No, I'm not referring to the manner in which we constantly fight amongst ourselves. Nor am I referring to the possibility that we're out of step with American voting public. Rather, what I'm referring to is an enlightened self-interest that isn't self-interested or enlightened at all, and a pragmatism that isn't pragmatic at all. In both of these cases, our action is premised on what we believe others believe. As a result of these premises, our political engagement becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy which progressively moves us further to the right and undermines the possibility of any truly progressive politics.
More below the fold
The following gets a little abstract, but I promise that there's a payoff if you're willing to work through it.
Perhaps some of you have heard of the branch of logic and mathematics referred to as "game theory". Game theory is a branch of mathematics which produces models to study structures of incentive governing how people deliberate with one another. Hopefully it is obvious why this is relevant to political thought, as in political action we're interested in playing our hand with respect to the hands of both the voters and our opposition. Game theory makes two fundamental assumptions: First, it assumes that the players involved in the collective deliberation are each seeking the best way to maximize their interests. Second, it assumes that the players involved are ignorant of the deliberative process engaged in by the other participant in deliberation. The question then becomes, "in light of the possible actions of my fellow deliberator, what conclusion ought arrive at so as to maximize my self-interest?" I contend that democrats and progressives are currently engaged in precisely this question. Of course, in answering this question their desire isn't simply to maximize their self-interest, but to benefit all.
In a classical game theoretical scenario referred to as the "prisoner's dilemma", we're asked to imagine two prisoners who have been apprehended by the police, but where the police have insufficient evidence to convict them. The prisoners are separated and are undergoing interrogation. They have two options: they can remain silent, or they can confess. If they both remain silent, the police can only keep them in jail for six months (as they lack sufficient evidence). If one confesses and the other remains silent, the one who remained silent gets ten years in prison whereas the other goes free. If they both confess, they both get two year prison sentences.
It is obvious that the best choice is for both to remain silent. However, you'll notice that the actions of the two prisoners are each dependent on how they believe the other will act. In other words, while the most logical choice would be for both to remain silent, neither of the prisoners can be sure they're able to trust their fellow prisoner. Consequently, if one prisoner makes the most logical choice and remains silent, he puts himself at the mercy of the other prisoner's discretion and risks getting the maximum choice. Thus, the most likely outcome of this scenario is that both prisoners will confess and end up with two year sentences.
The key point not to be missed is that the deliberations of the prisoners in this scenario is determined by the manner in which they believe the other prisoner is deliberating. Allow me to give a more concrete example. Suppose you're a short Jewish man living in a predominantly Christian country, who is convinced 1) that women don't like short men, and 2) your fellow citizens are predominantly hostile to Jews at either a conscious or unconscious level. In this scenario your beliefs about what others believe is going to seriously effect your action and how you relate to others. Believing that women don't like short men, you might be inclined to reject the women you come in contact with before you've actually been rejected, so as to pre-empt the pain you'd experience from rejection. Believing that those around you are anti-Semitic, you'll find yourself perpetually doubting the motives of those around you and will be convinced that even when they're being kind and friendly they're out to get you. As such, you'll constantly be guarded and will try to pre-empt their hatred of you, thereby pushing people away. In this scenario, your beliefs about what others belief become a self-fulfilling prophecy. You ensure that you aren't liked by women and you ensure that you're rejected by the members of your community. And as a result you verify your initial hypothesis that women don't like short men and that your community is anti-Semitic, even if that initial hypothesis is far from being true. In short, the way we believe others think about our identities has a great impact on how we relate to those identities and act in the world. This is what is referred to as a negative feedback loop.
