It is fascinating to examine the ties that bind each side of an ideological fault line. The American progressive movement, for instance, often takes for granted that a strong supporter of workers' rights will also be one who critiques a heavy-handed foreign policy; that a strong supporter of full equality for our LGBT brethren will also oppose parental notification. These groupings have become so ingrained in American political discourse that they are viewed as self-explanatory; someone like Ted Olson, who has advocated for both marriage equality and unlimited corporate influence on politics in front of our nation's courts, is seen as an odd duck, politically speaking.
But what exactly is it that holds these disparate elements of progressivism together? Previously, it might have been hard to answer that question in anything but the vaguest of terms--but along came George Lakoff. In his seminal work, Don't Think of an Elephant, Professor Lakoff outlined the foundation of the progressive viewpoint in terms of a "nurturing mother" model that sought to use strength to lift up the less fortunate of our national and global community.
The opposed alliance of corporatists, christianists, nativists and military exceptionalists that constitute the conservative movement may previously have been just as indecipherable before Lakoff proffered the "strong father" model to describe it--though that may have been too kind. In truth, the conservative movement consists primarily of the beneficiaries of existing power structures (or those who wish they were) seeking to impose a Thrasymachean sense of justice to advance their own ends; a collective sociopathy of sorts. Think of a group of wealthy CEO's scheming for corporate tax cuts, all while Laffer jots a curve on a restaurant napkin hoping to provide public justification--or perhaps seek moral absolution.
But as any Roman historian would note, such triumvirates are not built to last; they usually fall apart the moment that the most ambitious member seeks to press an advantage that the others find unpalatable. Befitting its station as the most powerful member of this alliance, it was the business sector that struck first.
The one man who could hold this alliance together better than anyone was President George W Bush. In the eyes of his supporters, here was a man who was one part saint and one part CEO, one part cowboy and one part commander--and all parts conservative, with the evocative imagery to match. But even he was on occasion forced to make the political equivalent of Sophie's Choice. So-called "values voters" may have been easy to please--just propose a constitutional amendment or two, put a indecorous reactionary on the Supreme Court, and you're good to go--but balancing the nativists with the corporatists was a feat too great even for W.
When the wing of the Republican Party that believes America should dominate the world meets the idolaters of Milton Friedman who believe in CEO's without borders, conflict is bound to result. And so it did in February of 2006, when Dubai Ports World had just announced that it was going to take over operations at six major US ports. The Republican Congress at the time had been riding a wave of patriotic sentiment that had started to border on jingoism in the years subsequent to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They were furious--as was their base--that a corporation based in a country with ties, however tenuous, to the 9/11 hijackers was about to take over operations at ports that were essential to our country's national security. Bush's response, by contrast? He not only refused to intervene to stop the deal; he was insistent on seeing it go through and threatened to veto any legislation brought forward to stop it.
At that moment, Bush was forced to make a choice between the nativist conservatives and the corporatist conservatives. He chose to side with the elites that he was proud to call his base, but the consequences were disastrous. He not only caused a fractious feud that set the tone for the disaster that befell the Republican Party in 2006; he alienated a large swath of the American electorate that had supported Bush and the Republican Party because of their alleged dedication to national security--a narrative that had vanished in a few days of intra-party meltdown.
The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court provides a similar opportunity--but unlike Portgate, it isn't one that will be handed to the progressive movement on a silver platter. This chance, rather, must be seized through careful messaging and repetition.
Progressive reactions to the ruling center around the worry that well-known American corporations will seize the opportunity to increase their political influence. This argument is certainly legitimate and will win many friends, especially in a political climate where corporations are not generally viewed favorably. But while this may be the main concern of progressives who value people over profits, focusing on this aspect alone wastes what could be significant political capital.
As President Obama has noted, an unplanned consequence of the Supreme Court ruling is that it opens the door for increased influence of foreign entities in our elections, since American subsidiaries of foreign-based corporations now have increased ability to sway the electoral process. Of course, a significant cross-section of Republican leadership supports the ruling that made this happen--paving the way for the idea that the Republican Party has applauded and supported a loss of American sovereignty.
The main challenge staring down Democrats as they look ahead to the 2010 midterms is one of increased conservative motivation. A constant focus on this secondary effect of Citizens United might be enough to turn an electorally significant quantity of traditionally conservative voters against the ruling. And if the Republican establishment continues to defend the ruling by opposing any legislation proposed to mitigate its effects, a window could open for Democrats to alienate the Republicans from a key element of their base.
Will it be enough to make some of these voters choose to pull the lever for Democrats? Hard to say. But any chance to expose the inherent contradictions among the factions that comprise the Republican base should be seized with relish.