"liberals have a serious long-term problem that won't go away"

[dajoki]

| posted November 2, 2005 (November 21, 2005 issue)

The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/alterman

Can We Talk?
Eric Alterman


The conservatives may look to be imploding at the moment, but liberals have a serious long-term problem that won't go away. Despite an almost perfectly evenly divided electorate, virtually the entire government and most of the opinion media are controlled by extremist right-wing reactionaries. Their advantages, moreover, can only grow as a stacked system of representation favoring rural areas and red-state strongholds, coupled with a traditional but increasing advantage in fundraising, offer the ruling right wing further opportunities to cement their gains and pursue new ones.

To New Democrat academics (and former Clinton Administration officials) Elaine Kamarck and William Galston, authors of the study The Politics of Polarization, the answer is for Democrats to jettison their liberal base and embrace a series of conservative and centrist policy proposals. To New Republic editor Peter Beinart, it is to expunge everyone and everything associated with the 3 million-member MoveOn.org, which coincidentally happens to be the most effective organizing and fundraising tool liberals have come up with in the past two decades. Both solutions are not merely misguided but counterproductive. (Beinart's, moreover, is altogether impossible. Just how would liberals expunge MoveOn members? Loyalty oaths? Lie detector tests? What candidate is going to refuse their support? And is this really a moment when so-called "liberal hawks" ought to be lecturing those of us who were right about George Bush's catastrophic war?)

Kamarck and Galston's argument, on the other hand, seems to rest heavily on a simple misunderstanding. Just because voters refused to call themselves "liberal" doesn't mean they reject liberal policy solutions. As I pointed out in my last column, in fact the opposite is true. Kamarck and Galston counsel surrender on exactly the ground where liberals are strongest: public policy arguments where modern--admittedly chastened--liberals share a broad agreement with the majority of Americans on matters of health policy, taxation, environmental protection, regulation, freedom of choice and even most foreign policy issues. No less significant, American voters often care more about whether a given candidate truly believes what he or she says than about whatever this or that policy detail might be. Caving in to conservatives across the board would appear to confirm Robert Frost's devastating quip: A "liberal" is someone so broadminded he won't take his own side in an argument.

Moreover, as any Democratic candidate can tell you, you may not want to call yourself a "liberal," but that's what you will be called, both by Republicans and a compliant media. It's no coincidence that polls show more than twice as many voters considered John Kerry to be a "liberal" than described themselves that way. What's needed is not for liberals to eschew passion--or worse, to turn their guns on their own troops--but to fight back smartly and strategically. There is no simple way to do this, given the structural impediments, but surely the beginning of wisdom is accepting and naming the problem. Liberals need to find a means to bridge the gap between Americans' belief in liberal solutions and their willingness to trust liberals to enact them. It will be a multifaceted task, but its foundation lies in finding a language that speaks both to Americans' values and their self-interest while inspiring people to move beyond the toxicity of our O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Scarborough-style political "discourse." At the same time, it must be a language that transcends the identity politics and competing victimizations of the past few decades, which have weakened liberalism from within and tarnished its good name among the white working class.

[aquart]

1. So this is when you yell: LIBERAL AND PROUD!

PROUD OF SOCIAL SECURITY!

PROUD OF STRONG NATIONAL ALLIANCES!

PROUD OF FAIR AND RESPONSIBLE TAXATION!

PROUD OF PAY AS YOU GO INSTEAD OF SPEND, SPEND, SPEND!

PROUD OF DECENT WAGES AND BENEFITS!

NOT SO PROUD OF OUR EFFORTS ON NATIONAL HEALTH.

People want what we've got. Let's remind them what that is.

[TomClash]

2. Duh

Talk about class instead of race.

Then try to solve problems and explain the solutions simply so we can understand them.

The motto should be "we're all in this together."

That sense of community has been lost more than anything else.

[dajoki]

4. i like it!!

