In quick hits yesterday, sTiVo tried to get a conversation going about the
Working Families Party, keyed to an article by Alyssa Katz in the Nation. This attempt was greeted by a good deal of dismissive criticism, which might be justified if there were only some clear example of a better way to do things right now. Unfortunately, there's not. Which is why sTiVo wanted to initiate a discussion. Not because he thought the Working Families Party is ideal, but because it exists. And because its existence is enough of a threat that it's drawn incredible hostility from the right.
Here's a bit of what he wrote:
This strategy, if successful, offers a way for the Left to pressure from the Left without risking being spoilers. They have had many successes in New York - enough to have generated a backlash from the real estate industry, conservatives, etc., both outside the Democratic Party and within it. And, unfortunately, the strategy seems to require the tacit cooperation of the Democratic Party, as their candidates can refuse the extra ballot line. Since the WFP requires 50000 votes to keep its ballot position, they needed Andrew Cuomo to agree to have their ballot line. Cuomo, beholden to the right wing of the DP, has demanded an onerous set of conditions to allow the WFP its ballot line with his name. But they have come to an agreement, for better or for worse. And various campaign law irregularities have been charged against the WFP, all of which were eventually dropped, leaving the WFP with onerous legal bills, however.
Still, in these days of an impotent Left, it is intriguing to read of a situation where the Left has accumulated enough power that it is not ignored. Apparently, they have the best voter lists in the state right now.
This whole subject should be the object of much discussion on Open Left. It's fascinating, and I can only agree with Katrina vanden Heuvel that any Progressive in New York who has decided to vote for Cuomo should do so on the WFP line, not the Democratic line. Similarly for Blumenthal in Connecticut.
We talk about political action independent from the main stream of the Democratic Party. These folks are doing it.
It should be clear from sTiVo wrote that the WFP is not in a great place right now--and that sTiVo recognizes it. And yet, the vast majority of criticism that sTiVo encountered was implicitly premised on the opposite assumption--that this was the best the WPF could do, and that sTiVo thought it was just great--making all the arguments presented fundamentally fallacious strawman arguments.
What sTiVo was looking for, I can only assume, was constructive criticism of what WPF could do tactically or strategically to be more effective, retain its independence while keeping its ballot line, etc. or what lessons can be learned from its successes as well as its failures that could be applied to another effort altogether. It was, in short, a call for a reasonable discussion of nuts-and-bolts discussion of "How do we build electoral power?" And some folks here simply wanted no part of such a discussion.
That's fine. But please be honest enough to admit that's what you're saying.
And be honest enough to admit that by holding out for nothing less than destroying the Democratic Party (which is what a 3rd party spoiler strategy necessarily entails) you're committing yourself to an Underpants Gnomes strategy:
(1) Destroy the Democrats.
(2) ?
(3) Progressive victory!
This coming election is a crucial test. No outcome is likely to be good. But one outcome could truly be disastrous. As in "move the Overton window two giant steps right" disastrous. Is that what you'd like? Or do you think there might be a better place to fight the next round of battles from?
Back in 2003 or so, when I first wore my anti-Bush t-shirt with the slogan "A hard reign's a gonna fall", I got a fair amount of smiles from my mostly Democratic neighbors. But even though I'm painfully aware of how much more continuity Obama's brought than change, I definitely would not expect a similar response if I were to don a "Dump Obama" t-shirt.
Can anyone tell why?
Here's the block I live on (2000 census, but the overall racial/ethnic mix hasn't changed that much):
And here's the 8-block census tract:
Of course there's no way to tell, but I generally get the impression that most of those pushing to "Dump Obama" are not only white, but travel in mostly-white circles. Well, the faces I see everyday when I step outside are not. About 1/4 white, tops. That's what I see. And that's a pretty fundamental reason that I think all this "dump Obama" talk is pure poppycock--or worse.
Starting with a series of three posts back in early April 2005, The Future of the Electorate, The Future of the Electorate, Part Two [page missing, alas!], and Maybe It Is A Battle Of Civilizations, for a little over two years now I have argued that a pluralistic vs. monoculture vision of identity politics, specifically based largely in ethnicity and religion, is the fundamental difference between the Democratic and Republican coalitions both now, and probably for the foreseeable future.
