Who's Out of Touch, WSJ?
One of the hallmarks of political propaganda is the tendency to define the position of one's opponent in a way that best suits one's own interests, then proceed to bash away at this straw man as if it actually represented somebody's real views and positions. Brian Duffy has helpfully pointed out an excellent example from the pages of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, where this style of argumentation is practiced extensively.
In the article, "Democrats Need to Rejoin America," Daniel Henninger diagnoses the causes of the recent election losses by Democrats as part of an endemic inability to connect with the values of the "majority culture" on issues such as economics and national security. Henninger's real purpose is not, of course, to offer any advice to Democrats even in the unlikely event they are looking for any from the Wall Street Journal. Rather it is to confirm the conservative cannard that the Democratic Party is the exclusive preserve of urban elites, minorities, ex-hippies, and various special interests. Whether Henninger actually believes this himself or is simply repeating it for propoaganda value is unclear from the piece.
The probelm is, Henninger assumes what he's trying to prove - that Dems are out of touch - and then argues as if it were true to arrive at his conclusions. Indeed, if the Dems really had so narrow a base, they would be in a lot of trouble, just as the Republican party would be if it were made up only of fundamentalist Christians (as some left wing propagandists would have us believe). The fact is, both parties draw from a hardcore of fanatics whose views on issues are driven by ideology rather than practical considerations. They are easily caracatured, especially since they are in fact influential in the formulation of their parties' basic platforms. But the voters who decide elections are not engaged in politics as a bloodsport like the true believers. They are simply concerned with public policy to the extent that it touches the lives of themselves and their families.
Henninger suggests that this vast mass of ordinary Americans, whom he catagorizes as "middle managers at boring corporations like Proctor and Gamble," uniformly identify more with Republicans than Democrats. This is simply false. All available evidence from the last few elections shows that independent voters are very narrowly divided between the two parties. They are as apt to vote Democrat as Republican - otherwise, how does one explain the uncomfortable fact that more Americans voted for Al Gore than George Bush, and that Democratic gubenatorial candidates triumphed in such unlikely precincts as Kansas, Oklahoma and Wyoming?
The short answer is that Democrats who win in those places do not fit the narrow stereotype propounded by Henninger and his ilk, just as Republicans who win in Massachusetts and New York do not ask Pat Robertson for endorsements. There is a very vital part of the Democratic Party that retains touch with "majority values" and is a formidable force in the politics of America, middle and otherwise.
It is easy to understand why Henninger and others on the right fervently wish that the reality of the Democratic Party matched their distorted characterizations of it. It is much easier to rally populist opposition to views imputed to out-of-touch urban "elites" (a word that has lost any real meaning by its deliberate devaluation in these kinds of debates) than it is to argue effectively against the same policies when articulated by a practical, down-to-earth, Middle-American Democrat. Recent history has shown that when you put Democratic ideas in the mouth of a "bubba," Republicans get clobbered, just as when you wrap right-wing extremism in the folksy Texas cant of GWB, it gains a patina of credibility.
The desperate, high-pitched insistence about the "true character" of the Democratic Party issuing from the editorial page of the Journal reflects the anxiety of conservatives trapped in urban bastions of cosmopolitan liberalism, pining for an illusory middle America where their narrow views are not held to the same ridicule. The WSJ editorial page is, of course, as far removed from the concerns of average Americans as the most effete limosine liberal in Hollywood, and just as eager to see sweeping validation for its fringe positions in what was in fact a close and evenly-divided election in all but the effect of the outcome. In light of this, one can understand the wishful thinking of a bunch of Republicans who want to run against Michael Dukakis in every single election. But sorry, wanting it won't make it so.
The Journal is right in one respect: there is a bedrock conservatism that grounds the American political system, but in its common sense practicality, it is as hostile to right-wing extremism as it is to the left. That fact is proven again and again at the polls, in close races and low turnout when candidates are ideologically divided on either extreme.
5:20:55 PM 
|
|
