> Among other things, it is one of the sources of the liberal
> elitestereotype, in a historical sense. And while there have been
> numerous Democrats who have tried to resurrect the alliance with the
> working class over the years, the dominant, Clinton wing of the party
> clings to this failed strategy. They essentially agree with the
> Republicans on economic issues, write off the working class, and try
> instead to win the votes (and the campaign contributions) of educated,
> professional people by taking liberal stands on social issues. Their
> idea of politics is a war of enlightened CEOs versus backwards CEOs.
While I don't doubt that Frank's knowledge of the DP is superior to mine, I'd like some specific names attached to this term "dominant, Clinton wing," since I don't quite think it is accurate. I would have thought that the union influence in the party is greater than that, for instance. Or is he counting the union wing of the party in this "dominant wing"? In which case he is saying that unions are writing off the working class -- which again may be true in some sense, but I think it needs a lot of explanation and qualification.
Also, if Gephardt gets the VP nod, would that be a step away from this "dominant, Clinton wing"?
> This strategy has been disastrous in the extreme. While stripping away
> any economic reason for working people to vote Democratic, it has
> simultaneously played into the liberal elitestereotype which is the
> Republicansstrongest weapon. The result is what you see around you:
> Republicans talk constantly about class grievances, albeit in a coded
> and inverted way, while Democrats never bring it up at all,
> desperately trying to prove their centristbona fides. What liberals
> must do to beat the backlash, it seems obvious to me, is to resurrect
> old-fashioned, upper-case-P populism, and to wage non-coded,
> non-inverted class war. They must at the very minimum counter
> Republican appeals to social class with their own appeals to social
> class.
I'd like a little clarification about this, too. Just how does he recommend waging this non-coded class war? And does he expect the DP to actually do it in the foreseeable future? Much as I harbor suspicions of the idea of third parties in the US, I think this may be a more likely role for a third party. But there is always a possibility that the DP could regain its "soul," I guess.
> In other words, theyre all about the sheer weirdness of our times. We
> inhabit a nation where the culture screams constantly about how
> rebellious and nonconformist and Xtreme we are, but where the politics
> constantly move to the right. My larger point is that these two
> aspects of our times are connected to each other; that our
> pseudo-revolutionary culture in some way helps to generate our
> reactionary politics, and vice-versa. We talk a lot about both parts
> of American life, but always separatelypondering one in the front
> pages and the other in the Businessor Stylesection. My object is to
> consider both at the same time, to point out that these two aspects of
> America thrive symbiotically on one anothers excesses. The
> white-collar rebels shock and annoy the pious; the blue-collar
> Republicans are duly shocked and annoyed; and they vote to shower even
> more power, more tax cuts, more deregulation, on the white-collar
> rebels whom they despise so deeply. This topsy-turvy system works.
Perhaps, though, it is being short-circuited in this election year. Kerry, as the standard-bearer of the DP (up to now the Central Committee of the "white-collar rebel elite") is working hard, it seems to be, to come off as a reformed rebel -- he sowed his rebel oats as a youth, objecting to the Vietnam War, but is much more "responsible" now. At the same time, the blue-collar conservatives are perhaps getting a little sick by now of being economically screwed -- to the point of having to work three jobs per family, when they can find them, and still worry about defaulting on their mortgages -- by their Republican heros. It could be, despite his well-known flaws in the eyes of the Left, that Gephardt could be a savvy choice, if he could reinforce the kind of populism Frank is looking for.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A gentleman haranguing on the perfection of our law, and that it was equally open to the poor and the rich, was answered by another, 'So is the London Tavern.' -- "Tom Paine's Jests..." (1794); also attr. to John Horne Tooke (1736-1812) by Hazlitt