ARCHIVES INDEX:
Comments
or questions about the site?:
advocate webmaster
A Modest Proposal:
Republicans Stay HomeBy Daniel Skinner
Unfortunately, most respectable universities (including this one) focus largely on producing students with logical, analogical and otherwise critical skills, with the hopeful intention of solving important questions. This is a shame because what was once seen as a symbol of great hope for the future—the belief that some things are actually knowable—has become an enormous frustration for modern democratic societies. For today’s more honest observers, the exuberance of the Enlightenment appears to have been woefully premature.
Glaring and ever-mounting evidence that the war in Iraq was waged on a cocktail of falsified and sketchy “intelligence” displays a preference on the part of the Administration for the anti-rational (or, if you like, rational within a “lunatic framework”). Bush’s policies at home and abroad are based on calculation of odds for purposes of profit and patronage and appear rational only if one accepts that leaders have no allegiance to the foundational ideals of the United States as a model liberal democracy.
To go to war on false pretences and then justify it after the fact is proof enough that, as Orwell would have put it, the Bush administration is giving “solidity to mere wind” in blowing its moral trumpet. On the way, it has transfigured “intelligence” into a permanent source of plausible deniability, which was necessary to convince the public that its ideological policies are somehow based on “fact”. But more importantly, Bush and company have shown that the one basic assumption the politically naïve make about the policy process—that political actors seek accurate information—no longer applies. This, in a democracy, is the defining characteristic of the antirational.
Ideally, a truly democratic politics isn’t about catching politicians telling lies that intelligent people already deduced were false. Today, in an age of both information and strategically circulated disinformation, citizens in democratic societies need to be able to use their powers of reason to consider all sides of the story, and then have the courage to act—conclusively and decisively. In fact, considering the ways in which governments control information, this may be the most important “faith-based initiative” of them all. Otherwise, there is simply nothing that can be done. The current Administration’s tight grip on information is designed to deny citizens just this ability to understand and take action on political narratives, and this is what those who oppose this behavior need to take back. The government, after all, can only claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force—not the “production” of truth. Conspiracy theories cannot be proven, of course, but what the Bush administration is up to is not a matter of conspiracy. Death of the Enlightenment aside, some things can be known.
These times call for a new method that absorbs and exploits the cynicism of those in power. The presumed old-school democratic approach of winning more votes than the other guy failed miserably in 2000, and proved that the left’s assumptions about strategy were too sentimental and not nearly dirty enough. Today we find ourselves in a situation much more urgent, and only getting more so. It should come as no wonder that the national movement gaining the most speed is that of the so-called ABB (“anything but Bush”), born of an admission that American politics does amount to choosing the lesser of two evils, and that a Faustian bargain with the corporate-controlled Democrats is necessary in the case of George W. Bush. So, assuming that there is agreement that these are cynical times and that those who oppose Bush are willing to play ball, the Left needs a cynical strategy of its own.
The most effective weapon the American Left has today is the betrayal of the American Right’s own political philosophy by its supposed champions. All of the proclaimed platform positions of the Right—decreased spending, small government, honesty and morality, free markets—have been tossed out the window by this Administration. And the greatest hope of the American Left in this election cycle, sadly but pragmatically, is not getting more democrats out to vote, but getting republicans to stay home.
A good place to start might be by turning the wolves on the hawks. As Tim Russert noted in his paddycake interview with Bush in early February, both the right-wing Heritage Foundation, and talk show host Rush Limbaugh have consistently criticized Bush for being a “runaway spender” (although one must remember that for these folks: defense spending=good; social spending=bad). Now I know that this is not the stuff that democrats normally want to go around touting, but in this case they may want to make an exception, if only to point out the deep hypocrisy of their opponent.
Even Bush’s most dogmatic supporters, if pressed, admit that he has been a less than faithful Conservative (never mind the compassion). Moreover, the ad hoc economic policy stylings of his administration have been confirmed by such insiders as former Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Neill, whose detailed records of the almost non-existent deliberation in the White House have been carefully documented in a recent best-selling book by Ron Suskind. It seems that the plethora of interests Bush is trying to cater to have forced his policies to be culled from a patchwork of ideas, none of which corresponds to any traditional notion of what it means to call oneself conservative or republican, not to mention libertarian. Bush is politically antirational because his policy initiatives are incoherent when taken as a whole based on his own ideological claims.
