Sunday Discussion Group

March 11, 2007

In our two-party system, there are bound to be divisions and conflicts between intra-party factions. For the Republicans, the most common is between social and economic conservatives. For Democrats, it’s not unusual to see flare-ups between labor unions and free-traders.

But Democratic consultant Mike Lux wrote a provocative piece this week about a budding new divide “between the party establishment and the emerging (and rapidly strengthening) outsider progressives.” Unlike most internal party divisions, this one isn’t exactly ideological — there are populists in the establishment and pragmatist outsiders. Instead, Lux identified the camps this way:

In Camp A, the establishment camp, I am thinking of people nervous about Democrats being too aggressive in ending the Iraqi war; former Democratic staffers who are comfortable about going to work as a lobbyist or consultant for big corporate clients; people who endorsed Lieberman in his primary last year; people who are strongly pro-free trade; campaign consultants who still believe in spending most of a campaign’s budget on broadcast TV ads; and people disdainful of bloggers and MoveOn.org.

In Camp B, the outsider/progressive camp, I am thinking of writers and avid readers of the blogosphere along with members of MoveOn.org; supporters of Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy; people who believe Democrats should do everything in their power, ASAP, to get us out of Iraq; and people who believe that strong labor and environmental problems should be negotiated into trade packages.

Both camps have power, numbers, and resources, but disagree on strategy with increasing frequency. Lux, who admits to having a “foot in both camps,” asks progressives a fairly straightforward question: “[W]hat is our strategy in approaching this divide?”

Lux suggests there are two courses for the outsider/progressive camp to follow:

1. Ratchet up the intensity of the battle and aggressively take the fight to the establishment everywhere we can. Pick fights with the establishment folks in every way possible; run progressives in as many primaries as we can; do everything possible to wrest control of the Democratic Party machinery away from the establishment.

2. Pick our fights carefully while continuing to build the movement. This strategy would accept that the battle will last for years to come. We would fight like hell on the issue battles and primaries that matter, but in the meantime, declare truces in the lead-up to the general elections and on certain issue fights that everyone agrees on (like the House 100 Hours agenda). We could even look for common ground on good policy initiatives coming from the establishment political leaders.

It leads to more than a few questions.

Which of these two strategies would be better for long-term Democratic success?

If the outsiders try to wrest control of the party’s establishment machinery, will it help Republicans (and hurt the country) in the short term?

If outsiders are going to “pick our fights carefully,” what kind of criteria would activists choose?

Because the outsiders’ camp is decentralized, and is bottom-up instead of top-down, is all of this moot? (In other words, won’t activists pick their preferred fights regardless of what MoveOn.org and leading national blogs say?)

I’m all ears.

Polonius’ advice to his son Laertes (Hamlet, I, iii):
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Leave the plotting and triangulating and all the rest of that to the Republicans, and the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, and the wimps who have cost us dearly for a generation now. The American people are fed up with all that. Return to values shared by nearly all Americans: working families, affordable health care for everyone, education for all who qualify, scientific progress, cleaner environments, no unnecessary wars or interventions. NOW.

  • I have a lot to say about this, but I think this is one of those situations where Republicans are better poised to reverse-engineer my advice for liberals, and to figure out how it can help them understand to counter the most left-leaning liberals’ best efforts, and liberals are not well poised to implement my advice and take advantage of it effectively in the face of conservative counter measures.

    Therefore, my lips will stay zipped.

    If I were in a better position to control how what I have to contribute gets implemented, then it would be a different situation. But as often happens, talking here would be a schmucky thing to do than a way to help liberals and Democratic politicians.

  • Well, I am firmly in Group B. I have seen my once-beautiful country going, going, gone to hell-in-a-handbasket for the past six years by both the Republican control of the government AND the acquiescence of the Democratic Group A and our “Free Press”.

    I’m talking about those in my party, and the Press, who have been too afraid to speak out against the abuses being committed by the Republicans. Were these politicians afraid of losing their seats in Congress? Were the members of the press afraid of losing their access to those in power?

