Realignment, triangulation, and moving "left" or "right"

[Recursion]

So, if your candidate of choice is not named Edwards or Kucinich, you'll be seeing a lot of stuff on DU about how your candidate is actually going "to the right". Critics of Senator Clinton say she will operate largely in the DLC-style of "triangulation" so mastered by her husband in the 1990's. Critics of Senator Obama say his calls for bipartisanship and unity are really just triangulation by another name, and a way to compromise fundamental Democratic party ideals.

The fact that I'm 31 and own an iPod probably pegs me as an Obama supporter (for what it's worth, I do use the free software Rockbox rather than the proprietary, DRM-encumbered Apple firmware that came with the iPod -- especially since Rockbox interacts better with my computer's operating system). I want to explain why I think Clinton's likely triangulation and Obama's likely efforts for "unity" are very different, from my perspective.

Obama caught a lot of flak for speaking well of Reagan. I don't deny that he could have phrased what he said better. But fundamentally he is right: Reagan ushered in a realignment and new American Party System (wiki for the American party systems if you aren't familiar with them). He wants to do the same. Let me explain:

A realignment, like 1980, or 1932, or 1896, or 1860, changes what the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" mean. Reagan didn't get support from Democrats by compromising his principles or triangulating; he got support by persuading a part of the Democratic party that their shared values with him were more important than their shared values with their own party. This is what Obama wants to do, in reverse: to show that concern for the environment, for the working class, and for transparency in government are very consistent with conservatives' values, and at this juncture in history outweigh conservatives' ties to the Republican party.

The terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" do not have fixed and unchanging definitions -- for that matter, they ultimately only reflect which side of Louis XIV's court the different factions sat on. Remember that until FDR was elected, "Progressives" were a subset of Republicans -- a subset that he largely won over to our side, despite undoing their pet project of prohibition (which by that time even most of them had soured on). Currently, we are still under a party system ushered in by Reagan, and one that is no longer terribly relevant to our population: in particular, the "right" coalition of religious conservatives and pro-business libertarians is strained to the breaking point. The peculiar problem is that fundamentally, the religious conservatives are "progressive" in the most basic sense of the word: they believe in the power of government action to improve society and people's lives. Obama hopes to use our shared values with them (and, yes, we do share values) to forge a new consensus about what the direction this country should take is. I believe he can do it. But there are also problems with our coalition on the left: blue-collar democrats feel like they were sold down the river by urban democrats in the name of "free trade", and that their moral values are not just ignored, but actively mocked. Realignments happen ever few decades or so, and create new coalitions that better reflect what people believe.

Triangulation, on the other hand, very specifically keeps the current consensus where it is and incrementally does what is possible within it. You inch your own party towards the position of the other in an attempt to peel off enough voters to achieve results. This is "workhorse" politics, masterfully exhibited by Clinton, LBJ, Taft, and others. It makes some progress but ultimately it's a zero-sum game: you compromise your core principles just enough to peel off some centrists without too alienating your base (and after 16 years of this, the bases on both the left and the right seem to have reached their breaking point).

Realignments are scary. They generally happen signify a change from one generation of leadership to another -- and the inter-generational bloodbath we're seeing on DU right now seems to bolster that idea ("get off my yard, you kids!" vs. "if it's too loud you're too old"). As a member of the much-maligned "Generation X" (ie, one of the few people born in that nadir of US fertility, the 1970's), I'm kind of between the two generations that seem to be fighting for control of the national consensus. Obviously I wish the acrimony were less, but this is a conversation we've needed to have for a while, probably since the Seattle protests in '99, when a lot of us in generations X and Y felt like the boomers just "didn't get it". ("Why on earth are you kids protesting the WTO and World Bank? Don't you know they help poor people?" -- and that was from the left!)

Obviously very few people are 100% happy with a given party. I think my party (and Obama, too) are completely wrong on gun rights, for instance. And I think our party's pushing NAFTA and CAFTA is a horrible idea. None of these are remotely important enough to me to make me switch parties (particularly since the GOP's position and even their rhetoric on those issues aren't much better in my view). But a lot of the right-wing coalition is severely distressed with their own party. These are the people Obama speaks to. They're conservative blue-collar workers who feel that they've been sold out by Wall Street, but haven't until Obama seen a Democratic leader who understands and lives out how important faith is to their lives. They're rural people who see the ecological and economic devastation caused by industrial agriculture but until Obama haven't seen a Democratic leader who doesn't visibly immediately assume they are ignorant rubes and hayseeds. And, yes, they're younger people who feel like the alleged "adults" are in fact behaving like juveniles and seem more interested in winning political fights than in actually doing something.

The argument against what I'm saying, as I usually see it on this board, is something like, "You don't understand, young Padawan: these Republicans have nothing good to offer us and we can't work with them. They're racist, sexist, homophobic, mouth-breathing troglodytes who live in small towns because they weren't smart enough to get into a good college and get a job in a city." (Obviously I'm exaggerating there for effect -- I think the gist is accurate, though.) The amount of contempt I see on this board for ordinary Republican voters is both surprising and disturbing. No, we don't agree with them on everything, but they aren't lepers, and they deserve to have their values addressed. And, frankly, we do share a lot of values with them, particularly as regards labor and environmental issues, it's just that the language of our current alignment doesn't let us talk with them about it.

If we get a realignment, we'll gain some people and (sadly) lose some people; that's how it works. But it's important to me because I think our current alignment is entirely broken and does not let us move forward on anything. We need to make our coalition be one based on the agreement that the working class and middle class are in trouble and need government help to maintain themselves, and that environmentally unsustainable industrial practices cannot continue. I think Obama can deliver that, and I think Clinton not only can't, but wouldn't want to if she could.

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. I'm an Edwards supporter...

... and I'm extremely cynical about both the front runners, but I must concede that you make some good points.

Well said.

But a lot of the right-wing coalition is severely distressed with their own party. These are the people Obama speaks to. They're conservative blue-collar workers who feel that they've been sold out by Wall Street, but haven't until Obama seen a Democratic leader who understands and lives out how important faith is to their lives. They're rural people who see the ecological and economic devastation caused by industrial agriculture but until Obama haven't seen a Democratic leader who doesn't visibly immediately assume they are ignorant rubes and hayseeds. And, yes, they're younger people who feel like the alleged "adults" are in fact behaving like juveniles and seem more interested in winning political fights than in actually doing something.

I think you accurately describe the problem, but I remain unconvinced that Obama and his young urbane constituency get it.

Essentially, I think that Edwards was the person who could have pulled off that realignment - without the appearance of pandering to the St Ron myth.

[Recursion]

2. I agree Edwards could do it too

But the sad fact is having the media not hate you is important in a President, and the media absolutely hate him.

[Recursion]

3. I'm shamelessly self-kicking here in the guise of adding another thought...

...mostly because I'd like to see some talk on this idea.

Did anybody ever see that awesome Steve Martin movie, Leap of Faith? The shuckster's teacher had always said, "beware of the genuine article". I don't know, but in truth I think Obama may be the genuine article. And if not, he'll do until the genuine article comes.