Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
What did I say?
September 9, 2008
My column yesterday prompted more emails from readers than any other article I have written. I usually get 10 or 20 letters or emails. I got hundreds about this one and they’re still coming. I expected to get a few from Republicans praising me (they would ignore the positive things I say about Democrats in general and Obama in particular) and a few from Democrats attacking me (these would be spluttering and furious: “are you kidding me? are you kidding me?”, and so on). And so I did. But these were outnumbered–vastly outnumbered–by emails from ex- or wavering Democrats who say they feel disappointed or betrayed by the party’s spokesmen and advocates. Who knew this strand of opinion even existed? Later today I’ll post one or two examples, together with responses to critics who made good points and some further thoughts on the subject.
“…wavering Democrats who say they feel disappointed or betrayed by the party’s spokesmen and advocates. Who knew this strand of opinion even existed?”
Who knew, indeed. People have been changing their personal political opinions since the beginning of time (or, if one is a Palin Republican, since the creation), and they often blame it on the real or imagined shortcomings of their ex-party’s leaders, instead of acknowledging that that their own ideology has, shall we say, evolved?
Not that there is anything wrong with changing one’s political views. Back in the sixties, there was a saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who has been indicted.
Of course, it is always easier, if one sees oneself as a Democrat starting to agree with the Republicans on the issues, or vice versa, to blame it on the real or supposed failings or attitudes of the leaders of the party one has chosen to leave. But isn’t that just another way of avoiding taking responsibility for one’s own opinions?
Posted by: algasema | September 9th, 2008 at 2:55 pm | Report this commentMuch of the discussion I have seen of your article (e.g. see Mark Thoma’s Economist’s View, or De Long’s site) fails to draw a distinction between:
a) issues such as whether Republicans deserve respect, how Republicans do not respect Democrats either, and generally debating the rights and wrongs of the question
and
b) given the nature of existing voters, how many voters are the Dems losing because of this, and what ought they change to win those votes back. Nothing to do with right and wrong, all about election tactics.
I think you are probably right to say that the Democrats alienate plenty of potential Dem voters who feel disrespected and condescended to, for holding say religious or patriotic views. You can win an argument* but end up being disliked for it, and too many Dems only care about winning the argument.
However, it’s not obvious that a direct attempt to remedy that will result in a net gain of votes for the Dems. Perhaps the gulf is too wide, and a change in tactics would fail to make enough gains at the relevant margin to offset loses caused by the Dem’s ‘base’ getting disenchanted with the conciliatory approach. After all, the GOP has never found disrespecting Dems to be an electoral liability.
* Or at least you can put forward an argument that ought to win, but have your opponent refuse to concede, because they don’t like your smart-alec ways.
Posted by: Luis Enrique | September 9th, 2008 at 3:26 pm | Report this commentI think that you are spot on in your analysis. Interesting that you are one of the few, if any, journalists who are willing to recognize the point isn’t who is right and who is wrong, but that there is a wide gulf in perceptions.
Posted by: annetta | September 9th, 2008 at 3:48 pm | Report this commentUnfortunately, your outstanding diagnosis applies to many “left wing” parties in the western world.
Posted by: M. Poreh | September 9th, 2008 at 4:44 pm | Report this commentToo bad, but it serves you right, CC. You should have known better. Ancient Greek proverb “If you mix with the chickens, you risk getting pecked to death”…
Posted by: J.J. | September 9th, 2008 at 4:47 pm | Report this commentThe Democratic theme of victimization is way out of date. Workers at all levels perceive themselves as either entrepreneurs, part-time entrepreneurs or potential entrepreneurs. Vide the long, severe drop in union membership. Broadly speaking, they do not feel they need protection from exploitation, but only the freedom to pursue their dreams.
I have watched this trend develop among the enlisted men in my Navy engineering crew, in the smoking shacks of chemical firms, when I worked on shift, and among the independent contractors who fix my plumbing, do my wiring, and repair my appliances.
These people don’t respond to the politics of envy: They don’t want to soak the rich — they want to be the rich. But the Democratic elites still want to treat them as wards, poor suckers to be coddled.
The message isn’t getting across.
Posted by: George | September 9th, 2008 at 4:54 pm | Report this commentThank you, Mr. Crook, for illuminating the issue from a new perspective.
Typical right wing nonsense, George. The drop in union membership owes a lot to union busting laws dating from the 1948 (or 1947?) Taft Hartley Act (most of which I read at the time it was passed, being all of ten years old - talk about elitism) and Republican policies such as Reagan’s smashing the air traffic controllers’ union.