There are two ways in which I see a similar sort of logic unfolding in the Democratic party (especially among the DLC). The first of these ways is what I refer to as "the coercion of the vote". Recently I remarked that I compromised my principles in voting for Kerry during the last election and said that I wouldn't make the same mistake again. Almost immediately I was told that while someone might not be the best candidate in the world, a vote for someone else is just a vote for the Republicans. I understand the reasoning behind this remark and do not deny that it's impeccable. The idea is that I must strategically "game" my vote against the voting tendencies of the right. However, I think that there are a couple of serious flaws with this view. First, the person who argues in this way is perpetuating the problem that they claim to be critical of. By continuing to vote for such candidates, they're insuring that progressive principles will not be represented. How is it that everyone can agree that we'd prefer to have more progressive candidates, while continuing to vote for such mediocre candidates? If all of us who agree that more progressive candidates were needed and voted accordingly, we might not win immediately, but we would send a clear message to the democratic leadership, which would eventually lead to more palatable statesman. In voting in such a reactive fashion, we insure that the status quo continues.
And who is it that threatens us with this bogeyman that a vote for someone else is a vote for the right? It's precisely those people who are in charge? And who are these people in charge? They are people who are getting massive amounts of money from corporations and lobbies. That is, the people telling us this are the people who have the most to lose from a truly democratic, truly grass roots, shift in voting preferences. In other words, they have a vested interest in insuring that we don't vote in any way other than moderate conservative ways. This is madness. It's because I believe that my fellow progressives will not have the resolve to vote in a progressive fashion and because my fellow progressive believes that I won't vote in a progressive fashion, that we both end up voting for moderate conservatives and insuring that cconservatismwins the day. By contrast, if we both overcame this fear and voted progressive, we could perhaps bring about substantial change in the party.
However, this leads to a second common criticism. The critic will say, "perhaps you're right. Perhaps if you began to vote according to your principles you'd cause great change in the party. However, the American populace as a whole is not prepared to endorse a truly progressive candidate, so all changing the party would do would be to spell disaster for the power of the democrats. Therefore it is reasonable to support the lesser of two evils, and vote for a moderately conservative democrat, regain power, and work towards a progressive future." I call this the "carrot and the stick argument". It is this that I was criticizing in my remarks about pragmatism, because this sort of unpragmatic pragmatism is premised on certain key assumptions about the nature of the American voter. To its base it holds out the ever receding possibility of a progressive future, while it only ever delivers moderately conservative democrats.
There are two problems with this way of thinking. First, how are we to ever know whether a truly progressive candidate can be successful if we don't actually talk ppubliclyabout progressive principles and give real support to progressive candidates. One can point out that Kucinich was such a candidate, but was he given any real face time by the media or other democrats? No, he was assumed to be unviable from the outset. Well it's impossible for anything to change if we don't actually speak about the changes we endorse. Second, this view is problematic because studies indicate that the American public, while not calling itself "liberal" or "progressive", by and large supports progressive principles. The problem is that they never hear progressive candidates that support their beliefs and values, so they're left only with republican stereotypes of what democrats and liberals are. Once again our fear of stepping up to the plate and actually talking about our progressive principles ultimately becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and becomes a victory for the right and corporations, regardless of whether it's republicans or democrats who win (since they both vote conservative). And once again, the people who benefit from this are our leadership who get massive amounts of money from corporations and lobbies. The last thing they want is a truly grass roots government, so they create the bogeyman of an American public that isn't prepared for progressive principles.
My basic point is that we can never know if we don't try and that our assumptions about what our populace is and is not ready for become self-fulfilling prophecies. One might say that they are for progressive principles, but their actions speak louder than words. Are such people really for progressive principles, or do they secretly believe that such principles aren't viable or possible as grounds for good governance? Wouldn't the best "gamesmanship" consist in voting in such a way that you can change your party and the American public and begin to define the terrain of politics in leftist terms, rather than as a watered down version of conservatism? Isn't the real reason that Americans distrust democrats because they don't believe that Democrats stand for anything? It's our beliefs about what others believe (both our beliefs about what the American electorate believes and about our own fellows) that has become our Achilles heel and which has shifted us from standing for our own principles, to a politics of imitation where we look like a fake, untrustworthy, and disingeneous version of the Republicans. This will only change when we resolve to believe that something else is possible and when we become willing to act on that resolve. Many of us are already doing this, but far more need to do so as well.