While the Left sees the greatest betrayal of George W. Bush in his bringing the country into a war that was both unnecessary and waged for reasons of profiteering by his closest interests, the Right can just as easily see how he has betrayed core values so close to their own hearts. It may not be possible to convince Bush supporters to vote for, say, John Kerry, but it may be enough to disenchant them with the whole thing and make them stay home. The election then comes down to a question of who has more to lose. Prediction: a moderately disappointed Right can easily land a democrat in the White House.
This is all going to be quite counterintuitive for those passionate about progressive politics, but building an American Left truly versed in the philosophy of the Right will yield large and enduring returns. These returns will be most visible in showing Republicans that their party doesn’t embody their values at all, but has been hijacked by fanatics who haven’t read the essential texts (Ayn Rand for the strong, George Will for the meek).
A case in point: the recent fury over gay marriage has forced the American Right to acknowledge that their opposition has no legal/constitutional footing, but is based instead on religious conviction. It also betrays the basic belief in freedom that the Right claims to hold whenever it discusses taxes. Obviously, the fact that the Right has realized that a Constitutional amendment is their only hope is an admission that their purported love of the US Constitution won’t bring in the results they need to maintain their Christian dreamstate. An issue like gay marriage, if handled correctly by the Left, could expose the anti-libertarian values of the GOP and dispel their claims to ideological purity. The far right, after all, will be the first to stay home (run, Pat run!).
The easiest way to get Republicans to stay home is to talk about what’s in their wallets. Bush’s economic plan has been a disaster not only for the traditional constituencies of the Left, but for those of the Right as well. Of course, all the expected giveaways for corporations and the rich have been delivered, but middle-class and poor America alike have suffered mightily under Bush’s watch, and it is important to keep in mind that a large portion of the core Republican constituency are (were?) those who believed that they too could benefit from sound conservative fiscal policy and move up in society. Instead, Bush, in attempting to wrest the “saving” of Medicare from the grips of the Left’s political portfolio, and in rehashing the myth of trickle-down economics with his tax cut, has generated a deficit larger than any in American history. His recent “discovery” that the Medicare reform bill will be over 30% higher than expected has made many Republicans wonder whether he thought it through at all (and, if we can believe O’Neill, we know the answer already).
Meanwhile, few seniors are happy with the bill, and most view it as a step backward—Republicans and Democrats alike feel betrayed by a more than $400 Billion faux pas. It’s a bipartisan no-brainer.
Strangely enough, the war in Iraq (and the dissolution of the more legitimate post-9-11 operations in Afghanistan) may not be a central issue in this election. For whatever reason, military actions are mysteriously immune to criticism in American politics, even in the face of the clearest evidence of deceit and incompetence. The Left is going to have trouble exploiting this most important issue of them all, although there may be ways of pointing out to the aloof that even the slightest bit of doubt in the reasoning for going to war with Iraq is reason enough to demand answers (or, in a real democracy, impeachment papers). Because the Administration is skillfully withholding even the projected cost of the war for a post-election surprise, as well as the results of the investigation into intelligence “failures”, this will make it difficult to use politically. Those concerned primarily with money will need to see the numbers. Demanding these numbers should be made an issue (for, as Paul Krugman of The New York Times recently pointed out, we do know that it will be more than zero). Incidentally, raising this issue should be possible without the Right labeling the Left anti-patriotic or anti-defense.
The American Left needs strategy more than ever, and it can’t be of the romantic “take back our democracy” lot that Ralph Nader espoused in the pre-Bush 2000 election. Bush supporters were able to laugh off massive anti-war protests, brush off the failure to find Osama bin Laden and Weapons of Mass Destruction, and blame the massive deficits created by war and an irresponsible tax cut on runaway Congressional spending. But Americans are not the gullible dupes that Karl Rove takes them for when it comes to the economy.
The best option is learn the views of America’s Right and show them how the last and greatest deceit of George W. Bush was his betrayal of his own supporters and their beloved philosophy.
If the Left can understand and articulate the truth about the proposed budget (available online www.whitehouse.gov), emphasize the increasing costs of the Iraq adventure and expose Bush the conservative for the runaway spender he really is, the Democrats may finally win Florida. If they can do this, all that remains to be done is to make sure that nobody takes it away. And that may be the most monumental “if” of them all.Daniel Skinner is a student in the political science program at the GC and teaches political science at Hunter College.