A friend of mine who has been adamantly opposed to the War in Iraq, and was an ardent Bush-hater, had a lucid moment spurred by an intemperate John Pilger article that's making the rounds of antiwar blogs. It stridently compares George W. Bush to Hitler, and recommends some sort of Nuremberg reckoning for him. Besides referring to Pilger as "a stupid prat" my friend observed:
I'll freely admit I have never liked Bush, nor respected him, nor understood how he got to be president, but thank Christ..., Bush isn't remotely like Adolf Hitler. If he were, the world as we know it would stand little chance. Let alone democracy, human rights, etc.And I will give credit where it's due: Bush's pledge last year to spend millions on fighting Aids in Africa was both surprising and admirable, and hardly a Hitler thing to do. Under the Nazis, 'cripples' and infirm were more likely to be sent to death camps, at the very least, denied basic social support and medical care.
When his maximum term runs out in 2007(?) Bush will step down. Of course he will. A Democrat might take over, maybe not. And I probably won't respect him (her?), either. But the 'Third Reich', Hitler's brain-child, was conceived to last for one thousand years, with no fixed-terms or free elections. Whatever we might think about vote-rigging in Florida (and they won't try that one again!), I believe the concept of democracy is still held paramount in the States, as in Australia, Canada, Western Europe, former commonwealth countries etc. For as long as it remains so, comparing any elected leader in any of those places to a genocidal dictator is, shall we say, pushing the envelope?
The statement seemed encouraging because, to be frank, I'm a little worried about the consequences of the sort of Presidential campaign the Democrats appear to be gearing up for. If they persist in what amounts to a Copperhead campaign (which is looking fairly likely since Michael Moore endorsed George McClellan's direct ideological descendent) then it's quite possible they'll soon cease to be a viable opposition party altogether. And I'm not sure what happens after that. With no Democratic Party does the Republican Party maintain the two party system by splitting into factions: T.R. Progressives vs. big business and religious conservatives?
In the period leading up to and during the American Civil War the Democrats committed themselves to an anti-war stance that was just as immoral, strident, and self-indulgent as the current anti-war movement. And they paid for it by being barred from political power by the voters for generations. From Lincoln to Herbert Hoover (inclusive) 15 men served as President of the United States, only two of whom were Democrats (Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson). The Republicans all but dominated politics everywhere except the South, where the collapse of the Southern Whigs' plantation culture and the affinity between the Copperheads and the South's regional interests led to the dominance of the Jim Crow "Dixiecrats," for generations. That probably saved the Democratic Party from extinction. But there is no such regional enclave today that could provide a comparable reprieve or sanctuary.
One thing is for sure, the "progressive wing" of the Democratic Party, the one that idolizes Chomsky and Moore and sees Dennis Kucinich as a visionary (even though he holds up pie charts to illustrate his points to radio listeners) is in serious trouble. Most of its adherents won't awaken from their slumber until there's nothing but wreckage left of their hopes and plans. And what will they do then? Some, I think, will be susceptible to Chomsky and Pilger and a few other "stupid prats" and, spinning out of control, will launch a western anarchist/terrorist movement, something S.M. Lipset has been predicting for years.
As I said, I was encouraged by my friend's comment because I thought it meant not everyone with a left-lean to their walk had gone completely nuts. And then I remembered that my friend is British.
Update:
I reconsidered this scenario in light of Dan's and Myria's comments below. I now think that if the Democrats self-destruct the Republican Party probably would factionalize along the lines of the three founding values: classical liberalism and anti-statism, religious and social conservatism, and finally equality of opportunity (the TR Progressives). Somehow those three will resolve themselves into two parties, and since I think the religious component doesn't need to be political in order to preserve its values in the absence of the Marxisant-left I expect their direct involvement in politics will gradually decline. The former Democrats will either join one of the two remaining factions or will splinter into radical opposition. They'll "Europeanize."
This would ultimately leave us with a party system that's more representative of the country than the misnamed "conservatives" versus the equally misnamed (Marxisant) "liberals," which really reflect distorted European factions rather than American. But of course where the Democrats go is the wild card. And that would probably depend on the specific programs and policy prescriptions of the remaining factions.