[TomClash]

8. Watch it!

These are "subversive" thoughts! :hi:


:dem:

[dajoki]

39. how?

:shrug:

[TomClash]

42. Talking about class in America? - Very Bad! nt

[dajoki]

49. somebody must do it n/t

[aquart]

3. And it's time to start selling national healthcare to businessmen.

GET HEALTHCARE OFF THE BACKS OF BUSINESS. MAKE AMERICA COMPETITIVE AGAIN!

Catchy slogan, yes?

[struggle4progress]

13. !

[Little Star]

27. I like n/t

[Clark2008]

50. Except we should call it National Health INSURANCE

that way you don't scare the timid into thinking you're adovcating some sort of "socialist" program.

You know how those mushy middle folks can be, especially given the Reich-wing media that holds the red states hostage (no, no Air America in my town).

[eallen]

5. Recommended. Good article.

One of the things a Democratic presidential candidate can do, that the Republicans cannot, is articulate a vision for foreign policy that is neither inherently biased against Islam, as we see on the freeper sites, nor obsequious to it as a religion, as is done in Bush's and Condi's rhetoric. While I don't know what that vision should be, some points I would suggest include:

* No state counts as a democracy unless it guarantees freedom of thought, speech and religion. There's something still broken in Afghanistan, when political dissidents are jailed for blasphemy, as happened last month.

* It's not for politicians to describe what Islam properly looks like.

* It is for politicians to say that Islam must be treated as politically equal to all other religions, both where Muslims are in the minority, and where they are the vast majority.

That's not enough. But I'd love to hear a politician say these things. (Maybe it's too much, given that they have to get elected. Still, it ought to be possible for someone not in the pocket of the religious right to articulate a more sane vision for the US to stand by.)

[Daphne08]

6. The Rights of the American Worker should be

at the forefront of the Democratic message.

Do that (and drop the gun control and immigration issues) and we'll win elections again.

[losdiablosgato]

44. That and gay marriage as well.

If we did that we would surely win.

[ulysses]

7. "admittedly chastened"?

Whatever. Homeboy doesn't speak for me, and he's a little late to the "hey, maybe the DLC doesn't know shit from shinola" party.

[rucky]

9. K&R

[Hidden Stillness]

10. Not Our "Problem"--Their Campaign of Lies, We Have to Answer

I think the only problem Democrats have had for about 25 years now, is that media ownership laws were changed, and now the biggest and most anti-democratic multi-national corporations now control the entire flow of public expression. They organize one "sales" campaign after another permanently--one week it will be "a great new diet drug" or "a fun new movie," the next it will be "Democrats are whining again but it seems all for political positioning" or "the release of Bush's dental records proves that Bush did not dodge military service"--and they will all repeat all of these things with no inflection, or you will never hear from them again. Our only problem is that there is no press anymore, no journalists; there are only the blow-dried Mass Comm majors who don't even know anything about world affairs or how the economy works, etc., and don't care. There is a totally big-business corporate ethic among these people now, and their only interest is advancing their careers. They only fight hard on behalf of their bosses.

Our only problem is that we have been under attack from this coordinated corporate media that only pretends to have separate opinions, and from the "jockeying" "D"LC, Inc., and have been unable to get air time to respond, and so even the most stupid and offensive lies have stood unanswered as if they were "fact." The commercial/consumer poison has taken over every single facet of politics now, of course, from money laundering to run Republican campaigns (the real source of their "electioneering magic") to 24-hour-a-day slander campaigns, complete with researched "phrases that work," against the People who want their system back. Everything is a goddamned slogan, and we have been suked into this too, only hurting us.

