The conventional wisdom on Russ Feingold’s censure resolution seemed to shift rather suddenly about a week ago, when the first of a few national polls showed considerable public support for the effort. This “crazy,” “radical,” and “over-the-top” idea had broad national support.
That same conventional wisdom shifted a little more this morning, when The New Republic’s Peter Beinart, hardly a reflexive liberal, explained that Feingold’s resolution could help the Democratic Party far more than the naysayers have been willing to admit.
The conventional wisdom is that, by making Democrats look radical, Feingold has shot his party in the foot, if not the head. But some radicalism is politically useful, particularly in the long run. Liberal bloggers often make this point, and they’re right: Occasionally you need to stake a position beyond what is mainstream in Washington — and take some hits — in the hope that you eventually redefine what “mainstream” is. Social Security privatization has always been a political loser for the GOP, and yet, by sticking with it for decades, they have made it politically respectable and shifted the terms of debate. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Massachusetts Supreme Court created a huge backlash when they pushed gay marriage, but, by putting it on the political agenda, they made civil unions — once a radical position itself — the centrist alternative.
So there’s a value for Democrats in having Russ Feingold inject censure into the political debate. (In fact, a Newsweek poll found that 42 percent of Americans support the idea — more than backed the president’s Social Security plan.) With censure as the extreme position, a full, tough investigation of the surveillance program now looks sober and reasonable, whereas, not long ago, that too might have seemed beyond the pale.
The challenge for Democrats, as The Washington Post’s E. J. Dionne has pointed out, is to let some people push the bounds of acceptable opinion while others use the specter of radicalism to make modest, incremental progress. The press fetishizes party unity, but, in a way, what the Democrats need is creative disunity: different kinds of politicians who pursue different tactics but agree on a broader goal. Washington Democrats may not like Russ Feingold very much these days, but they — and the country — need him all the same.
Granted, this isn’t exactly glowing praise for the resolution. As Beinart sees it, the measure is “radical,” despite the fact that Beinart concedes that Bush’s warrantless-search program is “illegal,” and, as he sees it, the president “lied about it.”
Nevertheless, Beinart’s piece is a defense of the resolution, if for no other reason, because it may spur lawmakers to do their duty and investigate the legality and operation of the surveillance program. That may not be my reasoning for supporting the measure, but I’ll take it.