Posted by Demosophist at January 16, 2004 01:36 AM | TrackBackIf you want my opinion, both national parties are doomed at least in their current states. One need only see the frequently increasing gap between small "l" libertarians and social conservatives as evidence of that. Right now they're both sticking together for the war among other reasons, but what will they do after that is no longer there to unite them?
So for anyone who gloats over the Democrats' coming implosion, let them remember that the same is likely happening to the Republicans as well, it's just been pushed further down the line.
Posted by: Dan Darling at January 16, 2004 08:51 AMActually I see the split between the small-l libertarian wing and the social conservatives as the potential saving grace in this whole mess. While the "progressive" wing has inexorably pulled the Democratic party towards the lunatic fringe with a message that will never sell amongst the great unwashed, both the social conservatives and small-l libertarians have messages that resonate with rather large portions of the great unwashed. A split between the two is almost inevitable at some point, with both having viable messages and on many points radically different ideas. If the Democrats manage to marginalize themselves, as they seem intent on doing, then at worst the two sides will act as a something of a check on each other and at best it could leave open the possibility of a real split and the formation of a viable small-l libertarian party.
Myria
Posted by: Myria at January 16, 2004 09:50 AMGood point. Which is actually exactly what Lipset said to me when I made a similar observation to him. However, he still felt that even though libertarianism was a growing movement it would be contained within the Republican Party. That was because he felt the basic ideology of the country, asd especially the Republicans, is classically liberal. And, I would add, that religious conservatism probably won't remain as a political movement, because the primary outlet for that is our tradition of sectarianism. Religion will continue to be stronger in the US than in any other Western country, primarily because there *is* distance between church and state. Were the religious conservatives ever to achieve their objectives it would be the death knell of broad religious conviction, and church attendance here would drop to levels more like Europe (in the low single digits).
Big business is also on pretty shakey ground. We conducted a poll in 1996 that guaged desire to be in a union, versus actual union membership, and the "off diagonals" in the US were instructive. Roughly a quarter of all workers were in the category of wanting, but not having, union membership. Only about 2% were in the other off-diagonal cell, having but not wanting union membership. About the same percentage of workers are in the off-diagonal in Canada, but are about evenly split between the two cells. The rest, of course, have things the way they want them. The irony was that Canada was actually more anti-union than the US!
Even more to the point, a far larger percentage of the population trusts union leaders than business executives, and this gap has only grown since 1996. It isn't that the Democrats don't have potential, it's that they have no idea how to mine it. They hear this stuff and instead of innovating they just drag out the same old set of big government policy prescriptions that make most people sick.
Nonetheless the big shift will be a radical anarchist movement of the left, according to Lipset. I know this position is inconsistent, because leftist ideology demands government intervention, but the logical inconsistency won't be a big hindrance any more than it's a hindrance to most movements founded on an Ur-myth.
Posted by: Scott (to Dan) at January 16, 2004 10:15 AMCome to think of it, Marty never said anything about a collapse of the Democratic Party, so within that scenario he might come to a different conclusion about the breakup of the Republicans. I know he feels that religion and classical liberalism are two powerful pillars of Americanism, along with equality of opportunity. Those three cultural values virtually define us as a country, so in some sense a party system that's aligned along those positions might be more reflective of the country. But I still think that religion has self-imposed limits in the US, on its direct involvement in politics.
Posted by: Scott (to Myria) at January 16, 2004 10:25 AMThe structure of our electoral system -- single member legislative districts with plurality win -- means that we are likely to have a two party system whatever happens. Third parties only tend to be viable in these types of systems on a regional or historical basis (e.g., Quebec, English Liberals, etc.). That said, a party can effectively preclude itself from gaining power for a long time -- which seems to be what the Democrats are intent on doing.
I am a Repbulican. Nevertheless, I regret what the Democrats appear to be doing. A healthy democracy needs the competition brought on by political debate. What the Left is doing now, however, is not debate -- it is criticism for the sake of criticism. The Left has nothing constructive to say, so there is no point in listening to them.