All polls, and public protests, etc., show that people agree with us, (Social Security, Iraq, price-gouging, rich people escaping taxes, corporate crime, etc.), but that when issues are not discussed and everything turns to this disconnected sloganeering and slander campaign controlled by a closed-off media, we lose, because everything has become a manicured pretense and an act--and that is what they do. I don't know how many times during the campaign, for example when John Kerry, our President, would use "framing" phrases like "opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in.." wherever, and I would be irritated and feel exploited or "played," and wonder "Why the hell don't you just talk to us like equals, like people--just refer straightforwardly to the goddamned issue!" Quit acting like a Republican, as if you have to "trick" us with advertising/behavioral research. As soon as we also got suckered into the everything-is-corporate attitude, with consultants and slogans everywhere, then we could only lose, because now it is considered "intelligent," not LYING anymore, to refuse to answer questions directly, and instead use one sales pitch after another.

A media that considered, and actually believed, Karl Rove was "brilliant," and not a vicious criminal, is obviously not made up of the mainstream American people, and when only we are attacked and jeered at, and their Republicans are cheered, covered up for, pretended to be "heroes," and treated with only friendliness, then we can only lose. It is not our bad traits--surely everyone must realize by now that only we can run a government and that Republicans are nothing but greed and crime--but this non-stop media advertising/slander campaign tricking people, that is our problem. The more facts that get out about Bush and Republicans, as lately, the more people turn against them. Very straightforward. Now just stop these "D"LC consultant campaigns of slander.

Get off the corporate mind-set of coordinated slander campaigns, looking good for the camera, and getting truthful people removed, and just blurt out the truth before you can stop yourself. People want this. There was just a tribute broadcast on C-SPAN a few days ago, for the great Representative John Dingell of Mich., who has always stood up to Republicans, shoved their faces in it, and worked hard for the people, who need government's help and do not apologize for it, as that is what democratic government is for. Be like that again, and we will fit right in.

[omega minimo]

14. Too bad reality has fallen out of fashion

That would be :sarcasm: if it weren't TRUE :bounce: :banghead:

I wish they would listen to us, HS-- we're right, of course. This is the dividing line in the "Democratic Party" and whatever progresses from it................

:kick:


"...when issues are not discussed and everything turns to this disconnected sloganeering and slander campaign controlled by a closed-off media, we lose, because everything has become a manicured pretense and an act--and that is what they do.....and I would be irritated and feel exploited or "played," and wonder "Why the hell don't you just talk to us like equals, like people--just refer straightforwardly to the goddamned issue!" Quit acting like a Republican, as if you have to "trick" us with advertising/behavioral research."

The corporate/branding handlers destroyed both Gore and Kerry BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO INTELLIGENT TO DELIVER THE WATERED-DOWN BULLSHIT LINES CONVINCINGLY and they come off as stiff and unbelievable (am I the only one who has figured this out? :hi: )

"As soon as we also got suckered into the everything-is-corporate attitude, with consultants and slogans everywhere, then we could only lose, because now it is considered "intelligent," not LYING anymore, to refuse to answer questions directly, and instead use one sales pitch after another.

"Get off the corporate mind-set of coordinated slander campaigns, looking good for the camera, and getting truthful people removed, and just blurt out the truth before you can stop yourself. People want this.....Be like that again, and we will fit right in."

It's Oldschool but it's also true. The Newspeak addicts had better get real-- real fast-- or they'll be on the Republican bandwagon whether they realize it or not.

:think:

[Hidden Stillness]

43. From "People Talking" to "Commercial Advertising"

Hi, omega minimo. Sorry for the delay. Yes, there are several points that you could make about this issue and why it hurts us and helps them, but two are:

When you convert all straightforward descriptions to slogans and sales pitches, you take the discussion out of the real world, where people live and know their experiences and problems, and where we are so strong because people agree with our solutions on all the issues. Then the presentation of issues does not relate directly to people in their own situations, and eventually does not even come across as concrete anymore. We not only lose one of our strongest points--the fact that people agree with us, not Republicans on the real issues and solutions--but eventually, the sloganeering takes on a "protected" life of its own, and gets more and more vague and phony as "consultants" start trying not to "offend people," and all these other invented commercial-ad-campaign goals, and;

