Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Keep kicking, dammit

Here's Digby. And he's right, per usual:

I didn't expect it to get more than 25 votes and I'm frankly stunned that we did as well as we did. Indeed, something very interesting happened that I haven't seen in more than a decade.

When it became clear that the vote was going against the filibuster, Diane Feinstein, a puddle of lukewarm water if there ever was one, decided to backtrack and play to the base instead of the right wing. That's new folks. Given an opportunity to make an easy vote, until now she and others like her (who are legion) would always default to the right to prove their "centrist" bonafides. That's the DLC model. When you have a free vote always use it to show that you aren't liberal. That's why she was against it originally --- a reflexive nod to being "reasonable."

Obama had to choke out his support for a filibuster, but he did it. A calculation was made that he needed to play to the base instead of the punditocrisy who believe that being "bold" is voting with the Republicans. Don't underestimate how much pressure there is to do that, especially for a guy like Obama who is running for King of the Purple. The whole presidential club, including Biden joined the chorus.

The last time we had a serious outpouring from the grassroots was the Iraq War resolution. My Senator DiFi commented at thetime that she had never seen anything like the depth of passion coming from her constituents. But she voted for the war anyway. So did Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kerry and Reid. The entire leadership of the party. Every one of them went the other way this time. I know that some of you are cynical about these people (and ,well, they are politicans, so don't get all Claud Rains about it) but that means something. Every one of those people were running in one way or another in 2002 and they went the other way. The tide is shifting. There is something to be gained by doing the right thing.

I keep hearing that it's bad that these Senators "pandered" to the blogosphere and I don't understand it. We want them to pander to the blogosphere. In their book Politicians Don't Pander; Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness Lawrence R. Jacobs and Robert Y. Shapiro argue:


Politicians respond to public opinion, then, but in two quite different ways. In one, politicians assemble information on public opinion to design government policy. This is usually equated with "pandering," and this is most evident during the relatively short period when presidential elections are imminent. The use of public opinion research here, however, raises a troubling question: why has the derogatory term "pander" been pinned on politicians who respond to public opinion? The answer is revealing: the term is deliberately deployed by politicians, pundits, and other elites to belittle government responsiveness to public opinion and reflects a long-standing fear, uneasiness, and hostility among elites toward popular consent and influence over the affairs of government
.

Bingo.

It isn't actually pandering. It's responsiveness. I believe that there is finally a recognition that the Party has hit the wall. We have moved as far to the right as we can go and we have been as accomodating as we can be without thoroughly compromising our fundamental principles. Most of us are not "far left" if that means extreme policy positions. Indeed, many of us would have been seen as middle of the road not all that long ago. We are partisans and that's a different thing all together. The leadership is recognising this.

I know it hurts to lose this one. I won't say that I'm not disappointed. But it was a very long shot from the outset and we managed to make some noise and get ourselves heard. The idea that it is somehow a sign of weakness because we only got 25 members of the Senate, including the entire leadership, to vote to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee is funny to me. Two years ago I would have thought somebody was on crack if they even suggested it was possible.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm rather glad to see a leftie say something good about public opinion, myself. And, in fact, I think Digby is right to insist that the Democratic Left can't win what it wants to win simply by moving to the center. But, there is an question this raises: what does the Democratic Left want to win?
Clinton brought apparent success to his party. I say apparent, because other than elections for the White House, the Democrats wound up losing more than they won in the '90s. And I was never sure how Clinton worked for the left wing of his party on ideological terms. He had the interesting ability to defeat the Right without giving the Left any positive achievement.
However, if any ideologically motivated group is going to gain power in American politics, it needs a positive vision, a way it can offer to Americans of how they can be. I'm not sure this is there on the Left today. By all means, do not let those concerned with tactical political advantage dissuade you from acting on principle. But, at the same time, you might worry about what your principles add up to, and if they really are enough. The American Right spent several decades in the wilderness because it did not address this question when it should have.

--Stephen Miller

Anonymous said...

And here a followup comment to a comment unread by anyone. But I'd like to draw attention to the use of 'partisan' in the main post. Digby insists that he and his companions are not extreme. Instead, they are 'partisan'. Well, I agree. Let's lose the quotes, and lets admit, from the left and the right, that we have partisan opposition that is neither deluded nor corrupt. The pretence, enjoyed by each side, that its opposition is altogether lacking in virtue, that they exist as, and really only as, a malevolent collective at best, a malignant tumor in the body politic at worst, has become tiresome. Or at least, I hope it has become tiresome.
By all means, be partisan. Filibuster a Supreme Court nominee you cannot abide. Fight those measures you find detestable with all your means. The current notion that somehow having a distinctive attitude, idea, or approach to politics makes you somehow suspect, is one of the worst mistakes engendered by our political climate.

--Stephen Miller

Iggy said...

[[I'm rather glad to see a leftie say something good about public opinion, myself.]]


Why do you think "lefties" have a low opinion of public opinion? Is it not the Bushites who are constantly praising Bush with the (totally false) claim that he "doesn't pay attention to polls"?

[[And, in fact, I think Digby is right to insist that the Democratic Left can't win what it wants to win simply by moving to the center. But, there is an question this raises: what does the Democratic Left want to win?
Clinton brought apparent success to his party. I say apparent, because other than elections for the White House, the Democrats wound up losing more than they won in the '90s. And I was never sure how Clinton worked for the left wing of his party on ideological terms. He had the interesting ability to defeat the Right without giving the Left any positive achievement.]]


Bill Clinton is a very brilliant and very pragmatic man. He won by treating things like a marketing wizard - "segmenting" the market, "targetting" the audience, and gaining just enough "market share" to win. Bill Clinton never got 50% of the vote. He got enough to win. In his case it was justified BECAUSE it enabled him to win. Those who have followed him have TRIED to do the same thing, but they aren't NEARLY as smart as he is, and the result has been failure.

Clinton was pragmatic enough to know that to accomplish anything idealistic - he had to win first. So he approached thing first pragmatically, and second idealistically. I think he was right. The modern Democrats seem to have no core ideals, AND no pragmatism.

And I disagree about "positive achievement." Under Clinton the country prospered, and it prospered because he approached the ECONOMY pragmatically instead of idealistically, too.


[[However, if any ideologically motivated group is going to gain power in American politics, it needs a positive vision, a way it can offer to Americans of how they can be. I'm not sure this is there on the Left today.]]

It's there, the problem is that there is an entrenched power group who pretty much about keeping theire own bread buttered.