Consider a couple of tried and true axioms. "Divide and conquer." "Diversity is strength." When you think about it, they are, on the face of it, contradictory. Nevertheless, they both have an inherent wisdom, and there can be a fine line separating the two when you're talking about politics. While many on the left are now concerned about the danger of the former, it may well be time to consider instead the opportunities of the latter.
First a little context. It's hardly news to say there's a split within the left, following the bitter struggle over health care reform. While many progressives see the final Senate product as a qualified win, many others see it as a giveaway to the insurance companies that will make a bad situation worse. Gone from both sides of the left is the pretense that the White House has not been a major player; those who support the bill praise Obama for its passage, those that fear the bill blame Obama for its passage.
But while some on the pro-bill camp are now reciting the "no hard feelings" victory mantra to disheartened members of the "kill the bill" camp, leading activists from the latter set have charted a different path. Bloggers like Jane Hamsher are diving headlong into the strategy laid out by Cenk Uygur in what has become a manifesto of sorts to those liberals stinging after their expulsion from the negotiating table and steaming at the open dismissal by White House legislative hammer Rahm Emanuel. Uygur's piece gave voice to what more progressives have come to realize (based not only on the health care struggle, but virtually every other political hot potato from the Afghan War and civil liberties to Presidential appointments): that this administration will seriously consider no policy to the left of the Senate's most conservative Democrats.
The solution, to Uygur, is for an organized and mobilized progressive movement to "hurt" the President. To draw political blood. That this is, by process of elimination, the only way to be taken seriously in the hardball world of Emanuelian politics which Obama has embraced.
Again, this isn't breaking news. Still, there should be no question as to the reason for the speed and ferocity of the manifestation of the Uygur strategy that has appeared at the progressive website Firedoglake. On the one hand, this faction sees the failures of the health care bill as a massive electoral loser, and with November looming, it becomes necessary from this perspective to improve the Democratic Party's record despite itself.
More significant, though, is the fact that other major policy battles near and dear to the left are rapidly approaching (particularly climate change and the final disposition of the Employee Free Choice Act). Progressives are not willing to again cede these decisions to the "corporatist" wing of the party without a fight. In this sense, the clock is ticking to rediscover enough power to be taken seriously again (if indeed they ever were by this administration).
So that's the liberal split in a nutshell, but it's more than just a difference in strategy. It's the form the opening salvo from FDL is taking that is serving to further antagonize these divisions; a corruption charge tailored not only to the populist inclinations of independent voters, but the scandal-obsessed traditional media as well. Yes, it's increasing tensions, but there is also an undeniable cleverness to this line of attack.
The charge of corruption (through the person of Rahm Emanuel and questions around his involvement in Fannie Mae) is uniquely non-ideological, and has thereby allowed for an alliance with right wing hero Grover Norquist. This political jiu-jitsu co-opts a major driver of the very right wing machine Obama and Emanuel are concerned about, but puts it in service of a left wing ideological bloc, eager to garner the same respect from the White House. While many on the left are understandably finding the alliance distasteful, its potential potency is hard to deny.
Still, it is unquestionably cementing the fractures that have formed among the left. Calls of "why can't we all just shake hands and get back to working together" fall apart before such a strategy.
Given, then, the innate wisdom of the "divide and conquer" axiom, this scorched earth approach must be a bad thing. A fractured left is a weakened left, and a weakened left can never, ever find its way back to relevance. Right?
In reality, it all depends on how it plays out in the coming month, because "divide and conquer" may not be the axiom in play if the rift can be finessed. Instead, the far more liberal mantra of "diversity is strength" could cede policy victories to the American left -- even to those currently demonizing FDL's Jane Hamsher and her allies.
So-called "movement conservatives" have proven that size does not necessarily matter when it comes to impacting policy. In fact, the beltway seems to respond to a definition of political force that mirrors Newton's own definition of physical force in his second law: f=ma (force equals mass times acceleration). The Uygur/Hamsher activist faction may divorce itself of some mass through its approach, but through an even greater increase in its acceleration (by being more focused and nimble), it could end up a far more potent political force when all is said and done.
In addition, there's even the potential for a good-cop/bad-cop dynamic among progressive ideological allies on either side of this attack-strategy divide. It may be distasteful for the Hamsher opponents among the left to consider, but the fact is that Rahm Emanuel may be more inclined to bring what he sees as agreeable progressives into the process in an active way if he thinks it may limit or even undermine the FDL-set during delicate negotiations. It may not put Jane Hamsher or Glenn Greenwald at the table personally, but it would be progressives at the table nonetheless - which is better than what we've got at present.
