Abandon Hope, all ye who vote with passion and insight

Hey Folks,

Monday, on the eve of the election I heard Tom Daschle and Dick (head*) Armey discussing things on the PBS Leherer show. I was disgusted.

Both these yo-yos had served as leaders in the House of Representatives, Democrat and Republican respectively. When asked by Leherer how things would go if the Dems won the house, both of these lads said the same thing – so chummy they were.

Both agreed the two parties would have to – should, in fact - abandon their bases and serve, what they called, “the middle.” They both asserted that serving their bases would only cause “polarization” and “gridlock” – nothing would "get done."

Then, Tuesday I saw a column by right-winger John Tierney of the New York Times, which said:

“We’ve lost our bearings because we’ve followed the old advice to discuss this amongst ourselves. Democracy, we’ve been told, is best served when informed citizens deliberate the issues of the day, pooling their wisdom to reach a judicious consensus.”

This clod’s thesis, as it develops, is that Democracy works best when those in charge are least informed.

Why???? Because when people of opposing views discuss or study issues, they become more attached to their original views. And THAT causes polarization!! Can’t have polarization!!!

Personally, I found both these experiences revolting.

First of all, I can understand Armey eschewing polarization – The R’s are NOW on the short end of the stick (see Maxine, above). But what’s with Daschle?

Since Newt Gingrich’s Contract on America, “polarization” has been the Republican strategy of choice – blatantly, vigorously, loudly, and unabashedly. “Liberal” was made a dirty word. Democrats were demonized. The rich were enriched. The poor were impoverished. Corporations were cut loose. Unions were cut off. "Assassinations" were attempted – some succeeded – on Bill Clinton, Bill Maher, the Dixie Chicks, working people, Social Security, and Medicaid, to name just a few.

Now, that the R’s won’t have carte blanch to continue dismantling the New Deal, the War on Poverty, and the 60’s; we’re supposed to move to the middle “to get things done.” Sure, Dick Armey thinks that’s a good idea, but what’s with Daschle? Yeah, split the difference; kill Social Security, but SLOWLY.

The Democratic base was energized clearly BECAUSE of these and similar, outrageous, extreme perversions of the official American mythology. Now, the D’s are supposed to compromise with, i.e. partially embrace, the perversions of the radical right in order to “get something done”???

Can’t have “polarization”!!

At some level, this argument seems to make sense. It goes this way:

The “bases” of both parties are “extreme.” Neither can get anybody elected by themselves. To “win,” a candidate must attract the support of “the moderate middle.” To do that, a candidate must first feign concern for the base in the primaries to get them committed, then keep them ignorant and docile while courting “the middle” in the general election. Once elected he or she essentially ignores the base altogether (what are these “extreme” folks going to do? Vote for the “other” party??).

Remembering Tierney’s advice, the system works best when the people in “the moderate middle” who don’t discuss issues, who aren’t paying attention, who are unaware of any problems "decide" for us (or think they have decided) what happens in the US of A.

These folks are easier to please (or, more accurately, to convince that they've been pleased). Also, ignoring the problems of the bases (evangelicals, Blacks, xenophobes, gays, etc.) ensures that each party’s respective base will be upset and energized when the next primary rolls around.

It’s a good system for SOMEBODY. It’s good for Daschle, good for Armey, good for Tierney; but is it good for the ignorant middle that Tierney praised?

Well, how would they know? They don’t study, discuss, think, or argue – that causes “polarization” – it's much better, easier, and more patriotic to be uninformed.

Golly, if “the middle” BELIEVES it’s good, isn’t that sufficient? Perception is reality, isn't it??

Well, maybe it is for the dull “middle,” but the perception of the “radical bases” aren’t in sync with their disconnected neighbors'. And it’s not all right. Problems are not addressed, problems are ignored, the existence of problems is denied. Unless the problem festers sufficiently to threaten considerable physical or economic rebellion by the oppressed, the problem continues and thrives year after year after year.

Short of such resistance/rebellion, the politicians and their apologists sail smoothly on, serving what Bob Herbert calls “the ruling elite … those powerful (and invariably wealthy) men and women in both parties who actually influence the course of politics and government,” pretending to serve the pliable
“middle,” and ignoring the oppressed.

So it isn’t difficult to tell who is served by this “compromising,” this “moving to the middle,” this “getting things done,” this avoiding of "polarization." It DOESN’T serve the people, even the dull, ignorant “middle” – whether they THINK it does or not.

So, before anyone on “the left” gets too giddy about the “landslide,” we need to remind ourselves how this system operates and prepare ourselves to move the Daschle’s, Armey’s, Tierney’s, and their brethren to the left, out of the mushy, meaningless “middle,” and into a mode that actually addresses the people’s needs.

They won’t do it on their own. That would be "polarizing."

- Uke Man


*Dick Armey is the politician who “accidentally” called Barney Frank – an openly gay congressman – “Barney Fag.”