Friday, January 14, 2011

Our Political Parties - IV

Ethical Cleansing

I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. –Will Rogers, 1879-1935.

In my experience, the Democratic Party is like a bus. Those who get on first every four years get to drive, but they have to pay for the gas, too. If they don’t, someone else takes over and the rest of us are happy to be along for the ride. Sometimes we get as far as Washington.

Traditionally, the Democratic Party is the party of Labor, of the common people. Common people may be common, but they’re incredibly diverse, and you will definitely find all kinds of people at a Democratic meeting or rally or barbecue.

A simplistic view of the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the former are fighting for something and the latter against something. Consequently, the words “liberal” and “conservative” have some validity in describing them. When they’re at their best, the Democrats are working for their vision of fairness and equity, strengthening the middle class, and reducing poverty. At their best Republicans are working for their vision of fairness and equity, protecting the upper class, and keeping Democrats from going overboard in their efforts.

Years ago my brother-in-law signed up to run for country commissioner in our little county on the Republican ticket. If he had signed up as a Democrat, we would have welcomed him with open arms along with anyone else willing to run for the seat. But he chose the GOP, and he didn’t consult with the county chairman or the other powers-that-were at the time. They had already chosen someone else to run for the position and they were not happy with this impertinent upstart.

Despite their best efforts, he won the primary. In retaliation, those powers-that-were redoubled their opposition in the general election. This time, they won. They got his Democratic opponent elected, and considered it a victory.

I have always considered that incident indicative of the differences between the two major parties. It’s one reason I’m a Democrat. When we’re at our best, we encourage participation from all sorts of people and we make rules, sometimes ridiculously complex rules, that give everybody a voice in the process.

In recent years the Republican Party, at least those members led by Limbaugh and his clones and the Tea Party, has been “purifying” itself to make sure everybody in the party who holds office or speaks out toes the party line. Everyone has to be for tax cuts for the rich and famous, prayer in school, capital punishment, and automatic weapon ownership, and against abortion, immigration, health care for the poor, wardrobe malfunctions, and so on.

This purification is sowing the seeds of the party’s demise. My greatest fear is that the Democrats will follow suit.

In the last primary election, MoveOn.org spent a lot of money trying to defeat Blanche Lincoln, the Democratic senator from Arkansas, because not all of her votes fit in with MoveOn’s version of the party line. (She opposed the “public option” for health care.) Sen. Lincoln had a hard fight without such assistance because it was a Republican year and because Arkansas is not a safe Democratic state. She managed to limp through the primary and a subsequent run-off to get the nomination, but was defeated soundly in the general election by Republican John Boozman.

I don’t think Lincoln had a chance this year, but I think MoveOn’s efforts were against the party’s long-term interest. We Democrats need to be inclusive, or we’ll end up pure – and irrelevant. Such “ethical cleansing” on the GOP side will drive people out of the party, and many of them will end up as Democrats – unless the Democrats do the same thing. Then they’ll end up as independents poxing both our houses.

Instead of trying to purge our party, let’s build it up. There’s one constituency of the Republican Party that has been disgruntled in recent years: the fiscal conservatives. Our party has a better record in that regard than the GOP, at least since the Bush, Jr. years. If we take up that mantle, and make it clear that we are for social justice within a financially sound system, some of those disaffected people can feel comfortable on our side of the aisle.

One of the things I find most annoying about the GOP, especially in Congress, is its lockstep mentality. Trying to get Democrats to sing in unison is like herding cats (or as author Ari Berman put it in the title of his recent book, Herding Donkeys). I like that. I’d sure like to see a few more Republican legislators crossing the aisle when they recognize that a pending bill is a good one. But their party tends to be very retributive when this occurs. Consider the fate of Sen. Arlen Specter: a Republican Party that doesn’t have room for Arlen Specter is a Republican Party in trouble.

Capitalists, conservatives, corporations, and the cautious deserve a voice. I think a healthy Republican Party is good for the Democratic Party. Despite its recent gains in Congress and across the country, I don’t think the Republican Party is really that healthy, and I don’t think that’s good for my party either. We are forced to respond to the loud but largely irrelevant tirades of the GOP’s lunatic fringe, and it dumbs down the discussion.

We have very pressing problems in this country, and it will take rational compromise from both sides to solve them. The longer we delay the worse they get.

1 comment:

Nearctic Traveller said...

Valuable reflections, Morrow. As politics becomes simultaneously an entertainment profitably provided by radio, TV and the Internet and an all too real struggle to survive in an economy with little compassion, pride or shame, trying to understand the partisanship that leads to the kinds of mess our healthcare and foreign policy are in seems very important. I appreciate your remarks about the value of principled opposition, having just been reading Eva Brann’s “Mile High Meditations” in Homage to Americans from Paul Dry books.
http://pauldrybooks.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=PDB&Product_Code=221
As best I can understand her argument, she believes that what we require is respect for those who oppose us on several grounds: 1) our own limitedness – for which see also -
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14brooks.html?_r=2
2) the value, even necessity, of opposing ideas in clarifying our own thinking and 3) the deepest one – because truth itself contains untruth within.
At the same time, I often recall what my boss (the late George Brown, 36th dist CA) in Congress back in 1982-83 said: that the only thing that prevents Congress from solving 80% of the nation’s problems with compromises in which everyone would win is pure animosity. Partisan animosity a powerful force that can turn what should be serious deliberations into foolish brawls. In 1983, I saw the Republicans in the House cheering like boys who’d just won a high school basketball game, when what they had actually done was take a step closer to World War III, by voting to build a tremendously destabilizing and dangerous new missile system. Even if it was the correct decision, it was nothing to be overjoyed about – I don’t think most members understood what they were doing, just that their side won.
Abetted by the news-as-entertainment industry, we have become so adept at framing issues in purely partisan terms, that we have little ability to think about them in the larger context of what makes a just and decent society.
I still think, after the significant accomplishments of the lame duck session, that Obama may prove to have the ability to push forward effective solutions. It seems much less likely with the new House, but if George Brown was right, and if Obama can persist in representing civility and reason without abandoning all his principles, perhaps some of that animosity may be gradually worn down.