There is a conceit in much of the discourse over politics today: that politics is antithetical to idealism. Idealists, especially on the left, are written off as being “single issue voters”, “special interest voters”, “shrill”, “naive” … pick an epithet.
My question is this: can there BE politics without ideals?
Would we be a country without ideals? Without idealists? Are there many more idealistic political documents than the Declaration of Independence?
I would submit that the answer to both questions is no. Why, then, is the Democratic Party so terribly afraid of people with strong ideals? What kind of party STARTS a campaign with some fuzzy belief that one candidate or another is more electable? Isn’t that what elections are for? After all, we all found out just how “electable” our last “safe” choice was. Would we have been better served by a contest fought out over ideals, not simple money and clout and insider pressure on the media? Will we make the same mistake again?
crossposted at Liberal Street Fight
So, can idealists find a place anymore in American politics? Would Thomas Jefferson have a place in the Democratic Party today? Despite his ideals, his words:
were belied by his ownership of slaves. Despite his his words, he himself fell woefully short of the hope he espoused. Does that make his ideals less sincere, less powerful? Does the institution of slavery and the disenfrancisement of women make those ideals moot? Worthless? Would the American Revolution have happened without them? Were pragmatists like Hamilton and Madison enough without Jefferson and Franklin?
Idealists set the horizon. Idealists point out the top of the mountain, giving a political movement, a political party a goal to aim for. Without them, all you’re left with is a bunch of maps without destinations.
The Republicans nurture, promote and celebrate their idealists. In many ways, their idealists are more purely “idealistic” than many leftists. They aim for “ideals” in the Platonic sense. Beliefs that are set by some external. Most ideals on the left are messier, set by human beings, yet in many ways more vital. The ideals of the left grow and adapt and celebrate humanity as good in and of itself.
I am a humanist. My ideals, as well as the ideals of many people I admire, aren’t supported by some cozy “external” validation. Increasingly, folks like me are being told by the so-called “centrists” in the Democratic Party that we have to “be realistic”. Only those on the left who have more “firm” ideals are apparently welcome. The ongoing litany from the center is that we need kinder, gentler platonists. We seek to ape the right, not move away from it.
This is a recipe for continued losses. We either have a goal to aim for as a party, an America where ALL of our citizens have equal opportunity before the law, where people come before profit, where we actually treat women as fully autonomous equal citizens, or our party will continue to enable the encroaching theocracy. If this party does not welcome and harness its idealists, it will continue down the path toward mere collaboration.
The idealists on the left had abandoned politics for many years as the party ran away from them, frightened by the success of Nixon’s “Southern strategy” and Reagan’s “Morning in America”. We fought in court. We fought on the local level. We dropped out and joined third parties. It was made plain that we were a problem to be “Sister Souljah’d”.
Thanks to the campaigns of Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun, the left has rejoined the political fray. Either the party will integrate us, utilize us and even follow us, or the party will lose. To do otherwise is to offer the public nothing to vote for than less of the same: less scary, less oppressive and less proactive. A small and spineless parking brake until the next loss. If the party doesn’t do so, there will be a movement building to either take over the party or destroy the party.
Change and grow or continue to be irrelevant. Those are the choices.
Increasingly, folks like me are being told by the so-called “centrists” in the Democratic Party that we have to “be realistic”. Only those on the left who have more “firm” ideals are apparently welcome.
It is interesting how we keep describing our values in ways that inherently support the Bushies. If leftists are less firm than centrists, then centrists must be less firm than rightists. We’re validating the rightists moral system even as we argue amongst ourselves.
I’m not accusing you of doing this; your post just reminded me of how much I hate this problem.
Yeah, and the “center” in America is center of right relative to most other countries.
It’s the old chicken/egg conundrum. One must attain power to effect idealistic change, but to attain power one must abandon ideals. Remember George McGovern, against the war (they sneer). That McGovern was absolutely right is never mentioned. Remember Walter Mondale, promising to raise taxes (they sneer). That Reagan subsequently did what Mondale said he would do is never mentioned. (Though “idealist” is not the first word I’d use to describe the politician’s politician who is Walter Mondale.)
So when campaigns are conducted the way they are today — raise a shitload of money, put ads on TV, and speak at rallies, all the while desperately hoping to impress the national press corps and the fabled mainstream voter and to avoid offending big donors — the idealist loses.
This Deaniac agrees with you 100%, Madman — but if we run a different type of candidate we have to run a different type of campaign in a different type of party. There’s a heckuva lot of groundwork to be done before that candidate wins. The work has begun; I am not without hope. However, it must be recognized that we must change the entrenched way of doing business if we hope to be successful.
Working as a freelance musician has taught me some valuable lessons.
You’ve got to decide if it’s worth doing the gig. If someone calls you up to do a gig which you don’t really want to do (especially if you’re flush with cash) you always ask an outrageous price. If they say “no”, it’s okay because you didn’t want to do the gig anyway. If they say “yes”, that’s okay, too, because you just relieved them of an outrageous amount of money and that makes you fell a little better about your musical prostitution because you’ll be able to redistribute that wealth in some fashion compatible with your belief system.
