The following is part of a two-part diary examining the role that meaning plays in voter choices and proposing that we need to create historical narratives to advance our cause. It is based on what was originally a longer diary with some changes because I believe these are issues worth discussing. I hope this doesn't constitute a violation of Kos' guidelines.
More below the fold.
DISCLAIMER: I offer the following musings as an analysis of the rhetorical space of the political imaginary and the dynamics of group identification, and not as a scientific or logically demonstrated proof. Needless to say, the rhetorical field does not obey the principles of logic but makes use of appeals to emotion, ideals, group oppositions, etc., as is also the case with respect to the phenomenon of identification. Moreover, I recognize that the United States is a very large country and that all generalizations are necessarily going to be inadequate. In this spirit, I modestly offer these comments as reflecting what I've come to understand about my fellow citizens through reading, listening to them, watching the news and trying to make sense of their decisions. Other analyses are both possible and no doubt correct.
*
Those of us on the left are proud to think of ourselves as being members of a reality-based community. To me being reality-based means determining one's actions in terms of principles and values that are readily arrived at through reason, such as the principle of liberty and all that follows from it. It means applying those principles universally and not making special exceptions for preferred groups. It means being critical of ideology and exercises of authority that cannot ground themselves reasonably but instead evoke things such as patriotism or religion. And it means carefully evaluating and gathering facts before making decisions. However, there is a risk to all of this that also often puts us at a disadvantage. I think these disadvantages can be offset through some simple and productive strategies.
All of us on the left are committed to reason and justice as principles of our political beliefs. We treat reason and justice as ideals that we strive to live up to, and sometimes we're successful and sometimes we're not. Nonetheless they are the touchstone of everything we do. This is our great strength and that which puts us on the side of right, for we treat reason and justice as universal and not the privilege of an elite few, whether they be economically elite, famous, or religiously elite.
However, these strengths are also disadvantages in a number of ways. Our commitment to reason and justice means that we're constantly scanning the political horizon or the horizon of governance to undo injustice and to fight unreason. This commitment has made us the motor of history or the force of progressive change, slowly producing a more just, more tolerant, more egalitarian, more enlightened society. Yet our focus on battles of just and enlightenment often makes us sound as we are just complainers to those who do not yet have eyes to see the problems we're trying to correct. Similarly, in our commitment to reason means that we're often more focused on abstract issues of facts and policy, rather than meaning and principles. After all, we reason, why should we talk about meaning and principles when we already know the meaning of our struggle and we are already very clear on our moral principles?
The first issue has led to the common sentiment that the left is the party of victims. Despite the fact that we are affirmative in our pursuit of justice and reason, our constant struggle pushes these things into the background in the mind of less politically inclined voters and gives the appearance that we're just complaining. And, people reason, who wants to think of themselves as a powerless victim?
With regard to the rightwing "party of victims" meme, I am referring to how historically the democrats have been the party that defends minorities, workers, women, GLBT, etc, and how this admirable commitment gets distorted by the rightwing meme-processing machine. Often it's the case that rightwing ideology is an inverted funhouse mirror in which everything they portrary as true is exactly the opposite. From the perspective of the left, this defense of minorities is simply an extension of the principle of justice or egalitarianism: everyone is equal before the law, everyone enjoys the rights guaranteed by the law. As such, the left does not see it as a matter of special privileges, but simply the consistent application of our principles. Everyone must be counted under the rights guaranteed to all humans, not a select few.
However, when this is fed through the meme-machine of rightwing ideology, the category of equality is transformed into the category of victimhood. Rather than seeing all of these groups as being just human beings calling for the equal treatment guaranteed to them by the law and reason, the right instead portrays them as lazy whiners calling for special privileges and trying to blame others rather than getting off their bottoms and improving their conditions themselves. In short, the groups that speak out are portrayed as weak and sniveling. This is the hallmark of conservativism as I understand it: conservatives always deny that there are concrete inconsistent applications of rights within the social field and instead try to blame the victims rather than rectifying inequalities. For instance, they suggest that particular groups are asking for special rights rather than equal rights giving the impression that the leftist ideal is inegalitarian when it is fact the true egalitarian position.
When filtered through this rightwing meme machine these groups are portrayed in a very unflattering light. Given that part of the American unconscious America consists in the desire to be strong, self-reliant, wealthy, and successful, (all of which are contradicted by the image of the "lazy, whiney, victim", the rightwing meme-machine effectively blocks potential identifications to the left, leading people to act against their own self-interest and moral ideals. In short, the right devising highly effective tools for blocking identifications to the left.
The second issue (policy and fact) places us at a disadvantage because apparently many Americans have a difficult time following carefully wrought arguments and nuanced policy issues, and instead get by in their political decision making on the basis of so-called "truisms" ("Democrats raise taxes, Republicans are good on defense and for the economy.") and brand-name identifications ("Republican means rich, I want to be rich, therefore I'll vote Republican." "Democrats want socialism, socialism is bad, therefore I'm against socialism", etc.). These "truisms" are, of course, false as are these "brand-name" characterizations. However, we should not understimate the power of these things. It seems almost axiomatic to me that the majority of voters are very poorly informed across the board. They're mostly interested in their lives, the work, their loves, their problems, and their television shows, and appear, quite frankly, to be disgusted with politics and governance in general (on both sides). The highly informed voter is the exception, not the rule. If this is true, it entails that the majority of voters vote based on what I've called "truisms" and "brand-names"-- meanings --rather than facts or accurate representations of principles. I think we often forget this as psychologically people tend to project their own attributes onto others (so long as those others are similar to them, of course).
Consequently, if we are to be successful we need to find effective ways to counter these "truisms" and to transform the field of meaning or the prevailing doxa in this country. In my next diary I make some observations about the nature of learning and why talk of principle, policy, and facts is not enough when it comes to formulating a winning strategy. I also propose that we engage in the work of historical "myth-making" (no I'm not proposing we tell lies) as a way of framing our values and where we come from collectively.