When all the official, public descriptions of issues, etc., have turned from real, ordinary clear explanations to "catchy" sales pitches, the whole perspective on everything changes. It becomes a practiced, rehearsed media event; the middle class and poor, who do not have corporate connections or media "savvy," are now shut out (of their own country), and labels can now be thrown around according to stereotype, since all is now fantasized thinking. Rather than solving problems, you have endless talk about "latte liberals," "Red State values," and other totally disconnected shit. It doesn't matter that you understand an issue and will help; the important thing now is that you don't smile pretty or pitch well at fundraisers. You can't even get their attention anymore, as they are not even concerned about problem-solving (how quaint; that is for the little people), but only large-scale re-framing propaganda campaigns. Everything starts to be turned over to the "corporate way," and so you start getting all of their behavior as "normal," from slander campaigns to tax cheating, attempts to deregulate everything, coordinated phraseology, playing to the camera, censorship, laughing and jeering at middle class and poor concerns, ("You just don't understand how business works," as if this is not even our right anymore, but their property), and you get all the news coverage turned over to their financial, profit-making interests. Corporations making unimpeded profit is now presented as the only interest for "a Nation." The ad campaigns and slogans are of their world, not ours, not the world of the working or unemployed citizen who petitions the government for help.

When politics turns from clear answers about "what you are going to do," to a completely staged performance based on manipulative behavioral research, tested phrases, and Mass Comm-type classes, to get used to appearing on camera, then the entire system has been made to shift from our arena (the country, out in the open), to theirs (rich corporate capitalists and their practices). Notice that with all the pimping media coverage the Republican media gives to their Bush, Cheney, etc., none of those people ever appears before a real audience of the American people, to answer non-scripted questions, (unlike Clinton, who did it all the time). The people and their problems are never addressed under this system, only the studios where they make commercials. This is the total clue, right here. It kills the very idea of a non-organized civic world of concerns, and makes everything a corporate, mass-produced TV series, with corporate "quality control."

[omega minimo]

48. And it changes the people subjected to this global thought experiment

Thank you HS

[omega minimo]

11. The same schizoid trap lurks in this approach

" It will be a multifaceted task, but its foundation lies in finding a language that speaks both to Americans' values and their self-interest while inspiring people to move beyond the toxicity of our O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Scarborough-style political "discourse.""

Without exposing the mindfuck perpetrated on the American public for 25 years and revealing the participation of a bamboozled populace, this "language" will be more of the same. You cannot purge the "toxicity of our O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Scarborough-style political "discourse"" by using the same techniques and tactics. The propagandists must be exposed for what they are and AMERICANS MUST BE WEANED OFF THEIR ADDICTION TO LIES. The automatic credibility of the TeeVee must be challenged.

"At the same time, it must be a language that transcends the identity politics and competing victimizations of the past few decades, which have weakened liberalism from within and tarnished its good name among the white working class."

Breezy lingo about "the identity politics and competing victimizations of the past few decades" telegraphs the same attitudes and assumptions of the Republican Lite boosters that this article supposedly counters.

:kick:

[Warren Stupidity]

21. I think Eric is saying he doesn't have the answer here.

How exactly do we expose the propagandists for what they are, when we have no access to the media stream blaring into 90% of american homes?

[omega minimo]

24. By bearing witness to it in our daily lives, the unmediated part

for starters. We have enought access to SOME of the media stream now and we have the ability (hopefully) to communicate WITHOUT CONDESCENSION with the folks around us. There was a comment somewhere in the Mark Crispin Miller discussions about (something like) "being aware of the propaganda doesn't make us immune to it." That would be a VERY INTERESTING (potentially) DU discussion. Or not.

Oh yeah-- and "the automatic credibility of the TeeVee must be challenged."

As for the language that's used, my comment here was regarding the fact that Mr. A seems to be using "their" language.


"At the same time, it must be a language that transcends the identity politics and competing victimizations of the past few decades, which have weakened liberalism from within and tarnished its good name among the white working class."

