There is a story on today's DailyKos' front page, bemoaning the fact that Republican Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (MD-01) was defeated in Tuesday's primaries. Gilchrest was widely respected here in Maryland, and among his colleagues, for his moderate good sense. However, for the sin of opposing the war in Iraq, he was targeted by the right-wing purity trolls, and this time they got him out.
DHinMI's story is a powerful indictment of the pernicious influence of the radical right, on the Republican Party itself, and on our nation's politics. However, I find a powerful cautionary tale here, not for the radical right, but for the progressive movement, which has chosen to adopt the tactics which the radical right employed in seizing power in the GOP, and trying to foist its agenda upon the American people.
It's really striking to me to read two sentences in DHinMI's story:
The first:
"Gilchrest had been targeted before by the Club for Growth and other purity brigades that can't tolerate anything in the Republican party except lockstep devotion to winger orthodoxy."
;
and the second:
"Ultimately a non-radical Republican party is in the best interests of the country."
The first sentence is a clearly accurate description of what happened to Gilchrest, and what has befallen the Republican Party itself over the last 20-25 years, as all moderate elements are purged out of it.
The second sentence also seems, to me and to any progressive, and probably to any moderate, a correct conclusion about the problems this Republican radicalization causes -- the damage it has already done, as well as the further havoc it may wreak upon the country.
One has to wonder what future the Republican Party has, as the conservative activists continue to marginalize the party as they consolidate their ideological dominance over the party. In this connection, DHinMI writes:
"It's obvious, though, that we're going to have to wait longer, maybe decades more, for the Republican party to eradicate the radicalism which has been a disaster for the country and will soon be a disaster for the Republican party itself."
As a progressive, I might enjoy a moment of schadenfreude, but I don't think it's the appropriate reaction. I don't think we can afford that. Like DHinMI, I don't believe this is a development we should welcome.
As a Marylander, I regret Gilchrest's defeat, and hope that it does not portend the ascension of a more radical Republican representing Maryland -- I hope it does not represent the ascension of a more radical Republican Party within Maryland, which has seemed the last bastion of the moderate Republicanism I remember from growing up in New York.
As an American citizen, I can only hope that the political process will work to marginalize these radical elements, either to eradicate the influence radicals currently have over the GOP, or to create another party on the right that is not beholden to such marginal, extreme and misguided thinking.
However, this isn't really why I'm writing, so I must apologize for taking some time to get to the point:
The point is that, in the blogosphere and on DKos especially, the progressive "purity brigades" are not only in ascendance, they are venerated. Forget challenging their ideological orthodoxy. That instantly brands you a "Freeper". More to the point though, anyone who dares criticize the attacks on Democrats that have failed to hew the line is branded a "troll."
I know this for a fact. Sen. Schumer posted a diary here early yesterday, soliciting input from Kossacks on what races the DSCC should be targeting. Sen. Schumer asked for our views and help in creating a strategy to extend Democratic control in the Senate -- hoping to break the Republicans cloture power. The logic of that being, if we can put a Democrat in the White House and reach 60 seats in the Senate, the only obstacles remaining in advancing the progressive agenda would be creating agreement amongst ourselves.
Out of 951 comments, less than 1% were actually responsive to the Senator's invitation. The other 99% of comments excoriate either Schumer, the DSCC, or Senate Democrats, essentially for their lack of fortitude or their failure to hew the orthodoxy that prevails here. I posted a comment expressing my own personal regrets to the Senator that almost every single response ignored his purpose in writing the diary. I was labeled a "troll".
I don't challenge anyone's right to criticize our representatives. I applaud the responsive diaries, and urge folks to constantly contact their representatives regarding issues of concern. That said, I was appalled at the utter rejection of an attempt to reach out and forge an alliance. This was an audacious slap to the face, from a resoundingly critical Greek chorus that responded to the Senator's effort to reach out and create a unified effort in November.
On the same day that I wanted to celebrate Donna Edwards victory, because I feel she is a far better representative for me and my neighbors (I live a couple of miles outside of Wynn's district, but I may yet move into that district) than Al Wynn, I am conflicted because it also represents a triumph for ideological purity within the Democratic Party.
Yes, we can more reliably count on Ms. Edwards to fight for progressive ploicies, even and especially if Republicans retain or regain some further control in Washington. Yes, that feels like a good thing to a progressive. But, therein lays the danger. I fear we run the risk of becoming just like those we fear so much. Surely, the radical elements within the Republican Party believe in their agenda. They think it is the proscription for America's ills. And, they see moderating elements within their Party as a pernicious influence that weakens their movement and serves to block their agenda.
Isn't that exactly what's happening to the Democratic Party? Aren't we creating the conditions of our own demise? Politically, it's probably not the smartest idea to marginalize or purge the party of moderate elements. Creating a tyranny of ideological orthodoxy is exactly what we find most odious about the modern Republican Party. Yes, we are repelled by the party's platform itself, but we also recoil at the way the Party has become so hostile to deviations from the orthodoxy. Even as the Republican Party goes about nominating McCain as its standard-bearer, he is being viciously attacked from within his own party because he has dared to go beyond the lines of ideological purity.
