|
Strategies
for Underdogs
January 14, 2003
By Ernest Partridge, The
Crisis Papers
 "The
democrats – cowed, confused, incoherent – too often end up
speaking, when they speak at all, in the helium voice of Warner
Bros. Pipsqueak. They hide, hoping that power, in the shape
of a self-revealing grotesque (e.g., Trent Lott), will do
all. It's a tactic of vacuous exhaustion, not a strategy of
intellectual energy and moral direction." - David
Remnick, The New Yorker January 6, 2003
Why on earth are the Democrats the minority party? It makes
no sense. A large majority of American voters favor the Democrats
on the issues. The Democrats are "right" with regard
to morality, shared American political traditions, and the
fundamental facts as disclosed by science and scholarship
(see "Taking
Stock"). Furthermore, the Republican economic policies
plainly stand to benefit less than five percent of the population,
to the detriment of all of the rest of us. Indeed, beyond
the immediate future, the fortunate five-percent are also
likely to lose in the economic disaster which will follow
from the reckless and short-sighted policies of the Bush administration.
For their part, lacking morality, tradition and factual truth,
the Republicans have money, media, and political offices.
And they are using these advantages with devastating effectiveness.
They will continue to prevail unless and until the opposition
wises up and adopts new tactics. Abraham Lincoln, that revered
Republican, had it right: "The dogmas of the quiet past
are inadequate to the stormy present. We must think anew and
act anew... and then we shall save our country."
Exactly!
What, then, is the progressive opposition to do? Military
history provides some suggestions:
Do not confront the enemy at his strength. If the
enemy fortress is impregnable, it is folly to throw your troops
against the wall. But if a frontal assault is bound to fail,
that does not mean that the cause is lost. Merely that one
must not attempt a frontal assault. Instead, do what Joshua
did at Jericho: find some collaborators within that can be
persuaded to betray the city. (Never mind the part about the
crumbling walls, we're not relying on miracles here). Or do
what Agamemnon did at Troy. Leave a wooden horse at the gate.
Do not fight the last war. After the First World War,
the French built the Maginot line, vowing that the Germans
would never again march across it. And so they didn't. Instead,
they flew over it and drove around it, and France fell within
weeks. When the Japanese destroyed the battleships at Pearl
Harbor, the United States wisely replaced them, not with more
battleships, but with aircraft carriers which, as Billy Mitchell
proved, were the weapons of the future.
Use Judo tactics. Use the strength of the opponent
to your advantage: King Henry V was outnumbered five to one
at Agincourt, and his exhausted army faced that battle "even
as men wrecked upon a sand that look[ed] to be washed off
the next tide." (Shakespeare, Henry V). So he enticed
the French to charge downhill into a rain-soaked field, whereupon
the English longbows brought down the first ranks of French
cavalry and the following hordes piled upon them and crushed
them into the mud. Far more Frenchmen were killed by the French
that day, than by the English.
Use the Arrogance of the Foe to advantage. After the
fall of France and the low countries, Hitler believed himself
to be a military genius and his army to be invincible. So
the Wehrmacht marched straight toward the trophy city of Stalingrad
("City of Stalin"), ill-prepared for the Russian winter. Hitler
overextended his supply lines, failed to protect his rear
and flanks, and the Sixth Army was cut-off and doomed. This
was the decisive battle of the war. Afterward, Winston Churchill
wry remarked, "the Chancellor (Hitler) should have known
that it snows in Russia."
No, we can't spend more than the mega-corporations and buy
out the networks. So, like Agamemnon, Joshua, Henry, and Zhukov,
we use our wits. Here are a few suggestions as to how we might
do just that – and save our country, which is now in greater
peril than most of our compatriots dare to contemplate.
