I was heartened to see the large and overwhelmingly positive response to
Kid Oakland's diary about achieving a "tipping point" in the popular political culture of the US. One that would create a "new majority" and thrust the Democratic party back into national dominance.
A "new majority" that would encompass what "we" (the true-believer progressive "early adopter" base) hold dear, while seamlessly accomodating the much maligned "middle," or "late adopters," in wonk parlance. (Which is, um, NECESSARY for building a majority in a democracy.)
I find it heartening to see the positive response to KO's diary because I think it was an implied rebuke to a current dominate metaphor at Dailykos. That of the "Fighting Dems." The most important metaphor posited in Kid Oakland's diary is antithetical to "Fighting Dems." It is what one could call "Connector Dems."
Could there actually be a dialog about this here??? Or will people just want to "fight?" I think it's a tremendously important concept. And if you don't already get why, I'll try to explain...
To put it simply: One cannot make polka dot suits mainstream by simply putting on the biggest, loudest giant polk dot suit in your closet, and running around yelling how proud you are to wear polka dots, and fuck everybody who thinks there's "something wrong" with them.
Kid Oakland's diary stems from thoughts provoked in part by a book, Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point, and the implications for trying to move "progressive" politics into the realm of "mainstream" or "accepted" politics. His diary is so compelling because it is the articulate out loud "re-thinking" of strongly held beliefs about how we get there. Specifically using the metaphor of "Fighting Dems." And I think anyone committed to making this country more progressive and more democratic, can never be done questioning and talking about "how we get there."
If our ultimate goal is to make "progressive values," America's "mainstream values," then we need to do it with more finesse than "fight."
I think that is the logical conclusion from Kid Oakland's diary on this subject. "Fighting Dems" is a losing metaphor if your goal is to re-connect to mainstream America, build a new coalition, and recapture a political majority. "Fighting Dems," as unapologetic representatives of the "early adopters" (which would probably include most of us who read this site regularly) can not by themselves bridge the gaps in our culture.
"Fighting Dems" (overt partisans, early adopters, trend setters, lunatic fringe, or whatever they are labeled) are necessarily AT ODDS with that mushy middle in American society, which is precisely the group they NEED to appeal to to form a new majority.
To win we need people (candidates) representing the Democratic Party who have the skills to translate "new" ideas to Middle America in ways that seem "old." With confidence inspiring, non-threatening, consensus building abilities. To form this "new majority," we need candidates who can build bridges, who can CONNECT across the many psychic divides in America, and deliver progressive politics in language and manners that strips off voters who really are closer to our vision of the world than the Republicans. (A party that has made them feel safer for decades.) I like to call these candidates "natural leaders." Kid Oakland's diary may lead us to call them "Connector Dems." I think that term is as good a description as any. And you know what he's talking about, because we've had them.
Bill Clinton was a "Connector Dem."
He was a master at moving a progressive agenda by peeling off small bits of it in legislation and rhetoric, and communicating the value of them in common sense ways that appealed to most American's innate sense of democracy and fairness. He had the ability to communicate in ways that were impossible for the Country Club and nut case wings of the Republican coalition to defend against.
Republicans despised him for this skill. He was, after all, exposing their true minority status on many issues. And while fondly remembered around here now for the most part, "progressives" were (ironically, and misguidedly, in my opinion) among his fiercest critics as well. His fealty to "the cause" was not overt enough for many. Nader in 2000 was a result of this phenomena. (The ultimate "fighter" and the ultimate "dis-connector?")
Howard Dean ran as sort of the Nader within the Democratic Party. He is a model "Fighting Dem" to many.
But name the only Democrat elected president in the last 30 years?
Name the last president to get little things passed like Domestic Leave, minimum wage increases, and who appointed Supreme Court justices who would save our Constitution?
Look at the catastrophic results of NOT having a president with a progressive agenda (even if he did not wear it on his sleeve)?
I think these sorts of realizations must have at least partly resonated in the back of Kid Oakland's mind while he wrote this diary.
"Connector Dems" are EXACTLY what the Democratic Party has been lacking, and what those who embrace the "Fighting Dems" metaphor, seem to be ignoring. It is simply not enough to "fight." Candidates need to connect.
As much as pissed off Democrats (and others) want to see somebody up there yelling back at the bastards on TV, we need to consider the efficacy of that as a political strategy for winning national offices.
The Republican "state of war" world view we find ourselves mired in today, makes it easy to want to play the political game by their rules. The bogus "fighting good against evil" paradigm seems to have seduced some progressives into joining the imaginary "fight." The "Fighting Dems" metaphor seems to be an attempt to play and win at their own stupid game. After all, this brain dead black-and-white-world strategy has been winning for the Republicans since at least the sixties.
But that strategy has led us to where we are now. And people are finally getting sick of it. It is nearing political bankruptcy (at least in this current cycle). And we seem to be at a classic crossroads in American history. The parties are ripe for realignment, as Middle America stirs restlessly, witnessing the Republican meltdown.
We will see if Democrats are able to take advantage of this moment in history and change the course of this country. If they are, I would submit, it will be due to another national candidate with the "connecting" ability of Bill Clinton. Someone with the ability to bring the ideas of the "early adopters" to mainstream political discourse, who will "move" the party to majority. (A Schweitzer perhaps?) I'm afraid it will NOT be the result of efforts from simply "fighting." I think it's time for us to acknowledge that as a possibility, and at least start talking about it. Like Kid Oakland.