The Radicalism of Rigidity

What makes an idea, an ideology, a politician or a political party too extreme or too radical? The language of left, right, and center applied to politics reinforces a misapprehension that there is a linear measure against which any idea or politician can be measured to determine whether they are extreme or "centrist". But dangerous radicalism can raise its head anywhere along the mythic spectrum, as can worthy concepts.

In great works of art, it is the interplay of darkness and light, of bright colors and muted tones which lend to their wholeness and beauty. Some masterpieces are dark, others light, but regardless of where the overall tone of the piece lies, it is the variation within it which give it meaning and make it work for the viewer. And so it is with politics. Ideas are our color pallet, society's institutions, whether government or private, are our paintbrushes. Precious few ideas by themselves are terribly dangerous, but any idea over applied with rigid fanaticism will likely have bad results. It doesn't matter whether the idea comes from Karl Marx, Milton Friedman, John Locke, Adam Smith, or John Keynes; rigidity and the unbending application of any narrow set of precepts to solve every problem is dangerous and almost always bound to have disastrous, even if unintended, results.

I am unabashedly liberal, and by some accounts in certain areas - extremely so. But I recognize that truth can come from anywhere, and I KNOW that certain conservative ideas have far too much merit to be ignored or dismissed out of hand simply because they are conservative. I'm a big believer in using a full pallet in painting our democracy. Let's work together and see what works, don't be afraid to try new ideas, or to mix old ideas in new combinations. As they say the devil is in the details, and reasonable people will disagree with each other on how to proceed. I wouldn't presume in a single article to provide THE answer to solving our problems. What I will suggest with some confidence is that we should be wary of those who prescribe adherence to a rigid agenda in addressing those problems. And rigid agendas can come not only from the far right or far left, but can just as easily come from the center, from libertarians, neoliberals, neoconservatives, etc. etc.

A recurring theme in my criticism of the Bush administration has been that it's not how far right they are, it's how far wrong they are. Well, my belief is that what has been so wrong is precisely that rigidity in applying a narrow set of precepts, from a canned set of talking points to every policy on every front. When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail.

Monday in the Democratic column at Watchblog, Paul Siegel wrote a commentary arising from his reaction to the coal mining tragedy in Utah, in which he attacked the rigidity of the popular ideology which holds sacred the primacy of the free market in determining government policy. I remember being struck by how "on target" the piece was, only to discover how utterly repulsed some readers were by that article, declaring disgust and an inclination to vomit because of it. Upon rereading the article, I understood better this reaction, and realized that Paul and his commenters approached the subject with different understanding of the particulars of this case (and I think the exposure of the those particulars will largely vindicate Paul), but also see that Paul erred in seeming to imply that the rigidity he attacks might be applied generally to all conservatives. I'm confident that Paul would agree with me that such is not the case, but rather that the talking points of the conservative movement in this country over the last three decades, as encapsulated in the commentary of such ideologues as Rush Limbaugh, do attempt to prescribe such dangerous rigidity.

Limbaugh in fact is a master at exploiting the misapprehension I spoke of at the beginning of this article in leading his listeners to assumptions about the reasonableness of some ideas and solutions as opposed to the "radicalness" of others. People on the left are just as guilty of the same technique and honestly that bothers me just as much. But let's look again at some of Paul's specific language to see why his suggestions are in fact the moderate ones. In his key summary paragraph, Paul acknowledges that "Ownership, free markets and self-reliance are all good." That statement certainly does not come from the radical left. He goes on to say "But they must be modified occasionally. Ownership cannot get anywhere without people to do the work. Free markets must be regulated for the interest of the average person. Self-reliance must yield to working as a community for the common good." In other words, Paul wants us to use a full pallet of ideas in working out solutions that - well - work! Now some were offended that Paul put words into the mouths of conservatives in parodying the rigidity which he and I see have dominated the conservative movement, but for many movement conservatives those words are all too close to what they are trying to imbue into the conservative American psyche. When someone in all seriousness comments that "If the government has no power to regulate the economy, their(sic) is no corruption", it is evident that in many cases they have succeeded in implanting such rigid thinking.

We Right-of-Center Liberals

As reality has finally descended onto mainstream political discourse in America, the occasional continued chirpings of staunch Bush apologists has taken on more of an other-worldly, cornered-animal, delusional gloss than they had when mainstream attention gave them undeserved legitimacy. Surely it's only a matter of time until national policy will catch up with that reality. In the meantime, I will chuckle every time I see Democratic politicians referred to as "far-left liberals" or socialists.