    The only members of Congress that I can remember speaking up vigourously in the early 2000’s were Russ Feingold and a few members of the Black Caucus. Every one else was silent on the spiriling-out-of-control government. Afraid to speak up, afraid to be called “unpatriotic”, “liberal”, or the host of “bad” words we have allowed ourselves to be difined by by the Republicans. Meanwhile, the Democratic base, with little to lose – perk-wise – has been motivated by those in Group B.

    In fact, we ARE Group B. And, it’s time – past time, in fact – for our voices to be heard. We have to take control of our Democratic party. We are doing so at the grass-roots level, despite being hindered by party bosses, who are willing to put up with, and actually aide, those like Joe Lieberman and his ilk who are poisoning our once-great country.

    Group A is afraid that if they are not appealing to everyone in this country, that they will lose future elections. Well, fuck-it, there’s no way we are ever going to get the votes of the Republican base who worship money and Jesus in equal measure. So, STOP TRYING. Try appealing instead, to the majority of Americans who can see our USA losing everything it values most. We’re not going to get THEIR base’s vote just like Republican politicians are not going to get OUR base’s vote. Difference is, the Republicans don’t even try to get our votes; the Democrats – Group A’ers – are still vainly trying to get Republicans votes. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    So, okay, let’s turn the party over to the Group B’ers. We can hardly do a worse job at electioneering than the Group As.

  • This is a false choice. They are 2 different approaches, or ‘tools’. It’s like asking me, as a carpenter, to choose between a tape measure and a saw. I’m not going to be very effective without one of each.
    Personally, I think it’s always wise to pick your battles carefully. But that does not equate to being timid or overly cautious once a battle is engaged. What’s needed are a set of priorities, because resources are finite. Corralling the free-traders (traitors?) of the Democratic party won’t happen overnight, so a slow steady pressure is fine with me. OTOH, when it comes to guys like Lieberman, or the Iraq debacle, throw everything we have, pick it back up and throw it again.

    The problem with the establishment types is that they came up in a different era. The repub noise machine operated largely under the radar and astroturf was only known to exist in sports stadiums. Repubs kicked our asses fairly regularly.

    I don’t see the establishment types as mortal enemies. I see them as reluctant to adapt to a changed landscape. Their survival skills are out of date, and many of them can’t admit it.

    Use slow steady pressure where it works. Get forceful where it doesn’t and save the bloodbaths for the worst of the worst.

  • As the GOP implodes the real fight for issues will be in Democratic primaries. I would submit too that part of the old/new Dem. divide is the comfort level surrounding change. Activists, needless to say, relish the prospect, entrenched operatives – not so much.

    Let’s not overlook either the generational nature of political change. Change comes less from absolutely swaying people to one point of view than from people with a particular political view retiring from the field.

    A bit off topic, but the best movie I can think of at the moment about radical politics and how political change is effected over time is Amazing Grace. See it.

  • In NH, there has been an entrenched group running the Democratic Party, who seemed almost happy to lose election after election, as long as they could stay running things. They ceded NH to the Republicans, pretty much. After the Howard Dean campaign in 2003-2004, however, things changed. The grassroots appeared and grew. We saw the change in 2004, with NH going blue, sometimes I thought despite the best attempts of the state and national party! And 2006 was a landslide, with the Democrats taking the governorship for a second term, and control of the house and senate and executive council for the first time in over 100 years, plus electing two Dems to Congress. Yet there is still a lot of tension between the old guard at the NHDP and the grassroots. Right now there is a messy situation regarding a new head for the party.
    The tension here is between the, IMHO, overcautious approach of the party old-timers along with a sort of tenure approach to party positions, vs the let’s-go-getum and we-want-our-turn approach of the activists. Which mirrors in some ways the national scene, except that it seems to be less about policy and more about process.

  • Of course it is not all A & B….there are many A+, B- etc along the way.

