In my relatively unnoticed earlier diary today, Miss Laura and DHinMi brought up two very interesting and important issues about liberalism, what it means, what it projects, and how the mechanics of politics and governing effect it.
I think they both have very valid points, which I will discuss on the flip, but, imo, we can take it further. I think we must take into account how perception and image can be used in positive and affirmative ways to promote a liberal agenda, not just reactively.
First, some semi-meta housekeeping that will lead to the subject at hand. In my previous diary I stated:
Moreover, it is a slap in the face to those liberal voices that Markos has supported and published. People like Billmon, Steve Gilliard, Steve Soto, Kid Oakland, Hunter, Plutonium Page, SusanG, Georgia10, mcjoan, A Gilas Girl, Devil's Tower, BarbinMD and Meteor Blades.
Markos has`included other voices that you may not think of as liberal, but that are no less powerful. Trapper John, DHinMi, DemfromCT, David[]NYC, MissLaura and DarkSyde.
What I did not make clear was that, in reality, Trapper John, DHinMi, DemfromCt, DavidNYC and Miss Laura are quite liberal, and much more so than I am. (I exclude DarkSyde because I cannot say with confidence where I think he actually falls in the political spectrum.) MissLaura was prompted to comment:
The hell?
Armando, you want to know who among the current and past front-pagers my politics are probably closest to? Meteor Blades. And that's from the cradle. My avowedly socialist parents are my most valued, most trusted political influences. . . .
I knew this and explained that I was describing what I believed was the common perception, though I should have been much clearer. But my error led to a very interesting discussion. Miss Laura's comment here really encapsulizes the issue:
I talked about some of it in a diary last summer, What Are We Fighting About? Ideology vs. Strategy.
I'd like to see us understand strategic preferences as another axis along which to evaluate our differences of political opinion. So that, for instance, in a discussion of vote suppression/election fraud/whatever you want to call it, we could appreciate that everyone who's a legitimate participant here wants to see fair and transparent elections, but that some think the best strategy progressives should be pursuing is exposing the fraud they believe happened in 2004 while others think the best strategy is pursuing reform of state laws and local processes. Or in a discussion of the 50-state strategy, we could appreciate that everyone here wants to see Democrats in power and able to pursue a truly progressive agenda rather than just defending ground, whether they think the best way to achieve that is the DNC putting the bulk of its money into a long-term building project to catch up with the past 30 years of Republican organizing or the DNC shifting most of its resources into winning a house of Congress this November.
In each of these examples, the participants may or may not share specific ideologies. One may be more to the left than the other - but the thing is, you can't actually tell from those strategic preferences who is more to the left. Yet almost every time I see such a discussion turn into an argument, one person or the other draws inferences about the ideology of their opponent. That's not helpful. It muddies the waters of the argument, and it doesn't move Democrats or other progressives forward.
I'm far to the left, but I have a fairly moderate temperament and I'm personally cautious. DHinMI and Trapper John are very significantly on the left, but they have specific institutional and strategic orientations that make their thinking and priorities sometimes seem insufficiently left to people who don't understand that ideology and strategy are different axes (of course, at the far edges they do coincide, some strategies being incompatible with some ideologies and vice versa, but there's a broad range for which that's not true).
I think I made a related point in my post about Matt Stoller's Take on the Netroots as the New Left:
[T]he key component that has been the glue of the Netroots - the very real rejection of the Establishment Media and Democratic Party by the Netroots.
To me that is the critical agreement that defines the Netroots. Perhaps I am merely reflecting my own blog experiences. I posted at daily kos almost exclusively for 3 years. And that was certainly what undergirded our views.
We felt, and feel, that the Democratic Party was not fighting for core Democratic values. We felt, and feel, that the Media had accepted the Republican narrative of politics an tht Democratics had simply accepted it. We felt, and feel, that organizations like Ed's DLC were undermining the Democratic Party by emphasizing the need to be more like Republicans, or the need to neutralize "values" issues. We felt, and feel, they were simply wrong on the politics.
I felt that, perhaps inadvertently, the Fighting Dems slogan of the 2006 campaign, captured the Netroots ideology - which was really not very ideological at all - to fight as proud Dems instead of looking to neutralize issues like "values" and national security.
Ironically, the Media never seemed to capture this point - viewing the Netroots as the "crazy far Left" while at the same time describing Netroots-supported candidates like Jim Webb and Jon Tester as "conservative Dems." And fairly conservative Dems like Markos Moulitsas as wild eyed liberals.
Ablington cutsto the chase:
I think some folks assume you're more of a lefty if you're prone to ranting and raving. All we really have to go on here is our writing styles, and sometimes those dont accurately reflect our true positioning.
Especially if you use curse words.
DHinmi then brought to the table the issue of how to act politically in governance:
I don't think strategy is usually usefully defined as on a political spectrum. Sure, to a degree, but for too many folks around DKos, only the most flamboyant actions are viewed as sufficiently "liberal" or "progressive." Lots of time the strategy that will deliver the most progressive or liberal results are not the most visibly confrontational.
This is certainly true. And indeed, some objectives, like impeachment, simply are not achievable in my opinion at the present time. And trying to forward it now, again imo, actually would hurt the possibility of achieving it in the future. But this is opinion, not fact. Indeed, on ending the war, my preferred approach, beating the drum for defunding the war (not for a minute do I think it can be achieved now but I think it would become more achievable in the future if Dems pushed the issue now), it seems clear that many, if not most, think I am pushing a counterproductive strategy. Again, opinions.
The last point I want to touch on is trying to understand how political tactics can in fact promote ideology or policies in a general way, not just in regard to specific bills or issues. You've heard this from me before:
Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle.
Let me give you a specific current example. On Iraq, President Bush moved the issue spectrum from --
Left - for immediate (not really, six months after enactment) withdrawal.
Center - for a timetable for gradual withdrawal starting in 2006.
Right - Stay the Course.
to --
Left - for a timetable for gradual withdrawal starting in 2006.
Center - Stay the Course.
Right - Escalate.
And Senate Democrats were going to allow him to by embracing John Warner's resolution. I believed this was a serious mistake, politically and policywise. The newly defined middle would have defied public opinion, the 2006 elections and common sense. What Dems NEEDED to do was to define the middle as phased redeployment at the least, indeed that WAS the middle in the Summer of 2006. This was terrible politics and terrible policy. And it resulted not from a change in policy or ideology, but from a change in tactics.