This is something that Democratic strategists sort of half-realize, but really don't want to. Like zombies, they just can't help themselves, they've got to chase after the brains of white people. But the more sophisticated strategy is what might be called--hearking back to the 1990s--the "Benetton Strategy", in which a basically bland universalist marketing strategy is accessorized with a broad pallet e of different skin tones. Obama represents the latest incarnation of this--but he still has that old zombie hankering that he just can't quit, which caused him to pre-compromise everything he started.
While it's pretty much obvious to all of us by now what a sure loser that is, this realization has not penetrated the core of the pluralistic identity culture that Chris wrote about. Disappointment and frustration have certainly touched many in that core, but that's about it.
On this site, Paul Rosenberg has written about how an "Underpants Gnomes approach to politics" sometimes plagues the left's thinking about launching a formidable opposition to president Obama. He described it thusly:
"The South Park 'Underpants Gnomes had a simple business plan:
Phase 1: Collect Underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit
A similar sort of thinking seems to persist with many who are justifiably frustrated with the Democrat's failure to substantially break with Republican rule:
Phase 1: Ditch Democrats
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Progressive Victory
God, I really do wish it would work.
But it won't. It can't. '?' is not a plan."
In a surprisingly insightful diary this week from Sara Mead - I say "surprising" because Meade is an education reform enthusiast herself - the very same Underpants Gnomes brand is securely affixed around the necks of those who believe that improving schools is all about tinkering with structures such as standardized testing, teacher merit pay, and charter schools.
Although Meade tepidly suggests that incentive/accountability-driven reformers merely "risk" the Underpants moniker, I think the brand fits perfectly. To wit:
Phase 1: Convert Traditional Public Schools to Standardized Test Driven Charter
School Franchises
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Better Schools, Brighter Students
My diary Underpants Gnome politics generated over 200 comments, so it clearly touched a nerve. To refresh folks' memories, here's the germ of my argument:
A similar sort of thinking seems to persist with many who are justifiably frustrated with the Democrat's failure to substantially break with Republican rule:
And I went on to point out--among other things--that given the fact that blacks and labor would never join such an effort in any significant numbers, it was more like:
One of the Underpants Gnome proponents, jeffroby88, claimed both in the thread and afterwards that he had answered my objection but I could not find a single comment where he did so. Continuing that argument would seem to be pointless. But the appeal is obviously quite real. Hell, I feel it myself. As I've said many times, my expectations for Obama were lower than most, and even I've been bitterly disappointed. But all the frustration and disappoinment in the world that doesn't make a cogent "Step 2" appear out of thin air where it does not exist.
So it's important, at the very least, to indicate some sort of alternative strategy, which I have done by proposing the building of para-party infrastructure, and I've pointed to Progressive Democrats of America as an example. I've also mentioned state-level third parties, like the Working Families Party, which John Emerson has shown have a historical record of effectiveness.
My proposal is not as emotionally satisfying to those who are deeply outraged or offended by how Obama has disappointed people, but that's usually the nature of successful organizing strategies, they take a lot of patience to reach the point where people begin to get excited about their possibility of success. There were certainly hundreds--no, thousands of people doing civil rights work in the 30s and 40s before the Civil Rights Movement exploded in the 50s and 60s. That's simply the way things work.
A similar sort of thinking seems to persist with many who are justifiably frustrated with the Democrat's failure to substantially break with Republican rule:
We've seen a recent example of such thinking in metamars' quick hit posting of a call for a "dump Obama" movement. There's actually a history of movements to dump Democratic presidents, and they have a common core: highly unpopular wars. Afghanistan fits the bill, we all know how frustratingly difficult it's been to get any sustained attention paid to it. Still, things could change, right? And then what would happen? In 1952, Senator Estes Kefauver challenged Harry Truman in New Hampshire (beating him 55-45), and in 1968, Senator Eugene McCarthy challenged LBJ in New Hampshire, (holding him under 50%, losing by just 42-49). Both times the incumbent withdrew. Both times the challenger did not win the Democratic nomination. Both times the Republicans won the general election--and were easily re-elected four years later. What would make this time different? What would be Phase 2, if Obama actually were forced out of the race? The Underpants Gnomes have no idea. And frankly, they don't even seem interested. Their goal is getting rid of Obama. Winning the general election isn't even on their radar, except as something to reject:
5) The argument that our primary concern must be to prevent a Republican takeover is bankrupt and worse, a public menace.
But perhaps what's most frustrating about this proposal is that it actually makes the original Underpants Gnomes look good. Just take a look at these two points Metamars advanced:
STATE BLOGS