I would love for there to be a rational public debate on the important political issues; that kind of debate makes the country stronger. I only hope that this period will pass.
Posted by: Ben at January 16, 2004 01:47 PMMy own speculation, as I alluded to in my first post, is that both national parties are going the way of the dinosaur and that I think that we may well see the formation of a true multi-party system here in the US (assuming that the Democratic Party doesn't completely marginalize itself and that Green Party starts gobbling up whatever is left of it as far as a national hegemon goes), something that I myself think will not necessarily be such a bad thing.
One other point is that in all honesty I think that many people who are now in the Democratic Party could join either social conservative or genuine libertarian party and find themselves quite happy with the situation.
With regard to religious conservativism, speaking as member of that constituency (I gather theocon is one of the terms used) it depends on what the goals at hand are. One of the reasons why many religious conservatives vote is because they consider social issues like abortion or gay marriage or euthanasia to be of paramount importance to them - you want to kill the religious right, you take away those issues through some kind of federalist solution to the problem as has actually been done to a certain extent in Canada with regard to gay marriage whereby Quebec has chosen to implement it and Alberta has not (which would also mean the creation of some kind of long-needed restraint over judicial activism that IMO opinion would be far more sensible a subject for a constitutional amendment). Another possibility is the formation of some kind of a US version of the Christian Democrat Party as it exists in various incarnations in Europe. Also, with regard to European religion, having been to Europe on occasion I think that commentators tend to exaggerate the lack of religiosity that exists in the northwestern region of the Continent and apply it to the whole - one need only look at all of anger that has been generated in Italy over the attempt to remove crucifixes from public schools (with even the Italian Communist Party opposing such a measure) and contrast it with the situation in France where Chirac's decision to ban religious symbols has been met with an extremely tepid response from what is allegedly a nominally Catholic nation. And while it is not commonly cited as a reason, Catholic opposition on the war in Iraq was a prime motivator for opposition to such policies in the Iberian Peninsula, with upwards of 90% of the population against the war according to polling data.
That being said, I more or less agree with your analysis that the current religious conservative movement would be dealt a death knell by the achievement of its policy goals (the very thing that brought religious individuals into politics to begin with during the 1970s) or some type of accomodation that would more or less end the "culture wars." In any event, I see such an accomodation (which I truly don't think would be all that horrible a thing) as being far more possible in the event a legitimate libertarian party is established because the traditional libertarian disdain for government coercion than I do under the current Democratic Party.
Also, with regards to the far left going the route of the Weathermen, this is actually something that I myself have pondered about given some of rhetoric that has been used in left-wing circles these days regarding the US being in the thrall of some kind of a junta. If that is the case (and more than a few folks seem to think that it is), then it is hardly very much of a stretch of imagination to see such individuals calling for the overthrow of such a government or justifying committing violent acts against it.
The thing is, the moment that the MoveOn.org types turn to violence, they completely discredit themselves as political figures and the vast majority of the country is going to flee from them like the plague - probably to one or the other of the major alternatives I've described.
Just food for thought.
Posted by: Dan Darling at January 16, 2004 04:18 PMDan:
I agree with Ben that the simple mechanics of the electoral system precludes more than two parties in the US, other than in exceptional circumstances. The role of third parties in US politics is simply to adjust the postion of whichever major is closest to it by playing the spoiler role over more than one election cycle. John Anderson, for instance, seemed incredibly naive about this.
I agree that certain social issues will define how and when the religious consituency gets involved, but absent the Marxisant left I don't see that they need be involved for their own sake--that is, for their own survival. They are primarily involved now because the left has been intervening against them, attempting to establish a moral order based on counter-enlightenment principles. The Marxisant left, to put it simply, will tend to find common cause with the terrorists. The development of the European Social Forum, and the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe are examples of this trend. But I suspect they'll be marginalized in the US. (That may make them more violent, however.)
I take your point about religiosity, but I think it's a matter of the role of the counter-reformation. I'd have to look at Italy more carefully, but in Ireland, for instance, I'm sure that's the reason for the heightened religiosity that bucks the trend. As you say, in Italy it may be the ongoing presence of the Communists that stiffens the resolve of Catholic believers.
