This is an individual post from E Pluribus Unum
There's more on the main page.


The problem with humanitarians

Jeffrey Goldberg:

Sean Wilentz, the Princeton historian, said, "The impulse behind the people who run the [Democratic] party is humanitarian, and humanitarians have a problem in American history -- they're always trying to perfect you, make you better." Wilentz added, "Acceptance of human imperfection would do a lot to help the Democratic Party."
It's been said that Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole in '96 because Dole's campaign asked, "Why can't you be more like me?" After all, Dole was a member of the Greatest Generation and he thought perhaps his message was inspirational. On the other hand, Clinton simply asked, "How can I be more like you?"

Comments

That read like an essay on how to pander and whom should democratic candidates pander to -- except Hillary because when she does it, it just opportunistic fickleness.

Except for the fact that Kerry really needed to put a muzzle on Theresa, this attitude gave us one of the most liberal senators of all time try to look like a centrist.

We don't need to nominate democrats who will come out for issues in conflict with what democrats, liberals and progressives have traditionally stood for to meet the electorate even more than half-way. That's as disingenuous as Bush spouting off about his compassion -- or anything else.

We need more people like Howard Dean who never was afraid of saying what he believed (until he went on the 700 Club, wtf was that?)

In an honest debate on positions and issues, if we can't win without smoke and mirrors, so be it. Honesty and integrity mean something, especially now. We need people like both Paul Hackett and Sherrod Brown. They have different views but both are fearless in standing up for what they believe.

It's the process. They talked about NH nominating a pro-tax candidate but never getting them elected. That's just plain old democracy. The party is representative of their constituents, and their nominee reflects their position.

Goldberg, channeling Wilentz, says we shouldn't try to change the people, but rather should just give them what they want. The problem is that to do so would require that we change who the active members of the democratic party are.

If we believe that our ideas are better, and that it's important that people understand that, are educated about that, then we have to be more effective teachers, more compelling advocates.

JFKerry was no more or less an elitist liberal than JFKennedy. But boy could Jack give a sermon. Ditto Slick Willie. Carter was fortunate to be the Democrat after Nixon/Ford, but McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis just didn't have any pizaaz.

If you want to really sell our vision beyond the choir, you got to be able to do more than just carry a tune. You got to be able to belt that song out.

We have a whole opera to get out before our story is told, and we have to compete with the GOP's simple-minded sound-byte and bumper-sticker friendly pop tunes. It takes a special kind of performer to make you snap your fingers to Wagner.

You know, I liked the article. I like Claire McCaskill. I obviously appreciated the Willentz quote. I'm sensing that the lefty sphere (Josh Marshall?) thinks Goldberg is a wanker. Am I correct?

Mark:

Goldberg, channeling Wilentz, says we shouldn't try to change the people, but rather should just give them what they want. The problem is that to do so would require that we change who the active members of the democratic party are.
If you go to Brazil, do you not speak Portugese? Do you not respect the customs and culture of Brazil? Or do you expect the Brazilians to conform to you?

Similarly, if a candidate goes to Arkansas or Tennessee, should s/he expect the residents to conform to him? Or should s/he expect to seek common ground with them? ;

And in so doing, is the candidate "selling out" or "pandering?"

I think not.

Probably. Jonah Goldberg, wanker.. Jeffrey, not so much. Triangulating for teh center is certainly discouraged by the "Crashing The Gate" crowd, however.

I thought the article was decent too, just that I'm not ready to sign off on all the conclusions. I don't want to put both feet into either the progressive or the DLC camp. I guess Schumer's meddling in the Hackett/Brown race left a bad taste in my mouth. That race could have been a national showcase for what the democrats are all about.

I'm hoping for the big tent to dominate the landscape. Hillary, the DLC embodied, has stronger negatives than positives. People who hate her, hate her with more passion than the passion of her supporters. Lieberman is also a posterchild for the DLC, and as you know is fighting an outright revolt (for good reason). It may not necessarily be the problem with the DLC vision itself, just the ickyness of the personalities in front of it.

I forget what poll we were looking at, but I liked the lack of negatives John Edwards had, and I don't know which pigeon hole he's in. He's not a raving progressive, but outside the DLC power structure too.

I'm looking for someone who can unify both sides of the party without pissing off too many GOPers. That'll be our winner, and so far Edwards is the only guy I know who fits the bill, with Wes Clark a distant second.

Don't get me wrong, as long as Gore stays out, I'm a Kerry man. He's still the party leader until he tells me different, or Gore does since in my mind he outranks Kerry. But I don't think we're going to see Kerry outmaneuver Hillary or a Gore return (which would be awesome).

The really weird thing, is that issue by issue, point by point, my politics (according to one of Rose's silly quizzes) are more like Hillary's than anyone else. I must suffer from Gonzo political fear and self-loathing. Obviously I'm in need of stronger hallucinagenics.