Take the Initiative. It's a fundamental rule in virtually
all contests: the contestant who takes and maintains the offensive
has the overwhelming advantage. In politics, "the offensive"
simply means the opportunity to define the opponent and to
select the issues. In the 2000 Presidential election, Al Gore
(who never claimed to have "invented the internet"
or to have "discovered Love Canal") was successfully
slandered as a liar and an egotist, while George Bush's manifest
shortcomings (drug use, insider trading, desertion from military
duty) somehow never became significant issues. (See "Post
Modern Politics"). In the latest election, the Republicans
avoided the difficult challenge of defending their economic
policies by directing attention to the "threat"
of Saddam Hussein, and by defining dissent as "unpatriotic."
To put it bluntly, Democratic strategists need to take a
refresher course in Gamesmanship 101.
To be fair, it is difficult if not impossible for a political
party to take the initiative when the opposition virtually
"owns" the media which, in turn, defines the candidates
and formulates the issues. Media bias is by far the most formidable
obstacle faced by the Democrats.
The Federalism Gambit. When the Democrats held credible
power in Washington, the "conservatives" promoted
"federalism" (a.k.a. "States rights"),
and insisted that political control should be "returned"
to the individual states. Now that the Republicans control
all branches of the Federal government, we are hearing much
less of "federalism" from the Republicans than we
did before. Small wonder. For now, a thoroughgoing and independent
Congressional investigations of the 9/11 attacks, of stock
market manipulation and fraud, and of price gouging by the
Enron Corporation, are virtually out of the question. Not
so in the states.
It was not the federal government that successfully led that
attack against Big Tobacco. It was a consortium of state governments,
lead by Michael Moore, the Attorney General of Mississippi.
It was not the Securities and Exchange Commission that uncovered
and prosecuted the major brokerage firms on Wall Street, it
was New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. And the greatest
legal threat to the Enron bandits lies not in Washington but
in Sacramento as an aggressive investigation and prosecution
is ongoing under the leadership of California Attorney General
Bill Lockyer. It is uncertain whether the State of New York
can or will conduct an independent investigation of the 9/11
attacks. But surely it should. And it is up to the states
to initiate thoroughgoing investigations into the abuses,
potential and actual, of computerized "touch screen"
voting systems. (See "Electoral
Integrity").
The Democrats, having lost control of the government in Washington,
still control key statehouses and state legislatures. They
can and should use these assets to good advantage. The "conservatives"
gave us "the federalism gambit." Now let's use it!
Self-Interest. As the Republicans and their sponsors
continue to trash our Constitution, grab ever more of the
national wealth, and scheme to extend their Empire to the
far corners of the world, we desperately ask ourselves, "what
arguments can be bring forth that will curb these reckless
and dangerous policies?" Appeals to fair play, rule of
law, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,"
the Constitution and the founding principles of our Republic
– all these have proven to be unavailing. They are even unresponsive
to their own challenge, "What
would Jesus Do?" What, then, will encourage them to look
down the road they are taking us, before we travel on?
How about rational self-interest – allegedly the engine
of their cherished "free market solution" to virtually
everything.
Time and again, history has vindicated Harry Truman's rule:
"to live like a Republican, vote like a Democrat."
(Quoted by Joe Lieberman who, as it happens, votes like a
Republican). In a recent study, Mark Hulbert of Market Watch
reports
that during the twentieth century, the stock market has consistently
performed better under Democratic presidents and congresses.
It happened in the Twenties when, under twelve years of Republican
administration, unconstrained and unregulated greed, combined
with government corruption, led to the crash of 1929 and the
depression which followed.
We've all heard the rebuttal: "It can't happen again
– we've put in 'safeguards.'" But those "safeguards"
(put in place by the Democrats, by the way), have been dismantled
one-by-one in the Reagan/Bush I orgy of "deregulation."
The most recent application of Truman's Rule, vivid in the
memory of all of us, is the Administration of Bill Clinton,
during which the stock market tripled. Under Bush, the Dow
has lost 20% and the NASDAC has lost 60% of their value. This
means that the wealthy sponsors of Bush II, who made out like
bandits under the President they sought to personally and
politically destroy, are now losing billions under the maladministration
of their selected leader. Go figure!