It's rather ironic that a too-close association of religion with the state invariably results in a loss of legitimacy for the former, because the state almost has to have fluctuations in legitimacy as it tackles policy problems with varying success. Religions don't deal well with such fluctuations, and the tendancy is toward an overall loss of legitimacy.
Thanks for your contribution, and thoughts.
--Scott
Posted by: Scott (to Dan) at January 16, 2004 07:49 PMScott:
A lot of this is a somewhat random stream of thoughts, so I apologize in advance if I fail to sound coherent.
I agree completely that too much mixing of religion with the state is almost always a bad thing in the long run – it essentially dumbs down religion to becoming just another function of government. When the Iranian government finally falls I think that it is going to be discovered that the newly-freed Iranian people are hardly willing to listen to the ayatollahs for a long time to come, something I think that some of the smarter ayatollahs are starting to recognize right now as they try to separate Shi’ite Islam from the Islamic Republic. I also think that John Derbyshire’s comment as to why Wahhabism requires such a mammoth police state if it is as overwhelmingly popular as the Saudis and their apologists claim is a rather telling one.
With regard to Europe, one of the things to keep in mind with regards to talk of a lack of religosity on the Continent is that commentators are almost always referring to the western half, the old Soviet Bloc nations of Eastern Europe are overwhelmingly religious (as is Russia) to the point where the Balkans wars of the 1990s had a great deal of ethno-religious rhetoric on the Catholic Croatians and the Orthodox Serbian sides. And of course, the Bosnian Muslims had their jihadis, including a contingent of 4,000 al-Qaeda fighters dispatched by bin Laden (who visited the region) and financed by the Saudi al-Haramain Foundation that later went on to form the bulk of Khattab’s al-Ansar Mujahideen in Chechnya and Dagestan. Just a fun fact that many Americans are unfortunately unaware of about the conflict ;)
I think you may well have a point that the presence of a veritable Communist Party in Italy (as well as the very real and very nasty Red Brigades) combined with the counter-reformation tends to strengthen Catholicism’s resolve there as well as in the Iberian Peninsula.
That being said, I agree with you completely that religious voters, especially those who form the evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant arms of the GOP, only got involved with political conservativism in the 1970s when they judged that no longer could they simply be passive observers anymore now that their values and culture were seen as being under attack. That later paved the way for greater cooperation between Protestants and Catholics in the social conservativism arena in the 1980s and 1990s and there were even a number of tentative attempts to persuade American Muslims to sign on pre-9/11. As long as these groups feel that their values are under attack, they aren’t likely to stop as a political force. This is one of the reasons as to why I tend to view a federalist solution to the contentious social issues as being the best policy whenever possible because it helps to accommodate pluralities on both sides of the debate whenever possible.
With regard to the Marxisant left, I tend to agree that their marginalization (which I see as being a good thing for our society as a whole) would pretty much end the “culture wars” such as they are because the two emerging victors, social conservatives and small “l” libertarians, would have a far easier time coming to some kind of an accomodation because at the end of the day (speaking from a theocon perspective) I think that all both sides have is a disagreement over policy decisions, not the kind of out-and-out hatred that what you term the Marxisant left has for both sides. That leaves a great deal more room for dialogue, discussion, and ultimately some kind of productive compromise and resolution than the current status quo.
However, the reason I don’t see religious politics (or at least politics that spring from some kind of a religious basis) dying is because I can easily see, especially assuming that the traditionally socially conservative minority communities congregate on the theocon rather than libertarian side of the spectrum, the creation of some kind of a US version of the Christian Democrat party that I mentioned earlier. These parties can be found in many quarters of Europe and are generally far more open to the traditionally liberal positions that require “big government” with regard to a number of issues that I honestly don’t see a viable national libertarian party being willing to embrace. Then again, stranger things have happened in the past.