And I didn’t see anyone “coddling” the more than a million people who have lost their homes, in large part because of predatory subprime lending against which the government should have, but failed to, offer them the slightest protection. The only people who got protection were the multimillionaire CEO’s and crooks in the lending industry who got golden handshakes when everything blew up.
Sure, ordinary Americans may want to be rich, which is great. But voting for more banana Republican income inequality and handouts for the rich paid for by you and me is not the way to get there.
Posted by: algasema | September 9th, 2008 at 5:20 pm | Report this commentAlgasema -
The PATCO had it coming. They stuck in defiance of both the law AND the contract which their union signed.
Reagan did nothing but enforce the law.
Lamont
Posted by: Lamont Cranston | September 9th, 2008 at 5:46 pm | Report this commentAnd smash the union, Lamont Cranston. Of course, we don’t need Reagan to bust unions anymore, since we have outsourced so much of our manufacturing to China, where they could give even Reagan a few pointers about how to break up unions.
Posted by: algasema | September 9th, 2008 at 5:59 pm | Report this commentExcellent analysis.
Last night on CNN, David Gergen referred to your column and stated that the Democrats should take note. Jeffrey Toobin’s response was “Why do the Republicans want to start the class war again when the real issue is abortion and most of the voters are pro-choice?” What?
I sent your column to a liberal friend and he responded with criticisms about Palin’s religious backround. They just don’t get that it is all about respect.
Posted by: Kent M. | September 9th, 2008 at 6:19 pm | Report this commentThe union broke the law. Reagan enforced it.
And perhaps if unions didn’t run companies out of business by over-pricing thier labor, jobs would quit going to where labor was cheaper.
Lamont
Posted by: Lamont Cranston | September 9th, 2008 at 6:30 pm | Report this commentSorry - that should have read “broke the law and their contract.”
Lamont
Posted by: Lamont Cranston | September 9th, 2008 at 6:31 pm | Report this commentDear Clive -
Unsurprising you rec’d so many replies. Such an incredibly accurate article on all fronts - no offense but surprising to have that depth of cultural understanding from a non-US national. As a (horrified) Republican conservative living in London who is thinking that Obama may be the only way, this article struck many chords. Also very funny, of course….
Posted by: David Weaver | September 9th, 2008 at 6:45 pm | Report this commentI disagree with Toobin. America is in the throes of a class war right now, given the economic situation. That, not abortion, is, or should be, the real issue. OK, so there are stupid Democratic spokespersons and leaders, plenty of them. Just look at their campaign. But the Republican leaders, they are all a bunch of geniuses? If they are, what has been going on for the past eight years?
Posted by: algasema | September 9th, 2008 at 6:55 pm | Report this commentAn Orwell quote comes to mind:
“The Catholic and the Communist are alike in assuming that an opponent cannot be both honest and intelligent. Each of them tacitly claims that “the truth” has already been revealed, and that the heretic, if he is not simply a fool, is secretly aware of “the truth” and merely resists it out of selfish motives.”
(Orwell may have been thinking of the Spanish Church in particular – he fought in the Civil War there.)
I think this attitude is quite widespread, producing implicit beliefs like:
“Teachers unions exist to benefit teachers, and teachers exist to benefit schoolchildren. The teachers unions oppose School Choice, therefore people who support it are either stupid, or motivated by malice towards schoolchildren.”
“Unions exist to benefit Hard Working Americans, and many unions want to abolish the requirement for a secret ballot for unionisation votes, therefore people who support the secret ballot are either stupid, or motivated by malice towards Hard Working Americans.”
“Abortion rights are of benefit to women, therefore people who oppose it are motivated by misogyny.”
“Guns can be used to kill people, therefore people who oppose gun control are either stupid, or desire to gun down African Americans.”
etc
And M. Poreh is clearly right: the British Left, for example, is clearly heading that way without Blair to force unwanted arguments on them.
Posted by: ad | September 9th, 2008 at 9:05 pm | Report this commentMr. Crook:
I’d be extremely interested to hear some of the specific examples of language which turned off some of the disaffected Dems. With the sheer quantity of fabricated quotations (Al Gore v. Internet, for example) out there, I’d be willing to lay odds that most of these folks are responding to something which does not necessarily exist.
Could be wrong, but it’d be an interesting read either way.
Posted by: Punditus Maximus | September 9th, 2008 at 11:02 pm | Report this comment