A progressive divorce? What the Democrats can learn from the Republicans about managing

[Douglas Carpenter]

A progressive divorce?

What the Democrats can learn from the Republicans about managing the ménage à trois within the party

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/12/21/lind_progressive_divorce/index.html?source=newsletter

By Michael Lind

Does the growing rift between most progressives and the Obama administration represent merely tactical disagreements among people who share the same values and goals? Or is there a deeper, philosophical divergence on display?

snip: "The center-left can learn from the right. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, William F. Buckley Jr. and the circle around National Review tried to promote a "fusionist conservatism" that would unite Cold War hawks, social conservatives and free marketeers in a single philosophy. But the attempt to create a common conservative public philosophy by blurring important differences was a miserable flop. By the end of the 1980s Buckley's so-called movement conservatism had been sidelined by three distinct and energetic schools of thought on the political right: neoconservatives, libertarians and the religious right.

Each movement was willing to focus on some issues rather than others, as the price of being part of a hoped-for lasting Republican majority. The neocons, for example, specialized in hawkish foreign policy, the libertarians in deregulation. But the distinct schools on the right remained more or less internally coherent; they never degenerated into single-issue movements. Neoconservatives to this day, reflecting their Cold War liberal origins, tend to be relaxed about big domestic government and social insurance programs. In the Bush years, for example, the Weekly Standard published a critique of Social Security privatization. And many libertarians and religious conservatives are isolationists who disagree with the GOP's hawkish foreign policy.

Each of the three schools of thought on the right has a comprehensive vision of all of society -- foreign policy, domestic policy, morality -- even if its operatives choose to emphasize only the issues most important to them. Each vision, moreover, is incompatible with the vision of the other right-wing factions. Libertarians would not want to live in a world designed by neoconservatives, who in turn would not want to live in a Christian fundamentalist theocracy. In short, there is no such thing as "American conservatism." There are three rights, which have a shaky alliance of convenience under the umbrella of the Republican Party. Instead of a broad church, there are three denominations.

Is it time to admit that the American center-left, like the American right, is divided into groups of people who may agree on defeating the Republican Party but otherwise disagree on fundamental values and goals? Kilgore identifies two groups -- "New Democrats" and "social democrats." I prefer to call them "neoliberals" and "New Dealers." Perhaps "progressive" could be used for the New Dealers, if neoliberals who call themselves "pragmatic progressives" would agree to surrender the term."

snip:"If we distinguish neoliberals, New Dealers and Greens from one another, then the center-left coalition, at the level of first principles, is not a marriage of two partners but a ménage à trois. It resembles the ménage à trois on the right that unites libertarians, Christian conservatives and neoconservatives. Recognizing that there are indeed distinct and fundamentally incompatible public philosophies to the left of center does not prevent cooperation among the schools for common purposes. The three factions can work together to maintain a Democratic majority, just as the neocons, libertarians and social conservatives disagree on first principles but unite in elections to support Republicans against Democrats.

Democrats should learn from Republicans how to manage a ménage à trois."

link to full article:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/12/21/lind_progressive_divorce/index.html?source=newsletter

[Douglas Carpenter]

1. the one thing that impresses me about the Republicans right is there ability

to put aside major differences and work together. Libertarian conservatives really do not like the religious right at all and many are highly disapproving of the neoconservatives and the feelings are most certainly mutual - yet they do manage to work together and few would ever dream of leaving the party.

Even if one thinks back to Nixon days. Nixon would practically be a socialist at least on domestic issues, by the standards of many of the current crop of Fox News Republicans. But they were willing to bide their time and build their presence and live to fight for their real causes as their numbers and bargaining position grew in strength.

[stray cat]

2. Its sad when dems take advice from Sarah Palin

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. actually this is the absolute opposite advice of what Sarah Palin now supports

Sarah Palin type social conservatives were once a fringe movement within the Republican Party even supporting Republicans who did not support them. But over time they became by far the single most powerful wing of the GOP voting block.

She and her faction are now trying very hard to push the Republican Party into adopting a social conservatism so strident that it would alienate many within the party such as libertarian conservatives and others who wince at the antics of the religious right - but support the GOP anyway because of their positions on issues like the economy, taxes, deregulation.

[d_r]

3. I think there is more individual diversity in opinions, values, and beliefs

Personally, I don't think the big tent of the center-left is as easily classified in to separate camps as the far right, which is ironic to me because the very separate far-right camps tend to hang together better. Progressives by definition don't have as much disciplined respect for authoritay to fall in line.

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. I think that is very much the case

I suspect one thing that defines "conservative" is a strong emotional attachment to authority and conventionality.

I do hope that my fellow Americans on the left could come to accept the reality that to have a strong and consistent governing majority would absolutely requires people working together who have some major differences. The percentage of the population who would always pass a liberal litmus text on all social issues, economic issues, foreign policy issues and other issues simply does not comprise a consistent governing majority.