Another thought with regard to the more alarming process of the Marxisant left becoming marginalized and possibly violent, one of the practical consequences of such a scenario would be that it would utterly discredit whatever remains of the Democratic Party forever in the course of American political debate – just look at the damage that a relatively small number of psychotic militant pro-lifers have done as far as shifting public opinion with this regard as an example. I would also point out that in the event that such individuals or organizations do become violent there is the not-inconsiderable issue of geography to consider here – remember the red and blue states from the 2000 election? Ignoring the fact that even in the event of a successful violent uprising in the blue states, the end-result would be the formation of something that looks rather akin to East and West Pakistan in the late 1940s with India sandwhiched in-between (not that I am suggesting that such a thing could ever be pulled off), I would honestly say that the result of even an attempt to carry out such insanity would make the very term “Democrat” or “liberal” as maligned in most of America as the former was in the aftermath of the Civil War. In other words, ideologue books like Coulter’s Treason would no longer be regarded as reading material only for the hard-core right-wingers anymore.
One final point with regard to Europe: an increasingly large portion of the Continent’s population is rapidly becoming made up of Muslim immigrants who are by and large being treated like crap and kept in more or less poverty-ridden existences, which in turn make them prey to radical religious views like Wahhabism or ideologies along the lines of Qutbist Salafism. The current status quo is likely going to shift one way or the other very, very soon, as can be seen in France with the rise of the more or less fascist National Alliance led by Monsieur le Pen that has now supplanted the Socialists as the major French opposition party in large part out of rising concerns with regard to Muslim immigrants among the general population that the French government is either unwilling or unable to address. This is more or less the main reason why the Nazis and the fascists came to power in Germany and Italy: the absence of respectable right-wing opposition parties in both nations ensured that when the opposition did arrive, it was anything but respectable. Le Pen represents one side of that coin, just as the leaders of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and FIS who operate among the French Algerian immigrant community represent the other.
Lastly, instead of Marxisant, you may want to consider using term transnational progressive (as defined in the link), which I think by far summarizes the position of a great many of these individuals more than mere Marxism.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_04-06/fonte_ideological/fonte_ideological.html
Posted by: Dan Darling at January 16, 2004 11:08 PM"...That (Dixiecrat-Solid South) probably saved the Democratic Party from extinction. But there is no such regional enclave today that could provide a comparable reprieve or sanctuary."
Alas! That just proves you don't live in New England! Sigh...
Posted by: Mark Terwilliger at January 18, 2004 02:53 AMI have a paper shashed somewhere (submitted to the APSA convention back in the mid-1990s) about the correspondence between the Republican to Democrat shift in New England vs. the Democrat to Republican shift of the South. Interesting regional analysis on the theme of overall balance. If I can find it, I'll post the cite.
If, in the event of the scenario this post outlines, there is a real threat to the Democrats I doubt that New England has enough electoral votes to keep a finger in the dyke. (Man, that's a suggestive phrase, isn't it?)
Seriously thoough, I know what you're saying. I suspect that New England would play a critical role in the fragmentation of the Republican Party, and the realignment of the electorate. But I doubt they'd be able to save the Democrats.
Posted by: Scott (to Mark) at January 18, 2004 05:25 PM
My guess is that should the Democrats pick a left Presidential candidate in the summer and win in the autumn, the nation's voters will probably strengthen the Republican majorities in the Congress. Look for a noisy government that does little of consequence outside of true national emergencies on a 9/11 scale. If the Democrats pick a centrist and win, the compensating increase in Republican legislators will probably lead to a business-friendly government with the Left planning an insurgency within the ranks.
If the Democrats pick a leftist and lose, the Democrats will probably try to ditch their left wing and move to the center. The Green Party will probably capture most of these voters before they join the anarchists.
If the Democrats pick a centrist and lose, the left will be energized and take over the Democratic Party. Centrist Democrats might join the Republicans, or they might set up a party for the radical center (sort of like Perot's 1992 Reform Party.)
A growing anarchist movement is not in the cards, if only because most Left activists know just what damage they do to the cause. Even now some protest marches have internal policing to make sure that the black-flag crowd doesn't act out.
Posted by: Warren Eckels at January 25, 2004 03:03 AM