I originally posted the following diary at my own blog, Freedom Democrats. Freedom Democrats is an online community for libertarian-leaning Democrats who support Democrats like Russ Feingold, Barney Frank, Tony Knowles, Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Jack Carter, Ron Wyden, and Bill Richardson, to name a few. I've often experienced very negative comments in trying to diary about moderate libertarianism within the Democratic Party, and my diary touches on that and compares it to some of the diaries here and at MyDD today on the Iraq War. As it deals with the DailyKos community, I thought that it was appropriate to cross-post it here.
There seems to be some cognitive dissonance in the Democratic blogosphere (and hat tip to Kevin Carson for getting my mind in the framework of thinking about cognitive dissonance this week). In reading Brian Mitchell's "Eight Ways to Run the Country," I appreciated how his discussion of a left-right divide based on the concept of "arche" included a view of the goodness, of lack thereof, of human nature. Those on the right, often influenced by traditional Christianity and its view of Original Sin, held humans to be fallen and corrupted creatures. This translated into one camp favoring strong centralized government ruled by elites that promoted religious valued as a opium for the masses that kept them under control and another camp that distrusted centralized government and favored a carefully crafted system of federalism, representative government, and checks and balances. Similarly, the left is divided between two camps that agreed that human nature as essentially good, even if not quite the tabula rasa taken up by Marxists. This translates into some leftists believing that human nature would encourage peaceful and cooperative associations formed for mutual aid even without the coercion of government, while others believe optimistically that an all powerful benevolent government based on mass democracy is possible because of the essentially good nature of humanity.
I think that the two sets of activists who see political power as desirable, be they the optimistic leftist varsity or the cynics on the right, are more abundant in the political process because of the importance they place on political power. If you think that politics is unnecessary for the development of humanity's generally benevolent nature, you'll end up congregating in communes more than political rallies. If you are skeptical of government power as a tool for would be tyrants, you may be more active in attending church every Sunday than showing up at local political meetings. Politics has a large number of Progressives, Communitarians, and Neoconservatives who place a particular emphasis on politics. This biases the political debate in their favor; ideas that promote alternatives to government power are seen as radical and extreme. You'd have just as much luck convincing a fundamentalist Christian that other religions have some importance or value. Belief in government as the end all and be all of society is itself a religious belief.
The problem with the pro-government leftist position is the cognitive dissonance caused by defeat. If you put your faith in mass democracy, you don't expect democracy to hand you Republican victories in 2002 and the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004. Sure, you can blame 2000 on Ralph Nader and the Supreme Court. But thinking even farther back, imagine the disillusionment caused by the 1980s. We see this among leftists like Thomas Frank; if mass democracy isn't giving us the Democratic victories we'd expect, there must be something wrong with the voters. The pains of rejection fuel a backlash among liberal activists similar to that within early Christianity (yes, I know this is an odd analogy). Scholars like John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack have argued that many of the more apocalyptic sayings attributed to Jesus did not develop until later in Christianity as a reaction to rejection. Having gone out into the world to spread the message of the Kingdom of God, early Christians reacted angrily against the nonbelievers who rejected them.
Many Democratic activists are similarly angry at the public for rejecting their gospel of universal health care and wealth redistribution. This feeds into an interesting paradox. While still embracing the hope that good government is possible, they are surprisingly antagonistic toward the American public as a whole. Americans are lazy, stupid, and selfish. The idea that they would contribute to charity, save up for retirement, care about the environment, or on the whole demonstrate good behavior is laughed at. Yet these Americans are seen as the same voters that will bring about the desired Democratic revolution. The same American who is too stupid and lazy to investigate quality and safety of various consumer products is going to investigate the differences between the two parties and vote for the Democrat out of economic self-interest.
Another development is a cult of personality around Democratic candidates. If mass democracy is supposed to produce good progressive public policy, the politicians can be blamed just as much as the voters. In this case, the problem is that we're not electing Democrats, or specifically progressive Democrats. The stupid and ignorant Americans don't have to investigate a candidate on all of the issues, they just need to know that Democrat X is a progressive and will do the right thing. Voters understandably do this all the time on their own. When faced with the complexities of foreign or economic policies, voters tend to trust politicians who share their values. Pro-life fundamentalists assume that a fellow pro-life politician shares their broad world view and will support policies that promote that world view. Progressives do the same, they assume that a fellow progressive, say John Edwards, must support progressive policies all across the board.
This is what makes the debate at Daily Kos and MyDD about the Iraq policy of John Edwards so fascinating. Many progressives have been drawn into the Iraq War debate because of the polarizing nature of the Bush presidency; I would challenge their loyalty and commitment to stopping overseas military adventures if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama were in the White House. As such, they are satisfied by John Edwards's stance on the Iraq War, even if it is a contradiction. It's in opposition to George W. Bush and that's good enough for him. That it does nothing to actually reduce our overall presence in the Middle East, a presence that fuels animosity and contributed to the attacks on 9-11, isn't important. Edwards is a progressive, therefore his policies must be progressive. Period.
The reaction to these two posts is similar to that we've seen on diaries discussing libertarianism within the Democratic Party. The ideas being promoted, in this case Richardson's commitment to total withdraw from Iraq, are attacked as naive and even dangerous. The authors, Markos, Matt Stoller, and Chris Bowers, are personally attacked. I suspect, however, that if they threw in a poll, the result would be that the bulk of respondents would agree with them, not the Edwards boosters. And what is most amusing is the similarities in the critics of these diaries and our own libertarian Democrat diaries. For instance, here's our good friend philgoblue angrily insisting that Edwards IS progressive, facts aside. There are clear divides within the online Democratic community; they are united in opposing Bush, but how long will that last?