Is this more optimistic view the way the dynamics will play out in the coming months? Maybe, maybe not. There's no question that FDL and company are engaging in a high stakes gamble that could either enhance the left's impact, or further erode it. The answer to the question of which way it will all turn depends less on who is right, and more on how this tightrope is walked in the coming weeks.
However you slice it, a decision to turn up the heat on this White House, in the process solidifying the split in the left, is a high risk strategy. But it would seem that the administration has left progressives little choice if they want a way back to the negotiating table.
The real wonder of it is why other anti-corporatist Democrats haven't realized that they will /never/ get what they want unless they're willing to fight for it. If Obama is backing the corporations, then he isn't their ally and shouldn't be treated as one. Besides, he invited us to push him to the left. The only way that we can do that is to hand him defeats when he wants to go to the right.
Jane and Cenk are providing the template, for progressives of all stripes, on how to play hardball to advance progressive causes in the face of today's politics.
And man, is it a joy to watch.
I have always voted the candidate rather than the party anyway. Any candidate can lose my vote by taking some position I cannot support.
I always vote. I often leave an office blank on my ballot because no candidate has gone to the trouble of convincing me.
I don't think most voters notice not voting is an option for any office on any ballot. I wish more would.
I liked Obama. I did not trust him enough to vote for him. I wish he hadn't vindicated my vote.
No, they aren't. Diversity is whether the parts of an organization are similar or different. Division is whether they work together. "Divide and conquer" refers canonically to the military theorem describing what happens in situations like massed infantry with low-accuracy ranged weapons, where the casualties inflicted by each side are roughly proportional to the number of soldiers firing, regardless of the number of soldiers on the other side. Under such circumstances, a much weaker force can defeat a much stronger one, if the stronger force is divided. To apply "diversity is strength" to that kind of situation, you would be talking about how to combine infantry with artillery, cavlary with foot soldiers, ranged weapons with pikes, and so on -- and you would find that diversity is indeed strength in a wide range of cases.
I will not in ANY way support a Senator who voted for cloture on this Health Care Reform bill unless they somehow manage to filibuster on the final vote. First off, the bill destroys the party. It will tax the middle class. It will tax nearly all the unions' memberships. It will have the practical effect of eliminating full reproductive choice for women. The bill will drag down the bulk of offerings from insurers to 70/30 and 60/40 with astronomical deductibles. The only thing Rahmbo and Dumbo have demonstrated is how incompetent and corrupt people become in search of campaign money. If you place the political spectrum on a circle with the moderate left at 9 O'clock, moderate right at 3 O'clock, Populism at 6 O'clock, and Corporatism at 12 O'clock you can map out a strategy of bringing conservative and progressive together on a populist agenda. Currently we are fed hog slop from the mainstream media between 11 and 1. The "CENTER" as they see it is Corporatism. Populism is seen as a day trip to the Zoo.
With that support, the part of our Democratic party viewed as "extremist" by a Centrist administration, labor, environmental, anti-war & such, could be mostly ignored. And where do they have to go? The Corporations probably would go along with this as it will then become less likely that real reform will be possible. Free Trade and Corporate rule forever!
But you have to remember, An International Corporation is by definition not an American one.They are not of, for, or by the American people. American Labor is. The FDR "Third Way" utilized organized labor acting as a political force. Progressives should fight to stay put in the party they belong in, and the Labor movement should be resuscitated with their help. Fair Trade, Re-Industrialization, and the restoration of the Sherman Anti-Trust act must then be demanded.
Personally I would love to see a Progressive Third Party actually start to make strides onto the national scene. But if there is one thing that Repubs and Dems can agree on is a third party would hurt them both.
And one other observation I have. The Democratic Party is not the Liberal or Progressive Party, it has been the default for liberals without any other option, but the Democrats shouldn't take it for granted that the Liberal/Progressives are safely corralled and beyond going off the Reservation. The rift we are seeing, in my opinion, is a rift between Democrats who classify themselves as Liberal/Progressives and Liberal/Progressives who happen to classify themselves as Democrats. There is a fundamental difference.
Perhaps progressives and liberals would be better off dumping the corporate financed and controlled "Democratic" Party (which isn't democratic anyway) for their own "Progressive" Party.
The only thing working within the Democratic Party does is waste time. Once "progressives" get a taste of that corporate campaign cash it seems that they are immediately co-opted.
Better to start anew with a political party that does not take corporate campaign cash as a matter of principle.
Just as the Republicans in 1860 knew that working within the Whigs was an exercise in futility and they formed their own party, it is long past time to shake up America's political structure with new parties and electoral reforms like runoff elections and ranked-choice voting so that people may vote their first choice without fear.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Green_Party.htm
I'm guessing,... come tax-return time I will be making several small, directed contributions to the likes of Dennis Kucinich, Al Franken and Russ Feingold.
At least they are real, relatively uncorrupted, Liberals & Progressives.