He who is not busy being born is busy dying
Historically, the Democratic party in the 20th century put a premium on coalition politics, the party's response to American urbanization. Half of all Americans still worked in agriculture in 1900. This changed, at variable speeds by region, until by 1950 it was 12 percent. It changed the most on the Northern east coast, and the least in the interior South and Midwest.
Historically, the Democratic party in the 20th century put a premium on coalition politics, the party's response to American urbanization. Half of all Americans still worked in agriculture in 1900. This changed, at variable speeds by region, until by 1950 it was 12 percent. It changed the most on the Northern east coast, and the least in the interior South and Midwest.
Because,
in 1900, the Republicans were still the party of small and large traders, which
had successfully fought against slaveholding power, the party was receptive to
change by its progressive end. The progressives combined anti-corruption
advocates and genuine critics of speculative capitalism. Meanwhile, the Dems were
tacitly pro-corruption, in as much as corruption was a sort of tax on the
wealthy that distributed, in a highly inefficient way, wealth to the immigrant
and the farmer. The big city machines naturally tended Democratic.
After
that progressive turning, the Republican business class turned against the
critique of speculative capitalism (while retaining an anti-corruption ethos,
which basically targeted ethnics, from Italians to Mexicans). Dems combined
northern urban liberals, ethnic enclaves and the working class with Southern
white farmers. In order to pull this off, certain groups had to delay, modify
or abandon their demands. The Dems worked this by putting unity above other values. They
would govern. In governing, silently but surely, the needs of coalition
partners would be met.
But
this strategy began to collapse in the sixties. The underlying tensions
eventually and predictably destroyed the coalition, but, as a relic of the
earlier era, the Democratic leadership mindset still insisted on unity – the unity
of the nation – as its foremost value.
Obama's
emphasis on working together was, perhaps, last hurray of 20th century liberalism.
Not accidentally, the making of bipartisanship a value in itself proved to be a
disaster for the Dems.Their sinking in the 10s was comparable to the sinking of
the old American corporations, like GM or Sears, which tried to be all things
to all people.
The
odd intensity of the liberal group that dislikes all things PC & takes identity
politics to be some horrible aberration stems from the old conditions in
which American liberalism was formed. On the other hand, Trump’s narrowcasting
shows where we're really at.
It
is significant that the nostalgia for non PC times, on part of contemporary Jonathan
Chait like liberals, has quietly dropped the term that used to be thought of as
the way to channel diversity into unity. That word is ‘integration’.
When was the last time a politician used the word integration positively?
“Integration”
has met the same fate as other progressive shibboleths that embarrass liberals.
Like the term "watered stock",
which used to be a flashpoint for
talking about limiting speculation in the market.
However
much, from the point of view of all fairy tales and Biblical narratives, one
wants an asshole like Trump shown up and shamed by God Almighty, his way of narrowcasting
politics will bring his demographic to the polls. Dems will have to
learn from this. Or we are in for a long age of Trumpism.
Of
course, my history is a little too intellectual in as much as it doesn’t quite
present the material inducements that keep the Democratic leadership holding
onto a pattern of politics that is outmoded. The unity & compromise default
of Dem elites rewards them richly in the K street world of DC and in the back
and forth between Wall street and political power. Ex Sen. Daschle is like a poster
boy for the new form of Democratic corruption that no longer taxes wealth, no
longer works for the oppressed outsiders, but has become a weapon of wealth for
insiders.
The
conflict at elite level of the Democratic party is driven partly by anxiety of
Democratic makers and shakers that they won't get to lick gravy from table.
But
remember: every greed & desire evolves a form rationalizing it. And every
new turn in history stumbles over a vocabulary that is busy being born and
trying to match the reality that it clearly perceives, beyond the grid of dead
phrases.
No comments:
Post a Comment