Yesterday I sat down to type up a blog entry concerning the state of public discourse in America. As a libertarian and a Democrat I am often faced with being demonized and rejected by my fellow Democrats because my ideas at time may remind them too much of conservatism. In what originally started as an essay on the sad state of public discourse turned into a more spiritual discussion about finding light in the darkness. I posted it at my blog,
Freedom Democrats, but I believe that I'll never be able to change the opinions of my fellow Democrats who reject me if I don't reach out and try to speak to them where I know they'll be found. And so, this diary, which is based on my original essay at my blog.
I'll be honest; I don't like watching television news these days. It is painful to me. I've become increasingly convinced that most of the media is incompetent and the best I can hope for is that their pathetic attempts at informing Americans will do no harm. So much of the media's presentation has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and simply informs people how they should feel based on their preconceived notions. After reporting the general story of a major political event, the media switches to informing the viewer how Democrats and Republicans ought to respond. There is hardly any attempt made to inform the viewer of who is right. Instead, in the pursuit of 'fairness,' the media gives 'equal time' to both sides.
This sad state of affairs is the result of a long fought effort by the right wing noise machine to claim liberal bias in the media. The cold hard truth is that for much of the history of the modern conservative movement the media hasn't been bias in favor of liberals because of some secret political agenda. The media has been bias in favor of liberals because the modern conservative movement is an intellectual abomination that is not built on reality. We should all regret the influence William F. Buckley and the National Review have had in forming this monstrous conglomeration. American political ideologies have always rested on more tedious intellectual ground because of the requirement that they appeal to enough people to form a plurality in the two party system. We'd be much better off under a multi-party system, but that's not the matter at hand.
The glue that once held American conservatism together is gone. The Cold War is over. Even more threatening to the movement is the fact that they can no longer be defined as a party in opposition to the establishment. They have become the establishment and it is far more difficult to outline an agenda that you support than an agenda you oppose. What remains today is a political ideology based on the demonization of 'the Other.' Muslims, blacks, gays, and intellectuals are seen as threatening to the 'traditional American lifestyle' and must be strongly opposed by any means necessary. This is not an ideology based on rational thought; the appeal is based by appealing to the worst parts of the human psyche.
The arrogance of the liberals is to assume that if conservatism is unreasonable and irrational, liberalism wins by default. American liberalism may be a less threatening political ideology; I for one would much rather live in the archetypical socialist country like Sweden than the fundamentalist form of live offered up a country like Iran. But when the choice is framed in this way, two choices that are hardly desirable for most Americans, is it any wonder that people don't vote and don't give a damn? Both political parties are intellectual bankrupt and in desperate need of new ideas.
You may disagree with me and argue that liberalism is not intellectual bankrupt and is a fountain of knowledge with new and great ideas. What I find far too much is a cacophonous dissonance in which the modern liberals simply yell what they hear from the echoes of the past. Over and over again the same lines that have been repeated since the start of the 20th Century are proclaimed. There is nothing new, nothing fresh. Liberals still pretend that they are fighting a group dedicated to the destruction of government; they have failed to change with the times.
Even as I write this and call forth new paradigms, I realize that there is always the agenda of those in power to maintain power and respond to the shifting of the winds. The year 2006 may certainly create some political surprises, especially if the scandals within the House Republicans are continually exposed. But I am not convinced that the simple desperation for new ideas will produce good new ideas. The solutions that we are offered to our problems could be just as bad as the problems we currently face. They may appear to be tailored for our current predicament and may look fresh and appealing. We would be wise to remember that things are not always what they seem.
Specifically, I believe that the current narrative in politics is laying the ground work for McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. This is a scary proposition. We are told by the media that we need someone who is bipartisan, and then we are told that McCain is bipartisan. We are told that Hillary Clinton's attempts to become bipartisan will fail because the hard left doesn't compromise. Following the 2004 Democratic Primary I do not doubt the ability of the media to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. But the narrative is that the hard right, by loving McCain, is more open minded. We can see that this narrative is a false reality created by the media. What is actually occurring here?
The actual narrative is that the culture war encourages partisans of both sides to value individuals who stay loyal on the major issues of social policy and foreign policy. In my opinion this is how it should be, compromise is impossible on these issues. McCain has never strayed from the hard right when it comes to these issues. His bipartisanship, his 'centrism,' is based entirely by being a maverick on the issues, such as campaign finance reform or spending or the environment, that are designed for today's swing voters, not the partisan bases. Hillary Clinton's deviations from the Democratic Party line are exactly in the very cultural issues that form the defining issues in this two party system. Why is this so?
My personal theory rests on the Nolan Chart; that commonly used chart showing politics as built around a social axis and an economic axis. Its presentation is fundamentally flawed because of the nature of the human psyche. The social axis is far more polarizing in nature than the economic axis. There is the ability to compromise when dealing with budget numbers and spending and taxes. There is no such ability to compromise with gay marriage or abortion. The major differences between the two parties today are on these social issues and their outward expression in the form of foreign policy. This, more than anything else, is why I consider myself both a libertarian and a Democrat.
