I've been interested lately in how the outlines of the battle between the right and the moderate left at this time is a reflection of the battle as it took shape in the 19th century. The main outlines of the conflict are archetypal and as old as the Republic itself. The wonder is not that we can't get anything done now, but that there were periods in our history when we did. And when we did it was in part the historical circumstances, but also because a tough-minded left-leaning leadership rose to the challenge. We've got the historical circumstances right now. The question is whether a tough-minded, left-leaning leadership will emerge and rise to the challenge.
I've also been grappling with the implications that this archetypal struggle is at its roots subrational, and as such futile to argue as if reasonable people can come to some meeting of the minds. Those on the Right understand that political conflict is a battle of wills, not a battle of minds, and this puts those on the moderate left who are willing to be reasonable at a disadvantage.
The conflict is asymmetrical from the get go. Progressives' reasonableness and willingness to compromise, their pride in their high-mindedness, as in the Hazlitt quote posted the other day, means that they are always on their heels, always playing defense, and never able to make much headway. And for this reason people like me who are considered immoderate precisely because we understand that reasonableness gets you nowhere are exasperated by progressives who represent them in Washington who are getting nowhere precisely because they are being so reasonable.
So does that mean that the only solution is to fight fire with fire, the subrational with the subrational? No, I don't. But it does mean that we should demand more tough-mindedness from those whom we elect to do the people's business, and to vote them out if they allow themselves to be bullied or bought. And we should rally behind those, like Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean, and Anthony Weiner, all of whom exemplify a fact-based reasonableness combined with a refusal to be bullied.
That they are widely perceived in the MSM as the extremist left's answer to Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin on the extreme right is a perfect example of the symmetrical thinking that creates the asymmetrical disadvantage for progressives. If you accept that bit of MSM symmetrical conventional wisdom, you might consider the possibility that you are being bullied without having realized yet how it works.
Leave a Reply