Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Hidden Dimensions of American Politics, Part II

The Hidden Dimensions of American Politics, Part II

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Consider the following description of the Democratic Party by ZZ Packer, a regular contributor to The Huffington Post. The article in question is “ZZ Packer Takes on Geraldine Ferraro,” March 15, 2008, and the context, the immediate aftermath of Ms Ferraro’s notorious remarks concerning Mr. Obama’s qualifications.

“The Democratic Party is a loosely held federation of voters whose concerns range far and wide; there are working-class whites who would otherwise be Republicans if they weren't in unions; there are Catholics and other religious voters who believe in peace and social justice issues despite being wooed by the right's pro-life extremists; there are the progressive East and West Coast middle and upper-middle class whites, Latinos in Texas and California and Arizona. There are gay and gay families who believe the Democrats' championing of civil rights is their best hope as a safeguard against bigotry. There are socially conservative African-Americans in the cities like Detroit and Chicago and New York, but also in the ‘Solid South’; a region whose support is absolutely necessary to for any party's nominee to win the presidency. The party is a sort of connective tissue for various issue voters; a loss of one constituent threatens the viability of the entire organism.”

Whether we agree with Mr. Altschul on some or most of the details is less important than to recognize that he’s onto something. The Democratic Party is “a loosely held federation of voters” and “a connective tissue [of sorts] for various issue voters.” Understand, further, that by “the party” Mr. Atschul doesn’t simply mean the politicians or their appointees. Nor does he (necessarily) mean registered Democrats, only those who, when in the ballot box and faced with the moment of truth, will vote the democratic ticket because of the issues.

Fair enough, you say. So we’re dealing here with a fairly comprehensive definition of the Democratic Party, let’s state this at the outset. There are, besides, many elements in the aforementioned definition which could well be applied to the Left, like the kind of core values, for example, around which the Left tends to coalesce, or the fact that it is a coalition, in a manner of speaking. Even so, I’d like to argue that it fails to describe the Left (not that Mr. Altschul had intended for it to do so). And furthermore, that to understand how Mr. Altschul’s definition is defective in the mentioned respect is the first step to understanding the Left and how it differs from the conventional meaning(s) attached to such traditional institutions and terms of political discourse as party, voting bloc, and the like.

By all reasonable calculations, the Left should have petered out by the mid ‘70s. Whether for lack of our political will or the wherewithal, the Vietnam conflict was over. With little or no resistance, the North Vietnamese entered Saigon on April 30, 1975, and the Thiệu government collapsed. To beat the impeachment charges, Nixon resigned (Gerald Ford serving the remainder of the term), and the concept of transparency in government was more or less restored. The Civil Rights had been won and the radical element of the Black Power movement lay dormant. Jimmy Carter was in, and the hippie movement had given way to the yuppies. Even Ronald Reagan’s two-term presidency didn’t raise much of a stink, except for the Iran-Contra affair and “letting out the homeless” by denying funding to state hospitals and institutions (or so the perception was). Likewise with the first of the Bushes and the First Gulf War. And then, there were the Clinton years, surely the Left’s panacea. In short, the Left had won its significant victories and, by all reasonable accounts, it should have faded away in glory. The fact that it didn’t, that it kept on resurfacing off and on, time and again – and at the least expected of times and places -– is a testimonial to its staying power. It also tells of its nature.

About Roger Nowosielski

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Roger, I think you’ve identified the Left fairly well here. The question remains of what to do about it.

    I think the Iraq war is key to understanding what the modern left is, because Bush’s actions in Iraq are the essence of liberalism, and that liberal drive to free people and put an end to tyranny is part of what the Left took exception to, making absolutely clear that the Left as it exists today is decided illiberal in character.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Dave,

    Thanks for publishing it. I haven’t even seen the message in my email. I wanted to conclude the analysis but it would have been too long. I have the conclusion ready for submission. I do offer some hopefully constructive comments in the end, given that we’re going to be stuck with one another for a while at least. In the main, I see it as maintaining a kind of balance, tension from both sides, to keep the politician on their toes. But I don’t want to get ahead of the subject before Part III comes out.

    Thank you again.

  • Brunelleschi

    Dave-

    That bullshit and you know it.

    Of course, if you really believe that, it just means you are not qualified to speak for the left, because you are too ignorant to.

    My own objection to the Iraq war was that it was just one in a long line of wars that were only designed to privatize assets abroad so they can be “penetrated.” Saddam nationalized oil and the war was about reversing that.

    It was just a convenience that Saddam was a thug. If made him easy to hate.

    America does not use it’s military power to make people free. That’s a myth we tell 6th graders. Maybe you should grow up.

  • Cindy D

    Roger,

    Very interesting! Now I see why the truning point you chose was Vietnam. I really had no idea where you were going though.

    I’m having a hard time figuring if there is anything I disagree with here.

    A practical note: A link would have been helpful where you pick up the argument between Mr. Prager and Mr. Dershowitz. A link to your first piece where the argument is discussed.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Cindy,

    The link to the Dershowitz-Prager debate, both ends, are included if I am not mistaken in Part I.

    Thank you.

    Roger

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    I see what you’re saying, Cindy. I should have linked it to Part I.