There are many measures of conservatism and liberalism, but none of them have much relation to whether one acknowledges that our decision to occupy Iraq was the colossal error that most now realize it to have been. Pro-war Lieberman and newly anti-war Brownback should serve as testament to that.

But of all the measures used to measure ideology, the one most often employed is the extent to which one adheres to a market economy model vs. a centrally planned economy model. Some think capitalist vs. socialist, others command economy vs free enterprise, communist vs laissez-faire, but each is an expression of the same dichotomy, though there are many different flavors at each end and in the middle.

Most reasonable people today would acknowledge the problems associated with strict adherence to either extreme along this continuum, and in fact all western democracies have some form of mixed economy which combines elements from each. In these United States we have Social Security, Medicare, a nationalized Postal Service & defense, highly regulated utilities, a Federal Reserve, anti-trust laws, a minimum wage, and many other elements which distance us from a pure market economy, but market forces still remain the driving force for our economy as a whole. We have chosen a market economy with an overlay of some planned elements to keep in check some of the excesses associated with unreined free market capitalism, exposed in an earlier age by writers such as Charles Dickens and Upton Sinclair.

The really remarkable thing in America is the extent of agreement across more than 90% of the political spectrum with our choice of a market based mixed economy. From Dennis Kucinich to Orrin Hatch we are agreed on this. It is not surprising that even very conservative Americans who may think of themselves as pure free marketeers will concede that some aspects of central planning currently in place are desirable. It is somewhat more surprising given the excesses of corporatism evident today, that there aren't more who advocate moving to a planned model with market driven elements. But most of us recognize the dangers associated with ceding too much planning power to a central agency, and have witnessed from afar the far graver excesses of such central power when Stalin ruthlessly purged and punished dissent, or when Mao megalomaniacally exerted his power in the now defamed Cultural Revolution. Some democratically elected governments in Europe have enjoyed some measure of success with a more planned economy, but still I agree with most of my fellow Democrats that we are best served retaining a market based system, even as we advocate for more reasonable controls to counter corporate excess.

By definition, along this economic measure of left and right, a belief that we should retain a market based mixed economy, makes the vast majority of Democrats and liberals in America right of center. At the very least charges that we are far-left, fringe, or socialist are simply laughable. A democratic socialist perspective, far more common in Europe, ought to be a perfectly respectable one, and I think it sad that such views are routinely mocked or worse considered traitorous, in spite of my belief that America is better off retaining a market based model. The more purist views trotted out by the Heritage Foundation, Richard Viguerie, or Grover Norquist surely strike this observer as more extreme than those of a European style democratic socialist.

Ah well, I can live with that as long as America can continue the process of refinding her center, and begin to marginalize the divisive policies foisted upon us by the boardroom bought Republican leadership which at least no longer controls the agenda in Congress. Perhaps she can also find greater civility in political discourse as politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle respond to the disgust of the voters with the status quo and find language that can unite us, in spite of retained differences.

Can Obama Obliterate Limbaugh's Legacy?

It seems almost silly at this stage, 20 month before the next Presidential election, to be getting too excited or too committed to any particular candidate for that office. Already I posted my allegiance to Russ Feingold here the very day after the midterms, only to have him declare his intention NOT to run mere days later. By the time Congressman Dennis Kucinich, my choice in the primaries of 2004 declared his candidacy, I had decided to hold off and wait for a Democrat who not only shared most of my values, but also had a credible chance of being taken seriously.

And so it was in the midst of reading Obama's Audacity of Hope that I (& thousands of others) received this email from the Senator, announcing his intention to form a presidential exploratory committee, writing:

...challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before. But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions.

In reading his book, it is apparent that Barack Obama more often takes a more moderate tack than what I might, but what I share with him is a passion about the pressing need for people, including politicians, to hone their ability to listen to conflicting perspectives and truly weigh what their adversaries are correct about, rather than derisively dismissing that adversary by association with some aspect of their belief or their affiliation with people or causes which the viewer finds either contemptible or ridiculous.

Mockery has always been around, and its use, whether in satire or a stand-up comedy routine, can lend new perspective, shaking sense into those who might otherwise too easily accept authority's explanation for the status quo. Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, though far too subtle in technique for today's standards, caricatured the Irish wealthy class' indifference to the poor in the 18th century. Jesus' General and Scrappleface capably carry the form with wry humor from two very different perspectives into the modern blogosphere.