    Ed’s advice: ” Return to values shared by nearly all Americans: working families, affordable health care for everyone, education for all who qualify, scientific progress, cleaner environments, no unnecessary wars or interventions. NOW.” is good, except there are a few basic problems that impact our democracy that need repairing too…and maybe first:

    1) Stop Big Media: Responsible Media is needed for an informed democracy….if they are all run by the same co. or are all arms of the same corporation…it won’t happen:people will vote according to the propaganda they’ve heard or the news they haven’t heard.

    2) Ensure voting accuracy and accessibility: machines must have a paper trail and voters must be assured access.

  • JoeW is mostly right. There isn’t a real conflict between the two courses of action. The progressive wing needs to decide what it is they want from the Democratic party and I have never heard a clear articulation of what that is. For some, it is merely tactical. They want to Dems to be more aggressive in responding to attacks by the Repubs and the media. They want candidates and elected officials who are willing to be tough and uncompromising. For others, it is more strategic. They want the Dems to pursue policies that are more progressive: national health insurance, immediate withdrawal from Iraq, a more favorable statutory and regulatory climate for unions, etc.

    It seems there needs to be some consensus on the policies we as a party want to pursue, then there can be an argument over the necessary tactics in pursuit of those goals. I am not sure there is a significant disagreement between Camp A and B on strategic goals, but there may well be substantial disagreement over tactics. I happen to believe that Camp A has largely failed to understand that the traditional, consensus building tactic of 15 and 20 years ago simply no longer work and there needs to be a new, more aggressive approach, both in intraparty discipline and tactics used in pursuit of policy objectives. But there needs to be a much more focused consideration of objectives then a more realistic discussion can be had on tactics.

  • The occurrence of the words “fight” (7 times) and “battle” (7 times) in Mike Lux text is telling.

    In CB’s post, “fight” also got 7 repetitions, but “battle” dropped to 3, with a slight difference in word count: CB 500, Lux 800. The words “division” (x1) and conflict (x2) are introduced in CB’s post.

    Something about the tone of the articles sets off some alarm bells for me. I’m not advocating complacency and abject, subservient acquiescence by everyone – by no means; but, to draw battle lines seems dangerous and inappropriate.

    No political party can ever exactly express anyone’s views entirely and perfectly. There will always be compromises involved. If these compromises become too onerous, one moves to another party. Another way of putting this is that there are, in reality, as many political parties as there are voters. The modern systems of government, however, require coalescence of differences into large distinct and opposing conglomerates.

    Watching American politics from a safe distance over the last year or so, I can recognize all the different camps referred to. I also recognize a distinction between the hotheads and the coolheads. The hotheads are characterized by impatience, and a certain lack of political savvy. Maybe they could be called the idealists. They are probably younger than the other group and they fall more into Camp B. The coolheads are the cannier ones, though some may indeed be more conservative. I’m thinking of Congressmen like Waxman and Conyers. Ideologically they are B types, but tactically they are A types. They know how to bide their time. They’re like seasoned chess players – no great dramatic fireworks, captures and gambits that eventually collapse and end in defeat. Something much less obvious and subtle is in play.

    I’ve seen comments in relation to the USAs investigations, asking why Dems are bothering with such apparently trivial and peripheral issues ““when there’s a war to end”. These are the hotheads: they’ve got the right motivation, but the wrong method. If you ever have to tidy up a big mess and you just feel daunted and paralyzed by it, the most useful thing to know is that it doesn’t matter where you start. Pick up a thread, any thread, and follow it through. Any thread will eventually lead you to your goal.

    To return to topic, confrontation has always seemed to me to be a last resort, if you are intent on trying to bring someone round to your point of view. Of course, it has its place – as strategy but not as goal. If you want to be politically effective in a democracy, you should first look for similarities – check all the issues and dispositions you are fundamentally in accord with; only then are you qualified to address differences.

  • the most useful thing to know is that it doesn’t matter where you start

    Excellent bit of life advice.

    Of Lux’s two suggestions, #1 strikes me as a bit of a straw man. I don’t know of any major figures pushing for undifferentiated opposition to the Dem establishment from within. In every case the outsiders have picked fights that looked, if not winnable, then at least places where there’s a special opportunity.