On the other hand, if times are bad, you’re starving, and the rent is due, you’ll certainly take those marginal gigs – but you still won’t take the worst of the gigs anyone offers (at least if you’re a self-respecting musician).
Harp gigs should be a leading economic indicator. Ask any harpist how they’re doing. Right now, in our area, every harpist is having a very bad year. Thank you dubya, for your “booming” economy. Sell all of your stock. Now.
Due to the overhead and the logistics (I’m a designated “harp mover”) no self-respecting harpist in our area will walk out the door for less than $250 to $350 for a two hour minimum (depending on travel). There is some flexibility, but there’s a point where a harpist will definitely say “no” to a gig. Like the cousins with very close bloodlines who want wedding and reception music for $25 because, after all, “our wedding is so special and you just do this for the love of it…”
Ask yourself, “Are we starving yet?”
It all comes down to being pragmatic.
You can cherish your ideals, knowing that there’s a place where you will not tread, and still make pragmatic decisions about getting there. “There is no difference, they’re all alike” doesn’t cut it – at least not in the present political environment.
I wrote the following a long time ago as a parody of a pre-existing screed:
“There is no difference” tells us that we can move furniture in the living room while the house is on fire and in danger of burning down (or, if you prefer, rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic while it’s sinking).
“There is no difference” is patently false and very much like every clueless high school busybody who put on a Christmas pageant for the poor to brighten their day, ignoring the fact that they were ill, homeless, hungry, and cold.
“There is no difference” doesn’t bother to stick around to find out what happens, and doesn’t care.
“There is no difference” is the hand that grabs the last match as it is lit, letting the self generated wind extinguish that last hope for a warm fire because, well, they read about this really cool way to set the sticks when you build a fire which may, in certain circumstances, make your fireplace draft more efficient except we’re outside and it’s below freezing and that was our last match because at the last campsite there was “no difference” either and playing with the fireworks in Florida was so much fun…
Timeout: people who are naive and unsophisticated should be mocked.
“There is no difference” says that no loaf is better than 39 out of 40 slices. And besides, the people that won’t give us any bread will cause the hungry masses to rise up and change the system overnight.
“There is no difference” says not making a choice relieves one of any responsibility when the truly bad choice triumphs.
“There is no difference” worries about their own souls, but can’t fathom the suffering of others because, well, it’s good for their souls.
“There is no difference” is where one goes to hide because they were too lazy to do anything but pontificate in the abstract and didn’t want to soil their souls doing the hard work of planning, organizing, educating, and getting out the vote at the precinct level….
So, if the folks with a much better nature are in control, demand everything, but if people like the present administration are in control, you better find some political allies and pragmatism soon, or we’ll all be doomed to political failure by an insistence on absolute adherence to ideals.
Excellent post. This sums up my attitude over the last few years. What I wonder is if we should embrace a “paradigm shift” in our pragmatic approach. Maybe we are at the point where our strategy of working within the framework of certain conservative ideas and public opinion needs to be co-opted with a strategy that mirrors our ideals; not to be more ideologically consistent, but to win more votes.
I, personally, am just not sure.
My argument, however, is that the “pramatism first” idea DOESN’T work.
Mary Mary mentioned McGovern & Mondale. The problem with both of those campaigns is that they didn’t have the courage to full bore champion their convictions (especially Mondale). They, like Kerry, adopted a droning, lecturing “take your medicine” tone, which isn’t going to convince ANYBODY. That’s been the problems with Dems going back to McGovern.
I’m not arguing “there is no difference” (though when it comes to the Vichy Dems I would argue that they are Renfields to the Republican’s Dracula, Petain to … well, you know). What I would argue is that the VOTERS can’t SEE a difference. Just saying “not as bad, a little better, more palatable” might be okay if you’re chosing between diners on the main drag through town, but without the ideals, without the idealists, a party DIES. It becomes less viable. I ceases to MATTER. Look at the arc of elections going back to the early ’70s and I would challenge you to point out ONE Democratic political campaign that has been successful using the “centrist” strategy. To argue somehow that Dukakis, Kerry, Clinton or Carter were “liberal” campaigns making passionate arguments for our values it to deny history.
To use your music analogy: any cover band can ape the hits as they were played. I suppose any competent harpist with adequate training can play Pachebel’s “Canon”. A GREAT cover band or harpist will pour something of themselves, something REAL, into whatever they do, making it transcend the average.
It is that extra something that draws people in, gives them a reason to PAY ATTENTION instead of just relegating the performer to aural wallpaper.
The voters can’t see a difference now, I agree. They certainly could with McGovern and Mondale.
Not personally familiar with McGovern’s campaign, but IMO both candidates would have benefited from a party which hammered a specific message on these issues, the war and taxes, in the years leading up to the Presidential elections. You can’t expect a candidate both to sell himself and sell the bigger ideas behind his positions in a campaign season.
Again, I totally agree with your main point about standing for something and presenting a clear choice to the voters. I just think the groundwork must begin long before the Presidential campaign. Kind of like a Contract With America.
thanks. It will take a lot of work, and it would help if the “centrists” would quit taking public potshots at our base and our activists all the time.