I made some posts recently in a diary by Delphine that generated interesting discussion, including some references to my own evolving political allegiances. As a way to "stand up and be counted" on DailyKos, I present the following significant contradictions in the present culture of the Democratic party for consideration and debate.
(1) Idealism vs. pragmatism. The largest criticism of Sanders over the primary period was that he was an unapologetic idealist . Many advocating for Hillary Clinton did so on the grounds that she was a pragmatist, and that in fact pragmatism (which gets things done) is superior to idealism (largely criticized as impotent) in most cases.
At the same time, most of the defenses of Clinton against criticism take the form of idealist defenses, presented on moral grounds. Clinton's high negatives must be dismissed because they are unfair products of right-wing attack and it would be wrong (read: immoral, somehow unjust) to submit to them for this reason. Never mind that the attacks have had the effect that they have had—historically high negative ratings (but for Trump) for a presidential candidate. The fact is that they are unjust and must not be allowed to influence the outcome.
The email scandal must be dismissed on similar grounds; it is ginned up, it is minor, many do it, it is unjust. We cannot cave, and any discussion of the influence of this scandal on the election itself (or the mere suggestion that it might have an influence) is anathema.
This is, in fact, idealism. This is a contradiction; we must support the pragmatic candidate despite costs and avoid discussing costs because the costs are irrelevant and there is a strong moral argument to be made against countenancing them.
Sanders vs. Clinton is not the only place where this comes up. The tendency across the board is to attack others as “purists” or “idealists” while defending our own positions in idealistic terms, or to attack others as “compromisers” or “pragmatists” while defending our own positions in rationalistic, pragmatist terms.
The goal, I suspect, is to try to appeal to others by speaking their language. But there is also significant ambivalence and self-sabotage in argumentation as a result, and in the end, often a distinct failure of courage to say what we actually believe.
Which is it? Does pragmatism or idealism rule the day?
Not that one is right and the other is not—but are party members willing, on an individual basis, to actually take a position and own it, including remaining self-consistent in terms of arguments made, or are most happy to adopt whatever happens to be convenient at the moment, which appears to be the general cultural tendency?
(2) Big tent vs. little tent. The Democratic party's chief benefit, one argument goes, is that it is a big tent party; all are welcome; it is not exclusive as is the Republican party, does not demand the lock-step march, is tolerant of those who are different.
Yet, at the same time the rank and file find many differences of opinion to be intolerable (and at times label it hate speech, even when substantial agreement on many issues exists). Only the "right" kinds of difference are tolerated; For the rest, as goes the common refrain, there is the door, don't let it hit you on the way out. Daily Kos, for example, is a Democratic site dedicated to electing Democrats (and secretly, this statement means more than merely this, as any Democrat that has been invited to leave this cycle well realizes, and as any investigating independent also clearly sees).
Democrats are tolerant of all—except when they say things that fellow Democrats find to be unacceptable and can't tolerate, in which case they are welcome to go and find another party that will tolerate the intolerable.
The mansplainers—these sexists can go. The whitesplainers—these racists can go. The purists—these self-absorbed haters of progress can go. The compromisers—these sold-out, self-promoting haters of principle ought to be stopped. The young—these naive ageists can go. The old—these anti-progressives who cling to the past ought to be ignored. And so on—the party and the left are accepting of difference, that is why these are better than the Republicans and the right—and at the same time, everyone who is not like myself—or who argues from their own particular set of life experiences and beliefs as opposed to mine—either can go, shouldn’t matter, or is not a real Democrat or is not a real progressive.
This general desire to both purge and to expand, to include and yet to write off, is also a contradiction. Which is it? Is the Democratic party a big tent party or a little tent party? Merely tolerating the presence of others with regret while hoping to neutralize their influence does not “inclusion” make; the result of such "tolerance" is in fact antagonism. Certainly there is room for judgment here, it need not be an entirely unguarded tent. But the habit of thought at the moment is to proclaim the tent to be good primarily because it is both “big” and “tolerant” but to actually believe that it is good because everyone in it is more or less just like me (“we are all at least 95 percent in agreement on everything here—we all want exactly the same things,” goes the very telling refrain, and, one presumes, we’re in the process of dealing with those who aren’t or don’t).
Lacking is consensus on just what does bind people in the tent together, a lack that is in evidence this primary season, and this contradiction has been the canary in the coal mine that ought to have clued us in to the problem.
(3) Reality-based vs. subjectivity-based. This community advertises itself (and identifies itself) as a reality-based community. And yet at the same time, it tends to espouse social positions which presume that individual perception is the most important guideline for policy and action.
- When a person perceives themselves to have experienced sexism and/or sexual harassment, it is present. It is the perception that matters.
- When a person perceives racism, it is present. It is the perception that matters.
- How one chooses to identify oneself is how others in society ought to identify them. It is the self-perception that matters.
- The personal voices of victims trump others' arguments-at-a-distance, even if empirically supported, and thus, the establishment of victimhood is an argument-winner and a gravitas-granter, because the experience of victimhood is its reality.
- There is no morally defensible contrary position; that is mansplaining/whitesplaining/etc. and a catastrophic failure to acknowledge reality and real consequences.
Under these conditions, "reality" appears to have been “progressively” articulated.
It boils down to "what a victim feels to be real must be regarded as real." And yet at the same time, individual Democrats often argue that what others (notably Republicans—who tend to have very opposed policy positions—but there are often others) feel to be real is unacceptable and in fact not a good basis for policy, because it is not "reality based.” This is an appeal to some ontological foundation—some objective reality—that does not originate inside their selves.