Breezy lingo about "the identity politics and competing victimizations of the past few decades" telegraphs the same attitudes and assumptions of the Republican Lite boosters that this article supposedly counters.

"Competing victimizations"? :puke:

[ikri]

51. Use their own paranoia against them

They've been beating the drum about Liberal Bias in the media for years, even when it has been an absurd meme since it has become obvious that the liberal media is owned by right-wingers.

Demand a new fairness doctrine. Demand that the Liberal media give time to all valid viewpoints. A few rumors that George Soros is interested in buying a TV network would help cement the view that a new fairness doctrine is required so that the right-wing will get their views heard. Once a fairness doctrine is created, ensure that the liberal viewpoint is provided. It would end Faux News and irreparably damage right-wing radio shows.

Rely on their abundant paranoia to have them make changes for the better.

[struggle4progress]

12. The New Republic has been a rightwing front since the Reagan era.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. ya, I remember when it was more like the Nation

now it has gone totally right wing nut case.

I saw a picture of that racist warmongering asshole Beinart for the first time the other day. What is he like, 14 years old?

[AX10]

16. kick

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. what bugs me most is the total political in-astuteness of "new" Dems

I agree that we have a problem when in comes to selling some socially liberal issues among socially conservative working-class people who might otherwise be natural Democrats.

But, the Orwellian-ly named "new" Dems have no particular problem if a candidate is pro-gun control, or pro-choice or pro-gay marriage (and of course I agree on those points) They just don't want Dems who promote single payer national health care, fair trade agreements and a better safety net. They are NOT afraid of liberals and progressives advocating divisive or unpopular issues. They are afraid of candidates who advocate popular issues. Because their pals on K-Street and the boys down at the yacht club don't like it.

And then to add nuttiness to nuttiness they think that a war weary nation wants more war.

Perhaps they are too young to know or remember that the greatest Democratic landslide in American history occurred in 1964 with the promise to build the Great Society and to keep America out of war. Perhaps they are too young to know that the opportunity for the greatest Presidency and greatest progressive move forward in American history was NOT destroyed because LBJ was too weak on military matters. It was destroyed because he wanted to stay the course.

It is not some mystery of what will win elections for us. As Eric reminds us here, we only have to look at what has always and still always wins.

[seafey]

18. Thank you!

I agree completely with this response...

I don't even know that pulling for the Dems is helpful at this point anyway because of the exact things you describe. The Dems as a whole (thanks to "New" Dems) have gone so far right these days that the Dem/Repub debate is irrelevant.

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. unfortunately I do think there is a difference now-- but not because

of the progressiveness of the Democratic leadership, but because the GOP is just so whacko -- If someone tried to promote the same domestic policies that Nixon or Ford had as their core agenda-- the GOP would be denouncing them as leftwing extremist. But then again so would Al From and his band of crazies.

[Pachamama]

19. "Neo-Dems"? No thanks...

We've seen what Neo-cons do....

PS: This article suggests that the Dems expunge the members who are also Move on members/donors....Ha ha! What a laugh! They'd be screwed! Every friend of mine in the Bay Area who are big donors to the Dems (myself included) are also donors/members to MoveOn and other orgs like Emily's List, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club etc...They would be committing financial suicide if they purged us.... :eyes:

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. this article is referring to Peter Beinart, Editor of The New Republic

yes, he did say that. He's a very young guy, I suspect in he 20's, and he wants to purge the Democratic Party of Democrats.

[Aimah]

28. They wonder why so many Liberals end up voting 3rd party.

[dajoki]

31. you misread...

alterman says that is misguided and counterproductive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To New Democrat academics (and former Clinton Administration officials) Elaine Kamarck and William Galston, authors of the study The Politics of Polarization, the answer is for Democrats to jettison their liberal base and embrace a series of conservative and centrist policy proposals. To New Republic editor Peter Beinart, it is to expunge everyone and everything associated with the 3 million-member MoveOn.org, which coincidentally happens to be the most effective organizing and fundraising tool liberals have come up with in the past two decades. Both solutions are not merely misguided but counterproductive.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Eric Alterman is a smart guy!

