Centerfield

Reply to Rick Perlstein and "Sucking Democracy Dry"

Last week, Marc Schulman linked to an article by Rick Perlstein in the Village Voice re “Sucking Democracy Dry” that apparently had a cover showing Bush as a vampire. (The associated story is called “The End of Democracy” at http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0442/perlstein.php.

This thread involved a broader discussion of civility and partisanship in politics. Rick posted a comment inviting the blog readers read and discuss the discuss his article and, as usual, decried what he calls “knee-jerk centrism.”

Frankly, I was prepared to trash the article because I find Rick’s views about political moderates somewhat infuriating. However, the article is well worth reading and discussing. I am not presuming to respond for the entire blog, but these are my thoughts about it and, hopefully, we can discuss it. Hopefully, Rick will see this and join in.

The main point of the article, as I read it, is that the Bush Administration has taken numerous actions, that while not necessarily illegal, are injurious to American democracy, including using the Secret Service to advance Bush’s campaign, systematically suppressing Democratic votes, and “ramming through” a radical legislative agenda even though he lost the popular vote. One problem here is that the assumptions predetermine the conclusion. Rick’s article reads in some way like a good legal brief, shaping the facts to support the conclusion. If you accept that the actions of the Administration and/or the GOP go beyond the pale for normal partisan activity, then obviously, they are a danger to the polity. But you have to accept that his factual statements are true, for example, that the Republicans are systematically trying to disenfranchise minority Democratic voters. If you don’t accept his factual allegations, then his argument loses a lot of weight. For example, I'm not sure how "ramming" his agenda through is a danger to democracy. The laws are passed by Congress. The fact that Bush does not have much of a mandate doesn't mean he shouldn't try to govern. People criticized the Kennedy Administration which had been elected by a razor thin margin for not being more aggresive in pushing civil rights legislation. I suspect that if the positions were reversed and Al Gore was pushing through a Democratic agenda, Rick wouldn't be so concerned.

I think his more important theme is that neither the MSM or even the mainstream political elites in the Democratic Party have shown much interest in exposing what he considers the Administration's abuses. He quotes media (Jeff Greenfield) and party officials to the effect that that the rest of the country considers this stuff “inside baseball” and is not concerned.

As it applies to us, I think the gist of the argument would go as follows: The conservatives are trying to hijack our democratic traditions and are inflicting great harm on the political system. The Republicans have been far guiltier of bad acts than the Democrats. The pragmatic, nonpartisanship that centrists profess is too relativist and does not recognize that one party is worse another. The focus on "civil discourse" is ill-suited to addressing these dangers to the country because it dilutes the anger we should be feeling and impedes the ability to take effective political action. By always being in the middle and chastising both sides equally, moderates are abdicating their responsibility to hold the political elites accountable. Rick, if you read this, I hope this is a fair synopsis of your article and your views. I encourage everyone to read the article.

I agree with much of Rick's article. I find many of the actions and the tone of this Administration disturbing and dangerous. That is why I am voting for Kerry even though I find him less than an ideal candidate. I also agree that partisanship plays an important role in the political process because it helps keep the ruling party on its toes. And not all bad things are equal in politics. “A pox on both your houses” is not always appropriate because it conflates lesser evils with greater evils.

However, separate from the article, I think Rick misunderstands the nature of centrism. I suspect true partisans are rarely, if ever, been troubled with doubts about their opinions. They tend to be suspicious of moderates whom they see as being too malleable and having no principles. Centrists are different. Without being too postmodern, I believe in a degree of skepticism about all political opinions, including my own, and a willingness to modify those opinions when confronted with superior facts. I don't think anyone on this blog thinks that centrism requires a slavish devotion to a middle ground between right and left. There are plenty of people on the blog that have staked out positions on the right or left. What it does require is the willingness to consider and think about issues rather than blindly adopting a doctrinaire position.

I also believe that Rick's apparent dismissal of civil dialogue is misplaced. I don't necessarily think that this election is particularly more vicious than elections in the past. But I do think the demonization of both sides has gone too far. This morning, I saw someone wearing a tee shirt with pictures of Mao, Hitler, and (you guessed it) George Bush. Now, I think even Rick would acknowledge that this equation of Bush with Hitler goes way too far (Rick in fact says that Bush is not a fascist). I find this kind of stuff offensive not only because it’s ridiculous analogy but because it diminishes the enormity of the evil that Mao and Hitler committed. But it does two other things. First, its exaggeration poisons the political environment and coarsens our dialogue. If person A thinks that person B is essentially a fascist because he supports Bush, how can they hope to ahve any kind of rational discussion. Maybe that's not important to Rick (clearly it's not important to the guy wearing the shirt). But I think it is important. Democracy entails compromise and the willingness to accept the opposition. If you consider the opposition to be scum, how can you accept them. (And I say the same thing with respect to conservatives. I have seen plenty of conservative blog comments on other blogs that make me question their sanity.) Second, it weakens the argument against the Administration (much as Fahrenheit 9/11 did) and makes it much easier to dismiss all legitimate criticism. The general nastiness in tone makes it much more difficult to distinguish the wheat of valid criticism from the chaff of partisan exaggeration. Both sides become more polarized and unwilling to consider each other’s position. I don’t see how that helps the political culture. I’m not claiming, of course, that all partisan rhetoric is of that caliber. But I think Rick underestimates the destructive potential of overheated rhetoric from both sides and the effect it has on the willingness to participate in the political process. In the best tradition of American politics, coalitions coalesce around particular issues regardless of party; thus, in Watergate, Republicans were heavily involved in ousting Nixon. Rick thinks that conservatives are so far gone that such a coalition is impossible. But I’m not convinced of that; plenty of conservatives are concerned about the Patriot Act, for example. But overheated rhetoric doesn’t help this process; it can only hurt it.