- 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.
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:
(3) Dump Obama gives the left (broadly defined) a bully pulpit not readily available elsewhere, an opportunity to focus a wide array of political forces -- populist, progressive, radical -- that would normally not be able to work together....(6) The key concept at this point is building a movement, not coming to agreement on a candidate or specific organizational vehicle (timing is everything).
In short, this is a proposal to build a movement to dump Obama, on the premise that such a movement will give the left "an opportunity to focus a wide array of political forces -- populist, progressive, radical -- that would normally not be able to work together." Of course this is just ludicrous. Blacks and labor would never join in in any significant numbers. But if it were true, then just think what this says: No, we can't organize cohesively against Wall Street, which would help us build a foundation for reorienting the economy, and restructuring political discourse, but we can organize cohesively against a Democratic president, creating even deeper and even more bitter divisions among those outside the GOP base.
In short, the Underpants Gnome strategy would be:
- Phase 1: Ditch Obama
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Progressive Victory
But this strategy is:
- Phase 1: Ditch Obama
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Conservative Victory
To be fair, it's a lot more likely to succeed. But that's precisely what's wrong with it.
Of course, Metamars has a long Underpants Gnome history:
- Phase 1: Unite with Tea Party
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Progressive Victory
So perhaps this latest is none too surprising, even if it does represent a further devolution.
There are others, however, who have not been so delusional, who are nonetheless showing signs of potentially starting to succumb. . We saw hints of this in response to Mike's weekend diary, "The emerging strategy". To be frank, most--if not virtually all--of what was said had merit. Heck, much of it I've said myself. My expectations for Obama were a good deal lower than most, and even so I've been bitterly disappointed.
But what I found potentially problematic was the assumption of our own powerlessness, which I see at the root of the impulse that would lead folks to embrace a "plan" with a big fat question mark at its core. That was highlighted in this interaction:
1 and 3 are goodI've been begging for that kind of thing for years. I don't know how plausible they are given the actual records of Obama and the Democrats in Congress.
The anti-extremism thing might work, but it's poison. Boehner or someone like that just called Obama an extremist and demanded that he return to the center. If progressives could gain control of the definition of "extremist", that would be a victory. But otherwise the anti-extremism angle belongs to Lieberdems. ?
by: John Emerson @ Sat Sep 11, 2010 at 10:25:13 AM CDT
Tricky I agree it is tricky defining a term when everyone else is tyrying to do it, but I also don't think we should leave the playing field to the other side. The advantage we have is that voters actually do think stuff like eliminating Social Security, Medicare, and the minumum wage is extreme. by: Mike Lux @ Sat Sep 11, 2010 at 12:50:40 PM CDT
Right, but which party is looking to loot SS in December? Hint, it's the party in power. It's coming from THIS White House and current Dem leadership in congress. This is what you don't seem to get. It was Barack Hoover Obama that appointed both Bowles and Simpson to the Catfood Commission, and no one else. If they go ahead with this, the Democratic Party can look forward to being destroyed in short order. Yet, we're supposed to suck it up and go to bat for these weasels? Please explain how that makes any sense to a person who isn't a masochist.... by: Emocrat @ Sat Sep 11, 2010 at 14:01:48 PM CDT
Now, I've expressed sentiments very similar to Emocrat's in the past, and I stand by them still. But what Emocrat is not focused on is:
- (1) How massive Democratic losses in November will make a Democratic collapse on Social Security and Medicare much
If we simply assume that we are powerless, then what Emocrat is saying is perfectly reasonable in this context... and it leads pretty quickly either to total despair, or into Underpants Gnome territory. But if we do not assume that we are powerless, then (2) leads us to start thinking what else we can to that can strengthen our hands as progressive activists, and strengthen Dems' backbones when the time comes. Perhaps our own sort of "Contract With America" that binds Dem signatories to strengthen, not cut, Social Security and Medicare, among a handful of other key items.
This is what I found so valuable about Mike's diary: It provided a framework for winning a progressive victory in November, which could lead to making Democrats more progressive afterward, even in the face of adversity. Of course nothing is guaranteed. Of course it will still require a lot of hard work, as well as some luck. But it points a way forward. It points a way out of despair. And it provides a viable alternative to the Underpants Gnomes.
Creating fundamental change in American politics is very hard. History makes that very clear. But others have had things much harder than we do today. That's one reason why I always count Denmark Vesey, Nat Turner, Gabriel Prosser and the other leaders of slave rebellions at the top of my list of American heroes. No one faced greater odds than they did. No one faced more certain death if they failed. And yet, in the end, they did succeed, though it took generations to do so. They changed history in ways that were unimaginable at the time of their actions. And if they could do that against such overwhelming odds, then who are we to quit now in despair?
Or to throw in our lots with the Underpants Gnomes?
No comments:
Post a Comment