I mean, wow, when you think about it, it's really pretty rare when
Democrats from virtually every single sector of the party can find a
solid common ground. After all, when's the last time can you remember a
single analysis being attacked in The New Republic, The American
Prospect and The Nation, all at the same time? When's the last time you
remember a thesis being rejected by Democratic-oriented Think Tanks
ranging all the way from the generally pro-Obama Center for American
Progress to the very progressive Economic Policy Institute? When was the
last time one Washington Post Op-Ed was not only repudiated by
essentially all progressives in the Democratic coalition but also by a
wide range of Democratic "centrists" including (implicitly) Obama
himself, former members of DLC and the Clinton inner circle and even by
Democratic politicians who are formal honorary co-Chairs of the same
organization that penned the analysis.
It really is a genuinely unique achievement. Those Third Way guys
really did nail those crazy lefties. To quote Woody Allen, they punched
them solidly in the fist with their nose and kicked them right in the
knee with their groin.
Now granted, the Third Way guys have back-pedaled with admirably
breathtaking speed. In a concession that must have caused them genuine
and acute physical pain, they now insist that they really do respect and
admire Elizabeth Warren and Bill DeBlasio as valuable members of the
democratic coalition (although they have carefully refrained from
explicitly repudiating the view implied in the Op-Ed that Warren is
probably more than a little nuts and wants to drive the Democratic Party
over a "populist cliff"). They now unctuously complain-- in faux-humble
"aw, gee wiz, come on guys"
style--that all they really wanted to do with that editorial was just
to present their very serious perspective about Democratic economic
policy.
Well, OK, let's take them at their word. If that's really, really,
really what Third Way wants to do, then here are two things that they
should immediately and permanently stop doing:
1. Stop name calling. Calling the Obama-centric Center for American Progress "the left",
as they did in one recent Washington Post op-ed is not just so damn
silly that to any informed Democrat it's laughable; it's also
deliberately intended to brand CAP's ideas with a false political label
that will discredit them with people who know nothing at all about the
groups' actual positions. Equally, saying that Elizabeth Warren and Bill
DeBlasio represent "fantasy-based Blue-state populism" and are pushing the party over a "populist cliff" isn't debating their specific views on policy, it's deprecating them as individuals.
2. Stop creating straw men. In Third Way's recent
Op-Ed pieces, one common thread is that they never directly attack the
specific policy proposals issued by actually-existing pro-Democratic
groups like the Center for American Progress, the Economic Policy
Institute, the Congressional Progressive Caucus or any of the other
real-world center-left or progressive-left think-tanks and
organizations. Instead their repeated modus operandi is to create an
exaggerated caricature of an imaginary "crazy left-wing" position that they wish their opponents actually held, slap a label on it they themselves invent (e.g. the "Have It All" philosophy) and then proceed to wallop the straw man they themselves have created.
Let's be clear: an organization that aspires to be a genuine part of
the Democratic coalition simply can't engage in this kind of divisive
behavior and then, when they are criticized, turn around and whine that
all they really want to do is to seriously debate policy. It's not just a
transparently false claim, it's deeply and profoundly insulting to the
entire Democratic audience they are presumably trying to convince. It
assumes Democrats - people like you, the readers of The Democratic
Strategist -- are so utterly stupid that you can't tell the difference
between schoolyard taunts and make-believe battles with fabricated straw
men on the one hand and serious policy debates and honest engagement
with opposing ideas on the other.
I mean, really, it's not at all hard to tell the difference between
the two approaches. As Ed Kilgore pointed out in his response to the
latest Third Way op-ed, institutions with serious reputations as centers
of thoughtful moderate or "centrist" thinking - groups like the
Brookings Institution -- have played a constructive centrist role for
decades. Progressives frequently and passionately disagree with their
conclusions but they continue to respect their intellectual honesty and
commitment to reasoned debate.
So here's a very simple acid test for Third Way: the next time you
guys want to go out and write an op-ed, hire an outside copy-editor to
remove every single damn instance of name-calling and every single
fabricated, straw-man opponent from your piece. Instead, identify the
very specific policy proposal or legislative bill you disagree with,
demonstrate that it really represents a significant point of view within
the Democratic coalition, quote directly from the document you are
criticizing and then explain your dissent without directly attacking the
individuals or group who wrote the document but focus rather on the
specific ideas you believe wrong in the proposal itself.
If you can't do this, then don't complain if no one takes you
seriously when you claim that all you really want to do is to seriously
debate Democratic policy.
On the other hand, of course, now that I think about it for a moment,
maybe I'm really wrong about this. Maybe you guys should just keep on
doing exactly what you're doing. There are all kinds of important policy
issues that currently divide the Democratic coalition and which
inevitably but unfortunately weaken Democratic unity. It's a real and
important contribution to the Democratic coalition to generate the kind
of massive intra-party unity that you guys have generated as a
counter-weight to these divisive pressures - even if it is a massive
intra-party unity that is directed directly against yourselves.
P.S. Oh, and by the way, if you want to create a serious dialog with
Democrats, you might also want to consider using a different platform
than the Wall Street Journal. The sincerity and plausibility of your
critique is not particularly enhanced when it appears alongside
editorials channeling old Ayn Rand novels and paid ads promoting
offshore bank accounts in remote Pacific islands.
No comments:
Post a Comment