    Per Goldilocks above, there should be continual pressure on the insiders, even as we make common cause with them at crunch time. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. In practical terms, this means, yes, by all means run primary challenges in races that seem to need them. But after the primaries, come together behind the winning candidate. (One reason Lieberman was such a sore point was the fact that insiderdom failed to abide by this, tacitly continuing to support cloakroom buddy Holy Joe even after he’d lost his primary.)

  • Global warming requires a global response that is beyond camps A and B of our warring political parties. When humans think small and act small they can not solve big problems. The solution for all of us is to effectively articulate a paradigm shift that breaks away from special interests, class interests, corportate interests and promotes the common good. The stage is set for an awakening to the notion that survival of our civilization depends on man’s ability to adapt and cooperate.
    We are running out of time.

  • I come down firmly on the side of “Point #2.” That may be due to the fact I don’t have 40 years left to see “ultimate victory”, but it’s more because I have been around the whole time to see what the strategy of #1 has done to the Republican Party, with the takeover by the far right.

    While I might disagree with people, as long as there is basic agreement on underlying principles, I am fine with having them around, and being in power wherever they convince people to elect them. In fact, having this diversity is a strength, not a weakness. It’s a strength because it is the best bulwark against the party turning into a totalitarian organization, as the Republican Party has done over the past 43 years since the Goldwater campaign.

    We need thesis and anti-thesis to arrive at synthesis. If all we have is thesis, how do we know when that thesis is wrong? History shows that every political movement that has followed the #1 strategy has eventually turned into a totalitarian movement. I’m not interested in living in a Stalinist world, whether actual Stalinism or Mayberry Bushism.

    David Sirota, who is generally to my left, has a very good piece on this very subject up at his blog. I recommend you go read it:

    http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=3CF1B228-E0C3-F08F-97A57413EE68EEB3

  • Lux’s argument is a rather simplistic effort to rephrase the tired old line of who really controls the Democratic Party — the Beltway insiders or the dirty f’ing hippies in the streets. This isn’t a zero-sum game. Every party is made up of a number of factions, including the pros in Washington and the activists spread throughout the country.

    If the pros don’t want to listen to the grassroots and netroots, they have no base of suppoort to drive the party and basically exist as only self-serving bastards. The activists are energized to propel the party forward and the insiders should be loathe to ignore them. But without the insiders, the people on the street have no one to rally around and no machine to take their pleas into account.

    Lux is wrong that this is an either-or battle. It’s a symbiosis in the works, an evolution in progress or as Condi might say “birth pangs.” But the party could use a bit of an internal reorganization and an infusion of fresh blood in its insiders crowd. Folks like Carville and Begala need to be put out to pasture and replaced by a new corps of Washington power players whose time is coming.

  • Choice #2 is a rough summary of the Democrat’s recipe for failure at the national level for the past couple of decades. The goal first and foremost has to be to elect Democratic candidates. This means do not worry about individual issues and do support the strongest candidate. The next point is that the “radicals” of choice #1 are the mainstream voters. They are not people in the upper 0.1% income bracket that are best served by corporate interests but people with a wider view of national and personal needs. These are the voters that swept Democrats into power during the last election cycle. Ultimately we need to find out if it is possible to have elections at the national level without large corporations pulling the strings behind the scenes.

  • I think the key is to be opportunistic in terms of fights to pick–Lieberman 2006 was a good example, and even though “we” lost in that he won the race, that battle will pay off for years to come.

    The thing about the “ideological purity” approach is that this is a moment when hard-right pseudo-conservatism has failed so completely that we have some chance to lock in a new working Democratic majority that looks different from the old FDR-to-LBJ one (which, let’s face it, was built in no small part on the strength of Southern racists). My sense is that this becomes harder to do when we’re presenting Moveon.org as the center of gravity within the progressive coalition… but that the spineless triangulations and characteristic timidity of the DC establishment doesn’t get it done either.