Clearly, not only does greed corrupt the heart – it also
subverts the head. And so, like fruit flies in the laboratory
bottle or the deer in the predator-free Kaibab forest, the
oligarchs run free and unconstrained, as they destroy their
resource base ("nutrients") and foul their own nests,
leading inexorably to crash and collapse.
There is no mystery in this. An economy works best in a society
that is integrated rather than exploitative – a society wherein
all have a "stake" in its success. In short, the Democrats
feed the golden goose, the Republicans cook it. Like it or
not, there is but one "economy." The oligarchs prefer
to ignore this simple fact, and so as they rake in their loot
at the expense of all the rest of us, they are saying, in
effect: "tough luck, serfs, but it looks like your end
of our boat is sinking."
Thus simple, fundamental economic self-interest suggests
support of the Democrats. If the public, the media, and a
significant fraction of Bush's corporate sponsors finally
come to realize this, they may abandon him.
One of the enduring mysteries, then, is why the Grand Poobahs
of Big Business and Finance persists in the belief that their
best interests are served by supporting the Republicans. It
is a conviction born of dogma rather than intelligent reflection
and historical awareness. Thus it is a dogma open for rebuttal
and refutation to all who will listen – and more and more
will listen, as the economic storm clouds gather.
Reclaim the English Language. The American public
is spellbound by the word-magic
cast upon them by the PR and advertising geniuses that plan
and implement the GOP campaigns. Through this word-magic,
divisions are created among those who share common interests,
and alliances are formed among factions that, in a rational
scheme, should be adversaries. Thus a majority of the public
is persuaded to act and vote contrary to their ideals and
their interests. For example:
- The dominant and ruling faction in American politics is
actively dismantling the Bill of Rights (specifically the
1st, 4th, 5th and 8th amendments), it is abolishing the
balance of powers by allowing the Supreme Court to select
the President, by appointing judges subservient to the executive
fiats of the unelected President, and by circumventing the
oversight and legislative functions of the Congress. And
finally, it is basing political power and privilege, not
on "the consent of the governed," but in the hands
of a small band of oligarchs. Amazingly, this faction of
literal "outlaws" has successfully appropriated for itself
the name of "Conservative," whereas they would
be better described as "oligarchs" and "radical
anarchists." Accordingly, when referring to this faction,
we will try to avoid the word "conservative,"
preferring the word "regressive." If unavoidable,
the word "conservative," when referring to this
group, will always be used with quotes or prefaced with
"so-called."
- Among the regressives (self-described "conservatives")
is a coterie of preachers who support undeclared "pre-emptive"
warfare, describe other monotheistic religions as "evil,"
promote the oppression of women, gays and minorities, support
the flow of national wealth from those who produce that
wealth to those who own and control it, and oppose government
programs that offer aid and comfort to the poor, the sick,
the elderly, single parents and children. These preachers
insist that they are promoting "Christian principles."
Instead, they have joined the Scribes and Pharisees, and
they play golf with Caesar. Jesus
wept!
- These self-described "conservatives" have attached
the label "liberal" to their political opponents
– a label which they have soaked with connotations of disloyalty
and radicalism. Accordingly, decreasing numbers of Americans
are willing to identify themselves as "liberals."
And yet, a significant faction of Americans, perhaps a majority,
maintains its allegiance to our founding documents, the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Thus these
citizens take seriously our "inalienable rights"
and they believe that the United States government should
be "of, by, and for the people." They believe
in the sanctity of the ballot and are outraged when an election
is stolen. They affirm a woman's right to control of her
own body, they believe in the rights of workers to collective
bargaining and in a fair distribution of national wealth.
They endorse Social Security, Medicare, and a minimum wage.
They believe that treaties, once ratified, should be observed,
and they seek a "world order" in which the United
States is not an imperial power, but instead an honorable
member of the community of nations. All this describes "liberalism"
– properly so called. Thus, amazingly, while a large potion
– quite possible a majority – of Americans are "programmatic
liberals," a clear majority of Americans have been
conditioned to flee from the label "liberal" as
if it were the Devil's own curse.