This is also a contradiction. Who is the arbiter of what is real, and on what grounds? Is it or is it not the victims? Is the reality of the violation in its perception? If so, then how can Republicans be dismissed as not-reality-based or intolerant in their experience of victimhood? Or must the reality of the violation be found in some other material circumstance? And if this is so for those who won’t, in the big picture, be tolerated at all (see contradiction above), why is it merely one or another form of “splaining” to examine the these circumstances in other cases in which Republicans are not involved?
Some may argue that this only comes up as a dispute when discussing injustices, at which point the reality of victims' experiences are real and must be respected. But in fact the only reason to hold fast to any idea is by virtue of its difference from another in the face of difficult circumstances.
Some might suggest that the bullet list above essentially works. But vast debates over relative victimhoods and their reality or unreality are in evidence here on DailyKos (including dazzlingly long threads here, some recently featured in Top Comments, in which posters challenge each others’ realities as a matter of identities and victimhoods)—implicitly grant that commenters are seeking some basis beyond others’ experience of victimhood on which to issue such challenges.
Meanwhile, everyone seems to concur that the claimed victimhood of those on the Right is "not at all real," despite their having met the same conditions (they perceive themselves to have been violated). Reality must morally inhere in the eyes of the experiencer—and, yet, at the same time, I wish to challenge others’ experience-based claims to reality with my own—and again at the same time, claimed realities based on personal experience on the other side of the political aisle are dismissed because "we are a reality-based community."
Which is it? Where does this reality live, after all? Can appeals to objective circumstances be used to criticize claims (certainly we do this to Republicans), or is reality a matter of the perceptions and legitimate experiences of victims (which is the standard to which most here hold themselves, even if it means undermining their own argument by refusing to accept the realities of others with whom they debate in comment threads, grounded in the same foundational arguments about reality)?
Why are our critiques of Republicans not merely so much “Demsplaining?” The contradiction and habits of thought certainly create the circumstances for such a claim.
Disclaimer and Pre-emptive Defense
The obvious criticism against this diary (apart from wordiness) is the “aggregate of individuals” criticism—that in fact in any sufficiently large group, there are bound to be a variety of different opinions, methods of thinking, and so on, and that:
- These cannot be reduced to a series of propositions about the general case, and
- To try to do so is in fact to exclude someone, which is improper and intolerant
I’ll say that I’m arguing that these things are cultural currents in the Democratic party. That there is an ambivalence in a strong majority of members, events, and debates about these foundational habits of thought—and a tendency to adopt, for the sake of winning the argument at hand, whatever is expedient.
I’m suggesting that this tendency to avoid facing the contradictions and accept mere expedience in discourse has become characteristic. It is not so much that these contradictions must be “resolved” at the party level as that trying to use them and avoid confronting them (i.e. trying to have one’s cake and eat it, too) is counterproductive at the level of the culture itself.
Redux
I believe that these kinds of tensions, and the tendency for individuals to unreflectively exploit them, rather than to have the courage of convictions to take a stand, in whichever direction, are secretly at the crux of the hostility this primary season, and the apparent inability to unite. There can be no unity of body (voting population) when there is no unity and internal consistency of soul and mind (concepts, positions, theory).
Many appear to hold both positions at the same time, on each count—or at least to try to do so—and the net effect is that everyone appears to be arguing disingenuously—because appeals to idealism or pragmatism, the big tent or the little tent, objective reality or subjective perception—seem to depend on convenience. Everyone becomes a shyster in their arguments, appearing to see what is right as entirely congruent with what enables them to win, rather than to be standing for anything in the actual world, so far as their opponents are concerned.
And I do believe that this is a cultural phenomenon, i.e. that it is a part of the malaise of the Democratic party because the facts of these contradictions and of expedient forms of argument and thought are generally accepted and even tacitly endorsed.
- Am I supporting my own candidate or criticizing the opposition?
- Am I feeling powerful or victimized?
- Do I want this person in the same party as me, or does it hurt my ego and my sensibilities to have to share space with them?
Strong claims to one position or another in the previously outlined contradictions (there are others, but these three are representative) appear to depend on answers to the questions just above.
I said in my comments on Delphine's diary that I found the philosophical foundations of the Democratic party to be at issue. This is what I meant. The inconsistencies (I won't call them hypocrisies) are intolerable—particularly when they are evident in the worlds of single commenters in the same afternoon, or in the same diary, or in the same comment, or even in the same sentence—as they so often are. The resulting debate appears too often to be a matter of self-serving discourse to all sides, rather than actual politics in the classical sense. It comes off rather often as “my opponent is merely doing/saying whatever it takes to win” the argument, the primary, or the election (and meanwhile, I refuse to confront the fact that I engage in the same expedient and foundational habits of contradicting thought—only in service of my own position).
But with all of this said, there are legitimate and real differences that these contradictions both suggest and tend to obscure—that have been papered over by the contradictory and inconsistent discourse. Until these differences are aired, and dealt with to achieve a new consensus or coalition, and so long as these kinds contradictions, which sublimate them, remain a significant part and parcel of Democratic culture and discourse (and I believe that they are), I predict tough times ahead for the Democratic party.
Monday, May 30, 2016 · 12:33:39 PM +00:00 · nobody at all
Hi all—this was published very late (very early?) and could perhaps have been less wordy. With apologies.
Apologies, too, that I do not have a work holiday today and must toddle off for now to work.
Hopefully a few will find something to think about, or to criticize, here.