Delusions of Grandeur

While reading Laurie Spivak's analysis of how to build a countermovement to the right, I was struck by this "obervation": "Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans are more closely aligned with the Democratic Party on the issues than they are with the Republican Party. Yet today twice as many Americans identify themselves as conservatives than as progressives."

First off, the poll cited had a lot of interesting information, but none of the 25 polls on that page discussed party affiliation or ideological identification. The poll up front when I went there was on John McCain as a Kerry running mate.

Second, conservative is the broad description for people right of center. Progressive describes as specific wing of the left. Conservative identification is a reasonable (though imperfect) barometer of Republican affiliation. Progressive is not a reasonable description of Democratic affiliation. While progressives may be democratic, democrats are not progressive. Immeditaly, I find myself questioning the assumption upon which the article proceeds: that conservative success is based on marketing, not on genuine belief. For those who didn't pay attention in Marx 101, this is false conciousness.

Spivak writes, "How to explain this seeming paradox? Usually the preferred, or superior, product wins out in the marketplace, but not always. An inferior product can dominate with superior marketing. And this is precisely what has happened in American politics: Conservatives offer less desirable, inferior policies, but dominate through superior marketing."

Putting aside the axiological question of whether conservative policies are inferior, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, this seeming paradox can more easily be resolved by abandoning the notion that people have been duped into thinking they are something that they are not. This contempt for the intelligence of regular people is one of the reasons the Progressives do as poorly in the public arena as they do. I'll generously attribute it to the defense mechanism denial.

The same argument in made by the right. They point to the conservative social stands by Blacks, Hispanics, and Jews, and argue that they belong more naturally in the Republican Party. I'd suggest that perhaps both sides see some natural allies across the fence, I know I do, but that's not the same thing as saying that they are mistaken to have chosen the party affiliation they have.

Spivak rather uncritically assumes there is a demographic shift favoring the democrats, but there are people claiming a demographic shift for everything. Thomas Riehle claims to have found a strong Republican surge among the young. Routine election watching shows the Republicans taking the House away from the Democrats in the 90's and increasing their influence there over time, gaining in the 2002 midterm elections, and holding on to their electoral advantages in the presidency. Again, I think both sides can see some favorable trends, but I also think that there is strong evidence in history that parties adapt to prevent an otherwise winning party to become a dominant party. Of course the self delusion represented by Spivak's article does present the possibility that committed progressives will force such leftist candidates and policies on the Democrats that they find it difficult to hold on to moderate voters. No doubt more sensible individuals within the party will eventually step up to thwart these actions.

Spivak goes on to write:
"At least in part, conservatives' monetary advantage can be offset by the vast, and largely untapped, progressive creative community, which includes a line-up of potential celebrity spokespeople for progressive issues that would literally make Madison Avenue weak at the knees. While at once building Air America, News World International and other dedicated distribution channels, progressives should use their wits and their wit and aim for the networks, primetime, and mainstream entertainment and media."

Wait, who has George Soros and who has Hugh Hewitt? I'll put the conservative creative community up against the left any day. Not only are more Hollywood types revealing that the days of silence are over and that there are conservatives among them, but Air America is a terrible failure that will vanish after November. Air America, it should be remembered is not supported by its popularity, but by the deep pockets of certain powerful lefties. Once again, Spivak has it exactly reversed.

"Consider the implications of the progressive frame on the war on terror. Conservatives missed the 9-11 threat because they were "preserved in amber," as Richard Clark put it, obsessed with Cold War thinking. The terrorist threat that America faces post-9-11 requires a modern foreign policy paradigm. The solution to a network of global terrorists that reaches across international borders lies in transnational networks and cooperation, not in regional Cold War models, alienating allies, and inflaming antagonisms."

This argument is so stretched and tortured one imagines the author laughing out loud while writing it. Cold war thinking was the kind where we backed dictators because we were anti-communist, stayed close to our allies and coordinated policy. Its the very awareness that all of that is behind us that has lead to the current administration ignoring the concerns of Germany, France, and Belgium, and pursuing a new policy vigorous engagement with the terror networks, including their state sponsors. The kinds of cooperative ventures that don't alienate anyone will be about as effective as the Clinton polcy of confronting terror, which is to say it will encourage terror.

There is a responsible left out there, but this ain't it.