The remedy lies in the basic principles of General Semantics:
direct the public's attention away from maps and toward territories
– away from words and toward things. The semantic shenanigans
of the right-wing Regressives must be publicized again and
again, brought to light, criticized and even ridiculed. It
is past time for the public to "pay attention to the
man behind the curtain."
Forge Alliances. The "regressives" have
successfully divided the opposition and then conquered. The
"progressives" must, in retaliation, unite in opposition.
Clearly, "conservatives," properly so-called, belong
to this alliance. They cherish the Constitution and the rule
of law, and they shun empire and "foreign entanglements."
They believe in autonomy of the individual and they distrust
"big government." Thus they can only be appalled
at the excesses of the "USA PATRIOT" and Homeland
Security Acts, and Admiral Poindexter's "Total Information
Access" system must be their worst nightmare.
While there is much common ground between authentic conservatives
and liberals, there remain significant differences – in particular,
regarding distributive shares of national wealth, the role
of government, and legitimate constraints upon property rights
and free enterprise. But in the face of the present emergency,
liberals and authentic conservatives can agree that these
disagreements are of secondary importance and that they can
and should be discussed once our constitutional and legal
order is restored, and with it the possibility of civil and
constructive political debate.
The greens also belong in this alliance. Can anyone really
contend today that had Ralph Nader directed his Florida supporters
to vote for Al Gore, that "everything would be exactly
the same?" True, the Greens have legitimate complaints
against the Democrats, which by the way I enthusiastically
share. But rather than build a viable third party, their better
course of action is to "capture" an existing major
party – the Democrats. After all, that is what the radical
right did, with appalling success, to the Republicans.
Finally, "moderate Republicans" must ask themselves:
"where is my greater loyalty – to my party, or to the
founding principles of the United States and, coincidentally,
the Republican Party?" The "Republican Party"
of Lincoln, Eisenhower, Javitts, and Warren is no more. The
"moderate republicanism" of yesteryear is somewhat
to the left of today's "New Democrats." So why the
persistent allegiance to a mere name?
Study the Opposition. Let's face it: the GOP has applied
completely the Vince Lombardi rule to politics: "winning
isn't everything, it's the only thing." As Florida 2000
showed us, to the GOP, winning is more important than election
law, than the citizens' right to vote and have their ballots
counted, than the integrity of the Supreme Court. And in the
last election, we learned that it is not beyond the GOP pale
to slander a war hero by questioning his patriotism, or to
make a national political issue of a memorial service.
In short, the GOP style of campaigning has nothing to do
with justice or truth, and everything to do with winning.
It is methodology drawn, not from political debate, but from
market psychology and advertising techniques (polling, focus
groups, "motivation research," etc.). They search out the
emotional "hot buttons" (e.g., "compassion"),
adopt a familiar words and shape them to the party's advantage
(e.g. "conservative") and mix them into slogans.
Voila! "Compassionate conservative."
In rebuttal, the opposition must keep "scorecards"
of the lies, evasions, distortions, and distractions of the
GOP and their captive media. The regressives rely on the rapidly
revolving "news cycles" and the resulting collective
amnesia of the American public. Was the American public betrayed
by the ruthless manipulations of GOP operatives in Florida,
and by an intervention of five partisan judges? "Get
over it!" is the reply.
We must never "get over it." This was a
crime that must have no statute of limitations. The entire
dismal record of this regime must be noted, recorded, and
recounted over and over until, at long last, the public begins
to "get it." For while it is difficult to sustain
public attention to an issue, it is not impossible. Witness
the eight-year "run" of the bogus "Whitewater scandal" during
the Clinton administration.
At the end of the day, the GOP platform is written and carried
out by greedy, self-serving bullies and hypocrites, and it
is a message caked over with an empty rhetoric of piety, patriotism
and "compassion." It is a message that is phony
to the core. Americans, by and large, despise greed, cruelty
and hypocrisy. If and when the public at large finally comes
to realize the true nature of (so-called) "conservative
republicanism," the entire edifice will collapse of its
own inner rottenness – unless, before then, it evolves into
a ruthless and repressive totalitarian regime. And that is
the great danger before us.