    Maybe my best answer is that this should be more an evolution than a revolution. I do think we’re on the right side of history here.

  • I’m not someone who picks fights; in fact, I’d as soon avoid them. I definitely do not want to fight with people who are, overall, on the same side of the fence as I am, when there’s plenty of enemy outside the fence to sharpshoot at or take a wrecker ball to.

    But I think it’s important to know oneself and one’s capacity for compromise; at some point, compromise is no loger palatable and I dig my heels in (“they will not pass”). Since 2004, I no longer give money to the party, if I think it might go to the establishment/DINOsaur part of it; I give it to individual candidates, if I agree with their position on most issues and/or issues which I think are most important . And I make sure I tell the party what I’m doing and why, because all actions (and in-actions) have consequences.

  • Tom Cleaver has it right. An ideological purge is the beginning of a totalitarian movement, and breathe new life into the conservative movement. The viewpoint of many Camp B outsiders is “We’re right! Why should we wait for history to catch up?” and they believe that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be the quickest way to create a new political conventional wisdom that Americans will not support a Bush-style pre-emptive war doctrine. But just as making racist speech difficult only drives racism underground, eliminating pro-war voices does not eliminate war or support for war. Instead, it goes underground and behind closed doors, where free from public scrutiny, it becomes pathological, resentful and even more dangerous.

    Call if the Domino Theory of Peace — that if we can reject this war, it will set off a chain reaction of anti-war sentiment throughout the polity, that even dissidents will be cowed into submission by the triumphant victory. This is politically naive, and even dangerous, because the dissidents are always more powerful and the triumph less sweeping than we expect. And this just breeds a resentful backlash and a desire for war, if only to overturn the new political dogma. Anti-war fundamentalists — even though they may be right — fatally over-estimate their ability to create a new anti-war political reality, and actually create a cycle that breeds still more war and violence.

    The worst possible scenario, then, would be for the anti-war blogosphere to get what they want. Fortunately, the best possible scenario is what is actually happening — the anti-war blogosphere is locked in stalemate with the spineless, yet pragmatic DC insiders, each preventing the other from directly or indirectly aiding the Bush administration.

  • I’m with those who see Lux’s choices as false. That said…

    We all saw what happened when Republicans controlled both Congress and the WH — not to mention the effect their appointments of conservatives to the SC will have for year to come. The way to avoid anything like that in the future that is to win majorities now (requiring pragmatism) and in the future (requiring a recognition that our struggles against the Repubs AND change within the Dem establishment are both long-term projects).

    Neither struggle is likely to achieve any sustained success, however, unless Dems are able to expose the Repub propaganda machine for what it is. In the current climate, all the right has to do is label something or someone “liberal” and they immediately win over many American voters. That kind of bullshit must be stopped — and in that regard, I think non-establishment Dems have already begun to influence establishment Dems.

  • Aw, nuts, people—what’ve we got to lose? I say we bring in the new “B” model, take it out for a spin, and see what it’ll do—at full-on ramming speed. We’re not living in Teddy-K Land any more; Camelot disappeared into the mists decades ago. This is more like—Verdun. Incessant compromise will do nothing more than it has done over the years, which is to promote an ad-nauseum furtherance of the neoconservative tragedy—all in the name of “taking the high road.” The high road is the horizon, and standing on the horizon does nothing more than to make one an easy target for the guy who’s not afraid of the mud.

    Ramming speed, people—the existence of the Republic depends upon it.

    Period.

  • I think we should stop worrying about the word “liberal”. I think we should stop worrying about what the smear machine is up to. I think we should quit being so damned defensive.

    We have a message. A good message. A message for all working American families. If we shout that message loud enough, it will wash all the GOP crap down the sewer where it belongs. And the Democratic beltway people and triangulation types with it.

    The overwhelming majority of Americans aren’t mean enough or rich enough to be Republicans. We only need to remind them of that.

  • Publicly financed elections (in addition to reining in big media and ensuring accurate vote counting). We’re got to get the conflict-of-interest money out of politics. That’s the real divide.

    • Comments are closed.