But the extent to which modern politicking routinely leans on derision as the modus operandi for motivating its allies to action has poisoned political discourse in America. Even if Barack Obama doesn't win his party's nomination, having an eloquent voice directly challenge the "talking points" formulaic approach to winning by dividing might have a contagious effect on the race as a whole, as Americans yearn for a hopeful message, void of the scorn of the cultural wars.

Which brings me to Limbaugh's legacy. Wasn't it Rush that made an artform of holding up the orthodoxies of politically correct liberalism to ridicule? He was good at it too - and there were orthodoxies there that were laughable enough in their own right. Never mind that they did not represent the thinking of the majority of liberals - mockery worked. When a coworker by proximity introduced me to Limbaugh's tirades in the early nineties, I was struck by his then obsessive fixation with Sally Jessy Raphael as the exemplar of liberalism gone amok. Huh? I was a self-identified liberal, but I found Raphael's tawdry obsession with often morally skewed freaks distasteful at least, if not as repugnant as the antics of Springer or later Povich. Limbaugh successfully conflated liberalism with immorality in the minds of his faithful following, and aside from helping to spawn an ugly brand of lock-step conservatism, with orthodoxies at least as absurd as those he was so adept at exposing or fabricating among carefully selected liberals and academics, he also promoted derision as the chief tool for political discussion and argument.

Today, while my car was in the shop, the loaner car I drove was tuned to Limbaugh, whom I've pretty much avoided since getting more than my fill in 1992 & 93. While I occasionally tune into liberal talk radio today, I recognize what it borrows from Limbaugh's legacy. Today though, I took the opportunity to flip back and forth between Rush and Thom Hartmann. I might usually agree with the analysis of Hartmann, and often his conclusions, while rarely agreeing with Limbaugh, but both are skillfully pandering to many listeners' appetites for derision of their foes, and I won't mind a bit if both are marginalized by a central core of Americans hungry for more civility with a focus on possible solutions to our problems, rather than a mentality of winning at any cost.

That does not mean that everyone should be a centrist. No! No! No! America and the world will thrive best when thoughtful people from diverse perspectives are allowed to contribute their ideas and skills to our common destiny. Feingold on the left and Oklahoma's Tom Coburn on the right are more valuable to the Senate in my estimation than the more moderate, and arguably more powerful, Chuck Schumer is or Bill Frist was. The former are genuine representatives of their constituencies, not panderers to talking points and political expediency. Americans are sometimes surprised when seemingly huge political divides are bridged, like Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy coming together to promote legislation, but they shouldn't be. Obama understands this interplay, and has already had remarkable success at playing the political game while retaining a compelling voice for goodwill and the promotion of common values.

I'm also hungry for great oratory, and was too young to appreciate that of JFK. We've really not had a great orator for a President since JFK. Good speeches here and there from almost every President, including the current one, but a great orator - that would be a welcome change. Obama does not reflect my views perfectly, but in large measure where we differ, his electability is enhanced by that difference. I've read enough and seen enough to be convinced that America would benefit from his candidacy if not his presidency, and have accordingly already sent him that message in the form of a few dollars. Now is the time to do so if you agree, as his expected announcement is expected to come on February 10 (auspiciously my own 50th birthday).

So while the pundits legitimately may question Obama's foreign policy experience, let me leave by quoting this prescient passage from a speech that he gave to an anti-war crowd in 2002, before most of his expected Democratic opponents who happen to have been in the Senate voted to authorize Bush's blank check for taking war to Iraq:

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

We sure could have used some of THAT inexperience in the oval office in the Spring of 2003!

Satirical "Lost" Bush Speech

If conservatives were consistently this brilliant in expounding their ideas, then they certainly would be quite formidable, but then they would also be less frightening. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the notion that the underpinnings of conservatism are ethically bereft, and all eloquence in defense of its policies is tantamount to cynical trickery.

As a liberal (usually) who is most annoyed by the dogged conflation by the right of liberalism with moral decay, one of my fundamental liberal notions is that sound values based on concern for our fellow humans can honestly lead people to different conclusions. It would be hypocritical of me to not acknowledge that some conservative values have merit, when my most scathing rebuke of many right-wingers is their refusal to acknowledge any merit to either the underpinnings of liberal thought, or an occasional success borne of liberal policy.

ScrappleFace consistently publishes intelligent satire from a pretty far right perspective. His attacks of the Bush administration are pretty consistently delivered from Bush's right. But while I would often vehemently disagree with author Scott Ott's prosriptions for an improved public policy, he strikes me as being in touch with the nobler underpinnings of conservatism, so much of his commentary rings true in spite of my disagreement.