Exploit the Weaknesses. It is high time that we "disenthrall
ourselves" of the GOP juggernaut. True, the Republicans
and their supporters are wealthy, and they are powerful. But
they are not invincible. The GOP agenda is offensive
to our moral sense, contrary to our political traditions,
and in conflict with scientific knowledge. With all these
disqualifications, it is a wonder that the Republican party
is as powerful as it is.
These considerations lead us, at last, to the greatest vulnerability
of the Bush regime, and the party that installed it: their
dogmatism, self-righteousness and arrogance. And because this
dogmatism and arrogance casually ignores and acts in contravention
of established scientific knowledge and scholarly expertise,
this is a regime without a "reality principle" –
without a capacity to "return to Earth" and to deal
with the real world.
Examples abound and, since I have expounded upon them a length
elsewhere, I will let a simple enumeration suffice (with links
to my elaborations):
- Global
warming. The international scientific community is convinced.
Bush's reply is either to ignore it or consign the question
to the black hole of "further study."
- The CIA has failed to find any significant link between
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Donald Rumsfeld's response,
in effect: we have our policy, don't confuse us with facts.
- Missile
defense has the support of almost no independent scientists.
Worse yet, even if (however improbably) it were to work,
there is no prospect whatever that it would ever be needed.
- "Supply
side economics," when adopted by Reagan and Bush-I,
turned out to be a spectacular failure. Its abandonment
by Bill Clinton led to unprecedented prosperity and a federal
surplus. Now "supply side" its back and, not surprisingly,
with it has come a repetition of the economic malaise suffered
during the administration of Bush's "Dad."
In short, "science, evidence and expertise be damned,
our minds are made up." Or, as Todd Gitlin puts it, Bush
is a man "with a ferocious will who fumbles in search
of reasons to explain why he does what he feels like doing."
(The American Prospect, January-February, 2003, p.
37).
Such dogmatism assures that the Bushistas will not be in
close touch with the real world. And so, unfortunately for
them and perhaps for us too, in the end they will discover
that "reality bites."
Like most dogmatists, if provoked and challenged, the Bushistas
will likely dig in and persist with their policies until the
untenability of those policies becomes compellingly obvious
even to the Bush regime. Then, it will likely be too late
for them to effect a remedy. At this point they will be vulnerable.
Unfortunately, they might also become dangerous, if despotism
becomes the only means to avoid their ouster. Also, the failed
policies may provoke military adventures, or ostracism from
the international community, or a collapse of the domestic
economy. And that would be bad for all of us.
Before the folly of Bushism leads to such catastrophes, the
opposition must proceed immediately, with dedication, vigor,
and strategic intelligence. And we must amass an alliance
of opposition that will become irresistible. However improbably,
this alliance must include, not only progressives, liberals,
intellectuals, feminists, greens, and labor, but also those
who are now allied with the Bush regime: among them, authentic
conservatives, publishers and broadcasters, entrepreneurs,
and even corporate officers.
To all these, and especially the latter, we must ask again
and again: Wherein lies your fundamental loyalty: to your
party, or to your country, its constitution, and its founding
principles? Are you helping to bring about the kind of country
and world that you would wish yourself, your family, your
children and grandchildren, and your posterity to live in?
These are just a few strategic ideas that come to the mind
of this political amateur. Surely the pros must have better
ideas than these. Which leads to my final and most urgent
questions:
- Why haven't the Democrats put these "better ideas"
into play?
- Why, instead, has the Democratic "opposition"
been so servile, so passive, so unimaginative, and thus
so vulnerable?
- Why have the Democrats allowed themselves to be 'suckered'
by the GOP?
- Why do the Democrats shun their natural allies and imitate
their adversaries?
- Why do the Republicans seem to have a corner on tactical
smarts? (Not, as we have seen, because they have the better
issues).
So when are the Democrats going to wise-up and start to play
strategically smart hard-ball?
|