It's an easy trap to fall into, when one believes in an ideology. We here all share a belief in and a commitment to the progressive agenda. We share a certainty in the correctness of our progressive impulses. We trust those impulses, even as policy debates come and go, as the issues change over time. Those impulses inform a strong core of policy goals, but they also guide as in responding to new challenges.
There is nothing wrong in believing in something -- not one thing wrong in advocating for one's own views. However, I think there is something wrong in insisting on ideological purity among our political representatives. If we enforce the same insistence on orthodoxy by driving out all moderating elements, punishing all those who fail to pass our purity test, we will marginalize the Democratic Party and ultimately the progressive movement.
It is not enough to say we are right in our views, and so we must work to ensure that our representatives represent only our views. Not only is it bad politics -- look at what is happening to the GOP, if you doubt that -- it may be bad policy. When you don't listen to dissent, and don't even allow dissenting views, you are left with no way to assess the correctness of your own view. It is arrogant in the extreme not to admit the possibility that one's ideas may be wrong.
A healthy body politic doesn't come from having two extremes, advocating two diametrically opposed views on every point. It requires a multitude of viewpoints to point out the possibilities of more nuanced policies. Unfortunately, this country is continuing its drift towards the political polar extremes. We are not only complicit in this development; we are becoming the strongest driving force -- the engine that is propelling this polarization of politics.
I can't think that this is a good thing, either for the Party, or for the country. It's also probably not a great thing for the long-term prospects of the progressive agenda. When you look clearly at what the radical right has achieved, it's a pretty meager list of small and mostly fleeting victories. They have achieved restrictions on some abortion procedures, and on funding for such medical procedures and for contraceptive programs. While they have made it more difficult to get an abortion, they have not shaken the general consensus in favor of a woman's right to choose. They have changed the makeup of the Supreme Court, resulting in a series of unfortunate decisions, with many more to come, but these gains will likely be reversed over the next decade.
On other issues, the record is far worse. They have cut taxes for the wealthy, and cut back on regulation fo financial markets. What they actually achieved was a financial train wreck. Banks are facing huge losses. The radical right's economic agenda has wreaked much damage on the middle and working classes, but the tax cuts will be phased out, and one hopes that sounder economic and financial policies will replace the deregulation madness of the last 15 years.
Then, of course, there is the war in Iraq, the evisceration of our international prestige, and the spiraling national debt. This is the legacy of the Republican right's iron-grip on the GOP, and the GOP may pay a stunning price in this year's election. The Republicans in Congress are fleeing like the proverbial rats on a sinking ship. As stunning as was their defeat in 2006, Republicans, in 2008, may be marginalized as neither major party has been in a century. That is the legacy of the purity trolls of the radical right.
What will be our legacy, if we enforce a similar ideological tyranny on the left? What mistakes will we make in policy and politics, because we have excised any and all serious or effective dissent? The Democratic Party needs to stand for something, to be sure. In the 1960s and 1970s, moderate politics held sway in this country, because both parties remained open to a range of views. There were problems to be sure, but the Democratic agenda largely held sway, because most people believed we offered the best hope of finding solutions to these problems. But for the divisions that the Vietnam War created within the Party, we would have completely controlled the government throughout those decades, and no one would much remember Dick Nixon.
Will this more radicalized Democratic Party that we are creating here ever get the degree of support, or the record of legislative success that the Democratic Party of the 60s and 70s had?
It was an impressive record. Civil rights laws, Medicare and Medicaid, various anti-poverty programs, disability rights, gender equity, workplace safety rules, minimum wages, a Mideast peace agreement, arms limitations treaties with the Soviet Union, the first major environmental laws.
There were, to be sure, excesses, as the progressivity of the tax system was skewed to the wrong extreme (top marginal rates reached the ludicrous high of 90%). Ultimately, the twin sins of stagflation (inflation and a stagnant economy) along with perceived weakness in foreign policy, created the opening for the Reagan Revolution. While Reagan proved to be far more moderate than his rhetoric, over time, the radical right has enforced the discipline of that rhetoric. Will the progressive left make a similar mistake, with equally disastrous results? What will be our legacy? Will we work to craft an agenda that the majority of Americans will support enthusiastically, or will we marginalize the Democratic Party, and ultimately, the progressive movement? What will our purity brigades accomplish? Are we sowing the seeds of our own demise?
***{Update: I'd like to thank HeatherLee for a comment she made. This diary began as a comment posted in DHinMI's story page. HeatherLee responded by observing that much of this feels as if it's fueled by raging hormones. "Testosterone poisoning", she called it. Is it really that simple? Is the debate being taken over by chest-puffing, test-crazed 17-35 yr. old males driven beyond reason by their raging hormones? Could it be that simple?}