Why Are Democrats So Decent? Get Nasty!
There's this fear among Democrats
that aggression and conflict must be denied,
controlled, repressed, whatever
Democracy is a representation of conflict
By resorting to bipartisanship we can discharge
aggressive feelings through sublimation
Democrats Beg to Agree [CIF]
The unified tone of Tuesday night's Democratic debate
may not help the party win back the presidency come November
The best moment of the debate probably came in response to a question about terrorism, phrased as a leading question directed at Clinton wherein she was supposed to accuse Obama of being insufficiently experienced to keep the country safe.
She demurred, offering a positive message about her own readiness to lead. Obama then denounced the "politics of fear" before pivoting to his early opposition to the Iraq War and the ways in which the focus on Iraq from 2002 onward has detracted from the fight against al-Qaeda.
Here Obama was able to use a past disagreement to at least gesture at a forward-looking one, suggesting that Clinton was complicit in a Bush-style reliance on a politics of fear that, paradoxically, renders the country less prepared to fight terrorism even while constantly underscoring its threat.
Still, he didn't really try to drive the knife in and, consequently, no back-and-forth emerged.
Instead, the main national security debate involved a nitpicking controversy about whether or not troops conducting hypothetical counter-terrorism missions in post-withdrawal Iraq should (hypothetically) be based in Iraq or somewhere else.
Edwards's view that basing such troops in Iraq would likely be unworkable seems sound, but so did Obama's characterization of the quarreling on the issue as a "distinction without a difference."
It could, in fact, have characterized much of the debate, which is precisely why when the candidates did go negative over the weekend things quickly turned so nasty.
Few big disagreements about big ideas are in play on the Democratic field.
For now, most liberals find that consensus heartening, but we may come to regret it if it means that the eventual winner emerges into the field of battle without having really tested his or her arguments against a candidate willing to draw sharp lines of contrast.
Obama Touts Hope & Unity
But Democracy Is about Conflict
Obama says we can get beyond disagreement. But democracy is about disagreement. We have real arguments in this country, and the political arena exists for us to hash them out. Promises to take the disagreement out of democracy is denying conflict.
This points to the real reason Obama's candidacy is a fairy tale, and it has nothing to do with being black or opposing the war.
Obama's whole campaign is based on some of the most noble and most inspiring sentiments in political life: hope, togetherness, bipartisanship.
As he proclaimed last February at a Democratic National Committee meeting: "There are those who don't believe in talking about hope.
They say, 'Well, we want specifics; we want details; and we want white papers; we want plans.'
We've had a lot of plans, Democrats. What we've had is a shortage of hope. And over the next year, over the next two years, that will be my call to you."
He's stayed true to that pledge. Not only does he talk about hope -- a lot -- he talks about the importance of talking about hope. He talks about how he hopes to talk more about talking about the importance of talking about hope. Hopefully.
He touts unity the same way. If we all buy into his "message of hope," he explains, then everybody -- blacks and whites, men and women, Republicans and Democrats, lions and gnus, bears and park rangers, Superman and Lex Luthor -- will be united!
But united toward what end, exactly? Or does it all boil down to being united about being hopeful and hopeful about being united?
Obama's fairy tale is the idea that we can get beyond disagreement. Democracy is about disagreement, not agreement.
We have real arguments in this country, and the political arena exists for us to hash them out. We may sometimes get aggressive but what's wrong with that?
There seems to be this fear among Democrats that aggression and conflict must be denied, controlled, repressed, whatever.
Democracy is a representation of conflict. By resorting to bipartisanship we can discharge aggressive feelings through sublimation. Democrats seem unable to grasp that simple concept.
Democrats like Obama sell us "post-partisan" snake oil promises to take the disagreement out of democracy. You can't do that. Anyone who thinks that the goalof peace and harmony is desirable has nothing to look forward to but a rather vapid, boring future.
Anyway, there's a flaw in Obama & Co's daydream. What if you disagree with Obama's ideas? Are you suddenly against hope? Given recent events, it seems that if you're not with the Obama program, you're fair game for tarring as a crypto-racist.
And that's what the Obama supporters are willing to say about the Clintons! If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, imagine what hairballs will be coughed up at the Republicans. The man is a hypocrite to claim that we can unite as a nation, as a people.
The irony here is that liberals have been complaining for years that the GOP too often appeals to voters' patriotism, yet they don't object to Obama's appeal to unity. Idealistic unity for all Americans -- isn't that just a no-frills version of patriotism?
So far, not even all Democrats have embraced Obama's gassy rhetoric of hope and togetherness, so there's no reason to suspect that Republicans and independents will rally around those themes during an Obama presidency, at least not for long.