I know I am stating the obvious. Reading his stuff reminds me again and again just how good he is.

[Popol Vuh]

23. I am a LIBERAL and I am damn proud of it...

Is it just me? Or has anyone else noticed that most people enjoy the accomplishments gained by "liberals" but turn around and use the word liberal as a derogatory term?

I think what needs to happen here is we (liberals) need use the catastrophe which has befallen upon us, which is this totally conservative controlled government, and repetitively associate the word conservative with the destruction of good paying jobs, borrow and spend, traitors, back-stabbers, war mongers, economic idiots and stuck-up anal retentive types mad because they've always been social rejects.


:rant:

[Armstead]

25. Good article

The boneheads who believe in jettisoning the very ideas where librals are strongest are the idiots who will kill the Democratic Party.

People want liberal policies that bioth protect their own self interest and strengthen the commonwealth. That is what liberals should be pounding on.

[dajoki]

30. yes, but...

we somehow have to sell it.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

29. Very well said!

A "liberal" is someone so broadminded he won't take his own side in an argument.

[inkyblacks]

32. Democrats need to curb spending to essentials to maintain power!

The problem with Democrats is the tendency to spend money on silly projects, such as Bill Clinton's "midnight basketball" program. People work hard for their money and don't want to see it thrown away. The test should be, will the public spending save the persons life, as in aid to the disabled, and will the spending program really help society, like aid to education. The Republicans are wasting our money on illegal and unnecessary wars and military projects that don't work, such as the missile defense system. The Alaskan "bridge to nowhere" is an example of the projects voters hate.

The Republicans have built up allot of resentment lately because they have been spending like blind fools. The Democrats can take over in 2008, but to maintain power they have to avoid unneeded spending and resolve the Palestinian issue as well. Israel has to be forced to retreat to their 1967 borders and this can be done under threat of a trade embargo. That is what is needed to be done to end the threat of "terrorism." Will the Democrats do it? Hillary clinton won't because she is already sold out to the Israeli lobby. We need to find a Democratic candidate who has the guts to stand up to "the lobby." Otherwise this costly war will go on until Israel and the entire Middle East are destroyed.

IB

[dajoki]

36. no democrat...

will place a trade embargo on Israel.

[Eric J in MN]

33. I call myself a liberal and I even directed a short video

about "Liberal Values:"

http://www.moveleft.com/liberal_values_american_values.html

[dajoki]

37. i loved your video, thanks

:hi:

[Eric J in MN]

40. You're welcome.

Feel free to send a link to friends or to blog about it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

38. great video -- thanks

[Eric J in MN]

41. Glad you liked it.

If you send a link to the video to a friend, you will spread the word.

[Nederland]

45. Question

Would "equal opportunity for rich and poor" include the right to send your child to a private school?

Just asking...

[TankLV]

34. Sure we do - WE WERE RIGHT!

And everybody else was WRONG!

We told you so!

Our only "problem" is how not to appear sanctimonious as we shove that little bit of reality in their faces.

Oh, and trying to suppress our glee as they are all headed out of town on a rail.

[ray of light]

35. Time to take back the word liberal!

and the word pro-life!

[drbtg1]

46. I thought that "serious long-term problem" was called...

...Republicans.

Oh, wait, that's what America's "serious long-term problem" is called.

[MissMarple]

47. If it weren't for liberals we would still be a part of England.

The founders of this country were liberals. The Constitution was inspired by the Enlightenment and espouses liberal values and ideals. It's all about the individual and the common good. It's why we sing "The Star Spangled Banner", instead of "God Save the Queen". Dammit.

If the radical right hates liberals, they hate America. Why do they hate America? :nuke: