« DeGette doesn't | Main | (free) Song Storm contest »
David Brooks' column in the Times is an interesting reflection on the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. Edwards' is said to have the most "persuasive theory" for pervasively interesting reasons.
| Permalink | technorati
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://lessig.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1030
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference on the battle for the soul of the democrats:
» online poker from online poker
Nothing appears more surprising to those who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few. by Nothing appears more surprising to those who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few. by [Read More]
Lessig Blog by Lawrence Lessig is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Comments (14)
Two points:
* Thank god he's no longer writing about baseball fans or civility. That was self serving and incomprehensible.
* Brooks is a man whose salary in large degree is paid by Scaife and the rest of that crew, so one has to first wonder if his comments on the Democratic party are an attempt at monkeywrenching the primary process by keeping the internecine going for as long as possible.
On the plus side, at least this article is marginally readable.
BTW, when one looks at presidents who have been serious about minimizing social inequity, the rich boys (Both Roosevelts, Kennedy) have done better than the ones raised in modest means (Reagan, Clinton).
I read Brooks' piece this morning and revisited it just now. I tend to agree with the theory that people want foremost to do business with people they like. In politics, issues are important, but in order to get to that discussion, the candidate and the voter need to make a gut-level connection. I'm one of those who didn't think Gore was very interesting as a person, and his ideas didn't connect with me. And maybe I was too easy on Bush's campaign back then because I liked him better. Today I am intrigued with some of Dean's ideas, but his demeanor can be hard to get past. That's not to say Dean might not be a great guy to hang around with once you got to know him, but there is an aloofness that seems to set the tone for his on-camera appearances. Perhaps the hidden strength of grassroots Internet support is that the ideas can be presented at some length without the candidate's personality first getting in the way. (It cuts both ways: a few minutes at Kucinich's website and I knew he was not the guy for me, and I had never seen or heard the man outside of his guest appearance on this blog.)
Nevertheless, I hope the Dems will read Brooks' piece (which was refreshingly void of his usual strong conservatism) and take it to heart. I think Bush is now at the point where people have realized his homespun personality is not a friendly face masking a tough interior, but just a goofy attempt to get all the smarter guys around him to like him. If the Dems will bring out a personable candidate (maybe Edwards, maybe Dean) who can speak intelligently to the important issues a la Clinton, there is a real chance to switch administrations in 2004.
By the way, for those who don't read the NYT editorial page, Krugman's pieces on the economy are not to be missed.
Cheers,
Chris Lake
It's awfully noble of conservative pundits to be giving their political enemies so much helpful advice, and I'm sure the democratic party leadership will listen to Mr. Brooks's recommendations and follow them to the letter, as soon as they've had their brains replaced with tapioca pudding.
When you look at who's run for president by the Democrats, a lot of the problem is lack of passion. Clinton could project empathy, but real passion, and the less said of Gore, Dukkakis, Mondale, and Carter, the better.
Dean has passion. I saw it when I saw him mouth the words, "What the F***" during one of the debates.
He's angry, and he makes people feel justified in their anger.
Whether it works or not is another question.
The rest of them have bought into the "be a doormat style of civility" with the exception of Kucinich (gives me the creeps), Sharpton (first impression too wacky), and Braun (a non-entity).
I don't want earthy crunchy. I think that outrage is the proper emotion to be expressed toward an administration that is as delusional as it is corrupt and venal.
Just in case you didn't catch it, "I am not a member of an organized party, I am a Democrat" , to quote Will Rogers.
hmmmm ... just putting this out for discussion, LL? surely you don't think it has much merit.
what specious top-water commentary from mr brooks ... just what some might like us to believe. that it's a matter of style, or, perceived value sharing.
look. i live here in Arkansas and never for the life of me could figure out why Bill Clinton - with his enormous telegenic personal charm and real rapport with poor (he was pretty much raised in this end of the spectrum) and up people of all colors - didn't build the Democratic party and really reach out to new and disenchanted voters.
rather, his political knowledge, skills, and abilities were best appropriate to develop his centrist philosophy and so he did this - and just argued with the Repubs over the 50% of the voters that DID turn out - and argued in terms that only addressed this half-the-electorate group.
guess what? all those people in that other half just drifted away ... because no one really was talking to them, much less about them. (And they forgot what the New Deal had done for their moms and dads, and grandparents).
Well. Along comes Howard Dean and it's easy to see that he's talking to all these people ... and about the issues that are in their lives.
What's different? The Internet as an organizing tool. Not Everything now has to be filtered through the media - which is owned, of course, by that previously mentioned 50%. Dean has his own Media Channels.
Then there's the little detail that over 50% of HD's contributions are less than $200 each - and so prima facie HD is beholden more to the individual citizens than to the corporate (corporate fascist? - let's be realistic and speak in plain language) interests. Just about any person can figure this one out.
Sure, mr norquist, brooks, and other associated shills for the Bushites keep throwing up these notions that the real threat or the real dem candidate is someone other than the growing stronger by the day frontrunner in most quarters.
But Dean has done several - many - things because he approaches these issues like a Roosevelt and NOW sooooooo many of us can churn out the hard work - because we have a candidate who has a RECORD and speaks to our issues and concerns - and we have the TOOLS to do the work.
And it is being done and grows stronger by the day.
