Still it is true that there are authoritarian streaks all across the political spectrum. It isn't confined to the right and nor is it confined just to the far right and far left. These days I'd say the most powerful authoritarians are the "centrists" of the Washington Elite Consensus who have never quite gotten their heads around the whole consent of the governed idea. Fake Washington bipartisanship, Unity 08, the collected works of David Broder are all manifestations of this.
This seems about right to me. There isn't a single popular appointment or piece of legislation that progressives have successfully blocked under Bush. Despite this, we are constantly told of the equal blame for polarization and equal blame for the horrors that have been caused by the lack of bipartisanship. On Iraq, "homeland security," education, and taxes, Democrats have caved every single time. On health care, immigration, energy and global warming, Bush, Republicans and a handful of conservative Democrats have been the cause of obstruction every single time. About the only things that progressives have successfully blocked are Social Security destruction, one or two trade deals, one or two judges, retroactive telecom immunity, and Bolton.
The few things progressives have blocked do, however, cut at the core beliefs of the Washington Bi-Partisan Elite Consensus. Blocking the occasional massive corporate giveaway and denying the occasional permanent appointment to friends of the Kool Kidz are simply unacceptable. Defeating Lieberman, of all people, in a primary was functionally a crime against humanity. By way of contrast, blocking renewable energy standards, Iraq withdrawal, health care expansion, and immigration reform seem like small potatoes.
It also strikes me as a pure logical defect, based on false premises. For the Washington Bi-Partisan Consensus Elite, the assumption is that there is always a moderate consensus in America that is to be found in a space between the two major parties. There is no accounting for the possibility that the consensus middle is actually located within one party, and is opposed by the other party. Even when one party is overwhelmingly blamed for war, global warming, poverty, prejudice and corruption, and the other party is more trusted on virtually every single issue facing the country, the Washington Bi-Partisan Consensus Elite is convinced that the true consensus in America is actually located at a point between the two parties.
This defect, I think, comes from an inability to believe in political realignment. Over the last forty years, a time period covering the span of even pundits like David Broder, there have been thirty years of divided government in Washington, D.C. The long runs of Democratic and Republican trifectas that preceded those forty years have been forgotten. "getting things done" has always meant negotiating a path between two parties. For aging pundits it will always mean just that. The result is an authoritarian belief in some sort of fake bi-partisan consensus, will of the people be dammed. It doesn't help that the punditry is just about the whitest, oldest and most male profession in a country that is growing more diverse every day. The country is shifting, and the punditry is being left behind.
© OpenLeft 2007-2008, Powered by 