Over the last few weeks, as part of the post-mortem since election day, a large number of the posted diaries have had to do with what type of strategy progressives (in general) and the Democratic party (in particular) should adopt to begin the slow climb back to national power.
The debate is familiar - terms like `framing' and `populism' get thrown about a lot. Ideas like `centrism' and `appealing to the base' are also frequently touted.
I'd like to add another concept, one that won't make a lot of people happy:
"class warfare."
It is obvious that the core strategy of the Republicans has been to demonize the left, Democrats and `liberals' in particular, to the point where a significant portion of the American electorate will automatically discount any idea that comes from [or can be painted to come from] the `liberal elite.' Any information coming from `liberal sources' is also immediately discarded, and for many people the automatic response is to believe the opposite of what had been presented.
The Right has initiated this `war' - and they have enjoyed great success largely because the Left has avoided playing the game. Class warfare will require getting our hands dirty, and that fills us with distaste. "This is not the way the world should work," we tell ourselves. "We can't get involved in mud-slinging - if we do, we are no better than they are."
To which I respectfully reply - B.S.
My rationale outlined below:
- If Liberalism has, at its core, the value of helping others, particularly those that are unable to help themselves, then ineffectual Liberalism is morally bankrupt, because we have failed in our duty to society. If the people are worth protecting, then they are worth fighting for. Refusing to fight does not make one a "good Liberal", it makes one a poor Liberal, and a whimp. Putting your sense of "sportsmanship" or "fair play" over the need to protect the disempowered is, in a term, "elitism."
- Demagoguery has a fine, long-standing history within Liberal tradition. Did the American Colonists refrain from calling George III "bad names" or "ridiculing" him? NO! Ridicule and scorn are the tools that those not in power [the `weaker'] use against those who are in power [the `stronger']. We are currently the weaker, so there is no moral imperative to refrain from `being nasty.' The plebes continually attacked the patricians in what can only be described as a base, `toilet-humor' manner. It is nothing new.
- We can only use the tools that are available to us at this time. A nice, positive progressive message and `branding', with a fully-developed set of programs, policies, ethos and `framing' is, ultimately, more productive than negative attacks and ridicule. However, WE DON'T HAVE THOSE THINGS RIGHT NOW. Again, we are limited to dance to the tune the Republicans have picked. It doesn't mean we will always have to do that dance, but in order to change the tune, and the way the national debate is framed, we need to be in a position of power first.
- Finally, we CAN do things in a more ethical way then the Republicans have. We can aggressively attack the moral leadership, character and intelligence of the Republicans and those who support them without resorting to lying, illegal acts or bullying those who are not key players.
Now, I know this is gonna hurt, but - - if we do this many people are going to get very, very angry. So angry, in fact, that they will NEVER vote for another Democrat, or support an avowed Liberal for as long as they live. Guess what??
Those folks are never going to support us anyway, no matter how non-confrontational we are. If we try to win these folks over, we are playing to the wrong audience.
By actually calling things as they are - a class war - we point out the battle lines. The lackeys of Corporate America are taking unfair advantage of the Rest Of America. They get the best stuff, pay the lowest [or no] taxes, and have the government to bail out their failed business ventures whenever things get too hot. These people need to be singled out, ridiculed and attacked. Their character and credibility needs to be destroyed, so that no American making less than $250,000 a year will ever trust anything they say. Despite the down side, this strategy will ALSO ignite a section of the population that is currently sleeping, for it shows that we are serious in standing up for those who have been worst impacted by the current war/economy/police state fiasco. It will also start to make room for our message - the good, pure part of our message - to actually reach those who need to hear it.
The people are in pain - you only have to watch the news to see it. And those of us who are politically active, who have the time, skills and resources to be full participants in the process, argue with each other over verbal niceties like a high-school debate team. If we can't get over it, and get down to the business of regaining power to help those who are otherwise helpless under the wheels of the NeoCon juggernaut, no matter how dirty and unpleasant that struggle may get, then we deserve the `liberal elite' label the Right has so effectively thrust upon us over the last 30 years.