Like bgm, I'm an Arkansawyer, and find what he has to say about Clinton and party-building persuasive. My uncle, who is in his nineties, in Newton County still has an ancient FDR poster up in his tiny house. There are also right-wing nutcase newspapers lying in the front room.
Who caused my uncle to be lost to the Democratic Party? (Hint: Don't give me culture war--follow the money.)
As to Brooks' observation that Bush beat Gore because "They felt Bush could come to their barbershop and fit right in," I have it on good authority that over half of the electorate does not go to barbershops. I suspect Brooks needs to think this through again.
What's more, *I* have it on good authority that over half of the electorate didn't vote for George Bush... :)
Brooks is half right; most voters don't worry a lot about where they or a candidate fits on the left-right spectrum, beyond a few really hot-button issues like abortion. But what he leaves out of his analysis, strategically in my view because he's a Republican, is that while the Ds have gone from 49% to 32% in voter self-identification, the Rs haven't gone up by an equivalent amount. They still also register about 1/3 in public support. The big new factor are the independents, the fastest growing group, especially among young people.
Independents are looking for two things, I think: effective government (not smaller government, not bigger government) and honesty/integrity from their representatives. They will support a Paul Wellstone as quickly as they supported Arnold Schwarzenegger, and who knows, maybe a Howard Dean.
Before anybody buys Fred Barnes' spurious claim of a new Republican realignment, ask him to explain how the Rs will hold onto independent voters when they have to explain Bush's lying, DeLay's extremism, the weak economy and the tattered war on terror.
If anything, the Bush presidency may turn out to be like the Carter presidency, a one-term break on the other party's hegemony brought on by voter disgust with the prior incumbent's personal scandal (Nixon and Watergate, Clinton and Monica). Or, the future is a period of de-alignment, where neither party has a stable majority and quirky independents and pesky third-parties (Greens and Libertarians, primarily) play the role of disrupting and reshaping political coalitions.
Very interesting link (and comments)--glad I rolled around to your blog this evening. I think there is something important here.
My own take is that Mr. Brooks' comments are interesting and insightful, and tends to lift Edward's value to me as a serious contender. As someone notes above, the Dems have apparently not bled their membership to the Republican party. My guess is that many of these folks fall among a large group of centrists, many of whom feel a general dissatisfaction with the two-party system (among other things). For these folks, I couldn't agree more with Edwards--it's probably the values that matter for them, and therefore--according to the algebra of the modern electoral process--the candidate's personality projection into the media (in contrast to their record) will be of (overly) great significance to them.
In addition, I think it's been heard over the recent years by many folks that there is no difference between the candidates of the two parties beyond the formalism of party affiliation, e.g., that Clinton was just a left-leaning Repub, not a "real" Dem. Many of these folks belong to this centrist group I think, which is another reason why they would be responsive to values and not party.
Perhaps Dean and those in the Dem leadership are aware of these grumblings as to sameness of the parties ("Dems have lost their soul"), and think that a movement to the left and to differentiation is what is needed. My feeling is that such a strategy will simply lose the centrist folks that they are trying to be responsive to.
I am a registered Democrat btw, perched over the center (I tend to think), and my reflex is to recoil from Dean's rhetoric and "anger." I just don't think most Americans are "angry" in this way, and will respond favorably to "angry" candidates. Some yes, but enough no. Most folks are concerned about things to be sure, but "anger" from any side will be a put-off, imho. I hope to hell the Dems don't go down that "angry" road, or I fear the Republicans will have an easier time this coming election.
greg
Do you really believe that the Democratic presidential
candidates really mean what they say? It is very rare
to see any candidate walk the talk. Sorry to say but
Democratic party is generally amoral which is the reason
why it is not regarded by many lay people in high esteem.
45.3% (or around that figure) of the voting-age population
did not bother to go to voting booth to vote for president
in 2000.
That’s shame.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<riolo@voicenet.com>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.
Judging by the way they run their campaigns, if there's one candidate who best puts into practice Edward's theory, " that the Democrats' besetting sin over the past few decades has been snobbery," it's Howard Dean.
Not to give Brooks any undue praise, but honestly it's about time that someone stood up and realized the potential that Edwards has. Winning the Democratic Party's heart back isn't as simple as Donna Brazil's trifecta that she defined for the 2000 election. We need to reconnect with the American voters and make them believe that we are sincere about our causes. And that those causes are designed to improve their lives. John Edwards has focused his campaign on reaching out to the constituencies that have been forgotten or overlooked. He wants to convince them that they are essential to an election and that by voting for him he will be able to improve their lives and reinstill in them the belief that politicians do care. Really, it's just a matter of time before the rest of America catches on to Edwards' sincerity. When will you realize it???
Did anyone read Brooks's piece a month earlier, "Born to Rule", or something like that? He talked about how people like Dean and Bush, because they grew up rich and went to Episcopalian schools, are better prepared to be leaders than others (presumably, women and anyone who went to a public school).
It was absolutely absurd. This article about Edwards is almost diametricallly opposed to the one four weeks ago. Did Brooks forget to take his stupid pills this month? Is he paid to lie every other month? Will the real David Brooks please stand up?
Dean's idea of lashing out at the world will excite the extreme left but if he is the candidate he will be trounced by the Republican machine. I do think that Edwards has a lot to offer once there is time to get more than one minute sound bites (if he's still around; fortunately his lawyer buddies continue to donate).
Also, I second the plug for Krugman's op-ed and if you like that check out his books.