Many on the left would dismiss Ott's frequent quotations of MLK's oratory as disningenuous because he clearly opposes many of the left's proscriptions for equal opportunity. But I see no reason to believe that his implied belief in equal opportunity is not genuine, simply because he mocks systems which he sees as fostering dependency and removing incentives for positive living and contribution to society. In fact I agree that any liberal system for promoting diversity and opportunity for the less advantaged needs to avoid those potential maladies, while I suspect that Ott would agree that any conservative system which demands responsibility and accountability should implement checks to prevent the exploitation of the vulnerable by the powerful.

In the current political climate, I find myself unambiguously allied with "the left" because I see the rise of corporatism as a real threat to the egalitarian ideal which has been advanced in fits and starts over the last two centuries. The current leadership of the Republican party is marching us toward an ever increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor which is in dire need of reversal. Many leaders of the opposition rightly point to the importance of framing in the right's success in gaining currency for their ideas in the national dialogue. They will point also to the technique of smearing the ideas associated with liberalism in changing the tenor of the debate. The implication is that progressives need to wage a similar campaign in reverse to compensate for the current imbalance. They may be right.

My fear is that when all the focus is put into winning the argument for one's "side" we lose sight of the values that were the underpinning of our ideology, and we contribute to the poisoning of the dialogue for those of good intent on both sides of the debate. But we don't need to lose sight of those values. The liberal values of generosity, enablement, fairness, openness, and freedom of thought can remain central to our discussion of the issues. We can agree with conservatives that personal responsibilty, accountability, temperance, and caution are worthy values to keep in drafting a way forward, without compromising our own ideals.

This is why I find no inconsistency in declaring myself to be both liberal and conservative, even though I supported the supposedly "far-left" candidacy of Dennis Kucinich in the last election. It's why I never stop looking for signs of reason from some in the Republican party, because ultimately we need a synthesis of ideas rather than a one-sided solution. Too often compromises are tactical rather than principled and we get a muddled centrism which brings some of the worst from both parties together. But not always. There are success stories out there. We must find them and model them if we are to choose hope for our future.

Accusations of Evil

A friend of mine whose political proclivities differ substantially from mine, bemoans the rancor, incivility, shrillness, and accusations of evil employed by both sides in the current political season. My friend, whose dismay is informed by his deeply held religious beliefs, rightly notes:

Evil is a strong word and a loaded word. Evil lies within the hearts of all men. ... Where you have any man you have the elements of evil. Where you have any institution of men you have the elements of evil. Of course you also have the opposite -- good, purity, the amazing capacity for selfless service, joy, peace, and above all reconciliation and forgiveness. I believe even the lowest of men are redeemable, therefore no man is purely evil. Nor do I believe that I personally have the insight into a man's heart (especially men I know only by what others pro or con have written ...) "Walk a mile in a man's moccasins ..."
For my part, I will reserve evil accusations not for individuals but for clear movements of an evil force such as the holocaust, or the Bataan death march, or American slavery (any slavery), etc ... All of these are examples that anyone influenced by evil can do things that otherwise their good educated common sense would not let them do!

Sage advice for anyone engaging in political discourse, I believe, lest they become too smug in their own righteousness.

Leading the world's strongest nation in a world filled with conflict and powerful means of destruction is a job I do not envy, and I certainly appreciate that leaders are called upon to make decisions where ill-effect might be anticipated from every imaginable option. How best to handle Saddam for instance, whether one year ago or ten years ago is not a question to which I have a comfortable answer.

Where I get agitated is when evidence suggests that avarice trumps human concerns in the making of life and death decisions. To the extent to which I think that is likely, I think it is my duty to say so. If saying so happens to impugn someone's character, I'll not back away from stating what I believe to be true just in the interest of being nice. I will avoid personalizing the accusation and illogically tainting all policy and actions of a particular individual or institution based on an instance where I believe a wrong-headed decision was made. If, however, there appears to be a pattern of ill-conceived decisions on the part of an individual or institution in power, then it only makes sense to apply greater scrutiny to all decisions and policies emanating from that entity.

Pardon me, but I see a pattern. From Halliburton to Enron to Saudi connections to secret energy task forces, I see a pattern. From exaggerated or fabricated claims about WMD to exposing CIA agents identities to withholding information about the real cost of a prescription drug bill, I see a pattern. It's not necessary for me to believe that the administration is evil in order to conclude that they are untrustworthy, and hence undeserving of another four years in office.