However the wrinkle is that today's political debate has ignored and neglected rational and reasonable debate. While it is possible to compromise on economic issues following rational debate, our emphasis on the social issues also fuels an emphasis on emotional appeals and demagoguery. Over and over again issues are reduced down to the lowest common denominator. As such, politics is reduced to a single spectrum that starts with liberalism on the left and conservatism on the right. The middle is not centrist, but the populist or authoritarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart. The narrative forces a definition of 'centrist' as being 'populist' or 'socially conservative and economically liberal.' The solution, we are told, is for conservatives to embrace compassion and big government solutions to economic problems. Liberals are to do away with their supposed 'social elitism' and embrace 'family values.' The problem is that conservative partisans, the far right, still get their social agenda that is so precious to them. Liberal partisans are told to drop their social agenda, however, as if it is by definition to extreme for America. This is fundamentally wrong and we must do everything possible to change this status quo.
America is on the brink of taking a more isolationist and inward focus. We could very well have the revival of the 'Old Right' and rational discussions on how to restructure our foreign policy priorities, reform our immigration system, and return to prudent management of our financial matters. You may fundamentally fear my mention of the 'Old Right' because you see it as something to do with conservatism. This knee-jerk reaction is unhealthy. The 'Old Right' was nothing more than the old Republican Party of the Midwest and Senator Taft that were critical of activist government and the proposition that the mere existence of communism was a fundamental threat to the American way of life. It was a mature and consistent ideology that was far better than the fusionist rabid anti-Communism that replaced it. Far more likely than a return of the 'Old Right' is a continuation of jingoistic false patriotism, xenophobia and the demonization of other ethnicities, and absurd snake oil solutions to our fiscal malaise. Republicans will continue to appeal to the worse in us while Democrats will be too fearful to adopt new platforms because they too closely resemble the rhetoric of their opponents. Any possible lessons provided by studying the 'Old Right' will be ignored simply because they are linked to conservatism and the Republican Party. And herein lies a valuable lesson.
It is true that the Republican Party is giving voice to the worst tendencies within the human psyche. However should we not draw attention to the tendency of the Democratic Party to demonize the demonizers? The polarization of the country has produced two sides that refuse to look for anything of value within the ideology of the other side. The mere resemblance of an individual to the ideology of the opponents is enough to be cast in with their lot. Witness the 'vulgar liberalism' expressed when Democrats are faced with libertarians who may at times resemble the rhetoric of some Republicans. The same clichés are repeated over and over again. Libertarians are said to oppose labor unions and no amount of evidence to the contrary, such as the existence of libertarian activists who are members of unions like the IWW, will change the individual's preconceived notions. Libertarians are all rich white men and there is a refusal on the part of many liberals to accept any evidence that may challenge their view of the world a they think it to be, not as it really is.
Rarely do I express much religious sentiment, but perhaps you will allow me to bring forward this Biblical reference. In the beginning, according to the Gospel of John, "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." If you would allow me to commit the sin of applying religious teachings to political discussions, you will see that even if there is an adversarial foe represented by darkness, there is also light within that darkness. Even as I view American conservatism as a corruption to be opposed, I can see a light, a form of knowledge, that can be liberated from within it. That must be liberated.
Not to get too deep into a theological discussion, there is a loss of clarity when the two figures of Satan and Lucifer are condensed into one being in modern Judeo-Christian thought. There is the archetype of Satan the adversary and this is how the political debate is often structured, with each party projecting onto the other opposing party all that they view as wrong or evil. But there is also the figure of Lucifer, the light-bearer, who represents the light that has fallen. And yet even in this fallen darkness there is light, though "the darkness comprehended it not." Within the adversarial darkness there is light. Within the enemy there is something worth learning. This is far too often forgotten in today's political debate.
True classical liberalism, not some "vulgar libertarianism," is the light within the darkness. "Vulgar libertarianism" is the ideology that is commonly seen as representative of all libertarianism. A group like the Cato Institute, which is well funded by big corporations, is taken as representative of the whole. Never mind the fact that it is clear that the support of big corporations will influence some of its specific views. Using it to represent all libertarianism is similar to view the DLC as representative of the entire Democratic Party. Is the rhetoric of libertarianism, small government, and free markets sometimes misused by conservatives? Yes, but shouldn't we be smart enough to realize that this is nothing more than the adoption of false rhetoric to hide the real intensions of conservatives? Do we not have some so-called libertarians professing just another flawed form of conservatism? Yes, but if it walks like a conservative and quacks like a conservative perhaps it's really a conservative, despite its claims otherwise. There are certainly some reasons why some liberals may sometimes reject, initially, libertarianism. We may remind them at times of the conservatism they so heatedly oppose. But without learning from us they'll never be a complete political ideology that can effectively govern.
Happy 2006.