The Dangerous Mood of the Grassroots
Not too long ago Hillary Clinton gave a speech urging Democrats to begin rethinking the way they talk about divisive issues like abortion. The speech was, of course, not well received in some quarters of the Democratic Party. Lately, there has been a lot of strident talk about subjects like abortion. Words like "surrender" and "compromise" are being used.
The current mood of the grassroots of the Democratic Party is not one that is interested in conciliation with those on the opposing side of the ideological divide. In fact, some of the more strategically minded activists are fairly conviced that because of the currently polarized environment of the American political system, and the resulting shrinking the political center, there is little worth in running anything other than a base-oriented strategy.
I think this thinking is mistaken. I believe that the Democrats, if they are willing to allow for more incremental progress on their agenda and for less confrontive, more conciliatory rhetoric when it comes to cultural issues and values, are much better off than otherwise. The polarization of the current environment is the Republicans doing and they profit from it's existence. If the Democrats encourage this divide, they are only harming their own cause.
Why Clinton Still Matters
In 2003, Democracy Corps' Stanley Greenberg published his book, The Two Americas. In it, Greenberg presents a compelling case for what would essentially be a continuance Bill Clinton's political strategies of pursuing progressive, yet broad policies which would conceivably appeal to a wider swath of Americans than a more left of center, base-oriented strategy would entail. Greenberg, drawing on a huge sample of voters, concludes that on the whole, Americans tend to have a more progressive point of view on most foreign and domestic policy issues. Greenberg therefore posits that the Democrats should do their best to bring as much unity and conciliation as possible to the American political environment.
The Republicans, he argues, would like nothing of the kind, however. Because most of America does not see things their way, it is in their interest to leverage wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage, making them as salient as possible so as to motivate their base to turn out each election day. This has the result of creating an "us vs them" mentality resulting in the polarization we see today--a kind of cold civil war.
It is hard not to believe that the Republicans are actively pursuing a polarized environment. It would defy the boundries of credulity to believe that as the Republican Noise Machine has grown more and more powerful, the corresponding increase in polarization has not been a by-product. Therefore, if the Republican Noise Machine actively creates polarization, it follows that it would make little sense for the Democrats to help create more polarization.
Why Conciliation
The simple fact is that any base-oriented strategy is doomed to failure. It is unlikely that we will ever reach the Republicans level of voter mobilization. There are more Conservatives than Liberals in America by an almost 3 to 2 ratio. Republican voters tend to fit the likely voter model more closely than Democrats. And they have been preparing their coalition for over three decades. It makes little sense for the Democrats to adopt the Republicans strategies when their strengths lie elsewhere.
If the more extreme policies of the Republicans make their voters more dedicated and reliable, it also makes their policies less broadly appealing. Bowers has pointed out that all demographic groups have the potential to swing one way or another. This is common sense. It follows that the Democrats most obvious line of attack would be to do as Greenberg suggests, crafting less extreme, more broadly appealing policies and rhetoric.
This may of course be hard for some people to swallow, especially those that believe that watering down progressive causes is a failure of principle--a comprise they are unwilling to make. I disagree. I think it is possible, as Bill Clinton has argued elsewhere, to craft a broadly appealling agenda which supports the progressive cause.
As to those who believe there should not be, as Hillary argued, any conciliation on issues like abortion, I would argue that this thinking is overly dogmatic. Culture and values are the most viseral and emotional parts of the political equation. So long as the Democrats seem to more socially conservative voters be completely divorced from their perspectives, they will continue to provide a solid base for the Republican Noise Machine to create the polarization it thrives off. But beyond that, these are subjective ethical queations which no one has a right claim absolute truth about. As liberals this should be obvious to us. It is not surrender to acknowledge the philosophical ambiguity of these ethical questions.
The one caveat here, of course, is that crafting a broadly appealling agenda will not be enough so long as National Security still dominates the American political landscape. While I believe that by 2008 people will have become more interested in domestic politics again, it in all likelihood will be a black ball for the Democrats if they cannot present a viable agenda on this front. On this, I admit I don't have a silver bullit to save the party with. I do, however, have a frame which I will cover in a different piece.
MoralQuestionsBlog.com