of those things, I think, is purging the Dem party of corporate hacks and enablers. Of course, if one doesn’t believe in the state or such, that’s not going to be a suitable answer.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Seems a bit tangental JD, unless I’m missing something (wouldn’t be the first time however).
My point is merely that you seem to be saying there’s Group A (conservatives) who are largely irrelevant now, which is a shame cause it’s so easy to mock them and also so fun to do so (very true), Group B (moderates) who, though slightly more difficult and nuanced to deal with, nonetheless are rightfully deserving to be attacked full-on from the left because they are in fact the one’s now holding down the “rightward” pull on the Democratic leadership and overall national political spectrum which it’s desirable to nudge ever so-closer to Group C (a liberal stance) in service of Group D (a hitherto undefined progressive-left which you support and identify with to varying degrees but have never yet identified except to keep from calling it a libertarian socialist perspective).
My question is what makes this formula (If A<0, then B= the division of C and thus the failure to reach D) any different from the one I’d suggest (If B<0, then C= the division of D and the failure to reach E)?
How is your vantage more legitimate or useful than mine?
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:28 am
First off, I don’ thave a problem calling it a libertarian-socialist perspective at all, in fact, I have, and can identify with that (much, much more than “anarchist”, as I don’ t have a problem with the concept of “the state”, just its current incarnation).
What is “0″ representing? I’m not really understanding your political algebra, so I can’t answer. I will concede that my vantage is less defined than yours is, but neither seems to be making much headway in terms of tangible progress.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 am
“You said embrace the public and work from within. Ok, well that’s not what these so-called moderates are doing”. No you’re right. That’s what you and your ilk should be doing..
Look, the point here is that in this political system the simple fact is to achieve any goal you must build consensus and consensus takes time. It is the only way a representative democracy works. The consensus is the moderate. I would think any movement would do its best to court them rather than ostracize them. You say the moderate defends the status quo. I say the moderate just hasn’t heard any better (read practical) ideas from legitimate candidates.
I get that you are frustrated but demanding progress or else just leaves you with “or else”. The best you can hope for is converting as many people as possible and gaining a stronger voice. This certainly takes longer than 6 months.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
See, I take issue with your flawed principle that the “consensus is the moderate”. The “opportunist is the moderate” would be a more accurate description. What, specifically, again, does this moderate stand for other than the defense of the status quo? What principles, other than opportunism, guide them?
To say the “moderate just hasn’t heard any better (read practical) ideas from legitimate candidates”… my gawd. Do the many members of the progressive caucus (already in office) count? There are plenty of great, practical, and necessary ideas in Congress – the moderate just hinders them at every opportunity. The ideas are there; they are just continually obstructed by corporate enablers, also known as “moderates”. They are not interested in “better” ideas, simply because of the fact that most of the “better” ideas would benefit ordinary people instead of the corporate plutocracy.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I must respectfully disagree with your definition of a moderate. The moderates are the impressionable, malleable majority that when pulled to either side of the political spectrum decide elections for that party. You could berate them for sitting on the fence but it’s more politically constructive to look at them as a potential asset and future partner. We are talking ultimately about getting things done right? A representative democracy is based on electing the like minded and obtaining majority. I don’t see how calling people names and spinning accusations helps you achieve this.
I’m headed to Maine to get a different perspective with beer and BBQ.
As far as the many progressives in congress with the practical and necessary ideas… I can only say you need more of them because they are not the majority. You cannot forge these people out of thin air. You need to convert what already exists. Like it or not.. Majority wins in this country and it’s your only shot in getting results.
Anyway.. Enjoy the 4th and try not to light yourself on fire in protest
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
“0″ being “zero” as in “(insert letter here) is politically less than zero…”
As for your willingness to call your own a “libertarian socialist” perspective, well, my friend, that is anarchism….
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:53 pm
“Attacking the people who lean left for not leaning far enough left seems to me self destructive.”
I agree completely with this. This is exactly the mistake that the GOPers are making in their own Party…targeting those that they feel aren’t “conservative” enough.
BTW, this kind of rhetoric is very, very similar to what I hear from Progressives in VT about the Dems here.
————————————————————-
“For example, poll after poll shows high support from the public fo r a public option in healcare reform, yet these moderates are doing thier best to side with the GOP and not have that happen. Are they listening to the public? Hell, no.”
Hey, this is more about campaign contributions from the health care industry than anything else. I’ve always said that a real single-payer system will come from the states, not the feds…just like it did in Canada (and I’m not advocating for their system here) with the provinces up there.
—————————————————
“Look, the point here is that in this political system the simple fact is to achieve any goal you must build consensus and consensus takes time. It is the only way a representative democracy works.”
“A representative democracy is based on electing the like minded and obtaining majority.
Exactly. I’m a moderate on a few issues, like budgeting, and I see no problem with that.