"...humanitarians have a problem in American history -- they're always trying to perfect you, make you better." Wilentz added, "Acceptance of human imperfection would do a lot to help the Democratic Party."

Shame, Wilentz undermines my perception that historians generally know what they're talking about. Must be the Princeton education.

Humanitarians try to make us all better. To do that in the Christian tradition you meet people where they are without judging them.

Humanitarians demands better behavior, not better people. I mean, they wouldn't want to find themselves without work, would they?

Shep:

Shame, Wilentz undermines my perception that historians generally know what they're talking about.

See, I thought Willentz was right on the money. That prospect is not necessarily an encouraging one, but it is what it is.

To do that in the Christian tradition, you meet people where they are without judging them.

And, I might add, you walk a mile in their shoes.

Now, that would be nice, insofar as it, you know, actually happens. But I have a couple of questions:

  1. Who amongst the Democrats not named Bill Clinton has shown a talent for doing that?


  2. Does it mean that we, as Democrats, have to "dumb our message down?" Here, I'll answer my own question: No, not at all. Look at (for example) Brian Schweitzer. He understands how you do this.

”See, I thought Willentz was right on the money.”

Perhaps I’m reading different humanitarians.


”Who amongst the Democrats not named Bill Clinton has shown a talent for doing that? “

Who among the media would report it (without snark) if they did?

What is happening, though -- and I think very specifically now -- is the interpretation that religion has been given by this administration, in terms of showing or saying that God is on our side, whereas I think it would be more important to say that we're on God's side, as President Lincoln said."

- Madeliene Albright

Perhaps I’m reading different humanitarians.

Or I'm using a different definition of the word.

Who among the media would report it (without snark) if they did?

I asked you first.

:^)

Seriously -- who is it? Warner? Schweitzer? Hillary?

Busted (I was dodging).

I would count Jimmy Carter and Dennis Kucinich as Democrat humanitarians. And, of course, the late Paul Wellstone. Russ Feingold is the most obvious profile in American-style courage currently, though mostly on Constitutional/political issues. I'll take your word on Schweitzer, though I've had little exposure.

You know, I could take your answer as confirmation of my (Willentz') point.

I think I gotta go with the kid from Carolina again.

Edwards has staked out poverty elimination like Gore has trademarked global warming. That's about as a humanitarian cause as you can get, and a winner when you think about the dismal jobs numbers the last five years and people voting their pocketbooks.

And no, the millionare bloviating beltway boys will do their best to crush that message.

"You know, I could take your answer as confirmation of my (Willentz') point."

Willentz's point was that humanitarians (some might call them idealists) are a bore. My point (I think) is that the Democrats have very few among them - humanitarians, I mean.

Actually, that's not fair. I think that many Democrats are humanitarians. They've just been cowed by the Willentzs to never be "boring" about it.

Mark:

a winner when you think about the dismal jobs numbers the last five years and people voting their pocketbooks.

He's good, but I don't think people care as much about the poor as you think.

Shep:

They've just been cowed by the Willentzs to never be "boring" about it.

Hmmm. I don't think the whole problem lies with their presentation. I think when you approach people with advice about how to "get better," especially if you are a politician, especially if you do it the wrong way, you're going to find a lot of your audience gets defensive.

I keep going back to the cautionary tale of Bob Dole in 96. "Be more like me."

Clinton said, "How can I be more like you?"

"Ask not what your country can do for you..."

Yes, presentation matters but that's not what I hear Willentz saying.

What we're talking about is the essence of leadership, although I can see why so few people still understand what that means. If you are suggesting that people won't be led to their better angels then, frankly, the problem is not with the humanitarians. If you are suggesting, as Willentz is, that to win Democrats need to be as bankrupt at true leadership as Republicans, then I say I'm not quite cynical enough to believe that.

I'd go even farther and say that Democrats have failed exactly because they have been cowed from offering that sort of leadership (which I believe people secretly yearn for it); they've adopted Willentz's and the Republicans' cynical frame about the public. And so the public is led.

You make good sense, as does Mark.

But I'm operating at a more fundamental layer of human interaction, and here it is:

I think that before you can lead someone, they have to believe that you understand them.

On the other hand, if you think it's all about them understanding you, well, good luck with that.

Well, I may not be completely cynical about people but I try to have few illusions about them either. People generally have an inflated opinion of themselves, including their moral nature, so the appeal to one’s better angels can also appeal to the ego.

Proof of the power of rationalization is the ability of the truly evil to justify actions as “good”, e.g., “we had to kill and maim all those people to save them from (insert ridiculous moral justification here)”. That universal characteristic proves the human need to believe in our own essential goodness. From there, true miscreants aside, it’s all about how the bar is set by the society around you – where leadership in setting a high moral standard is critical.

I think we agree, really. The message matters and it’s much harder to sell selflessness than selfishness – a disadvantage that had been savagely exploited by Republicans. And I also yearn for the leader who can snap us out of this low ebb in our moral consciousness. That leader will be pointing to the good and telling us we are good enough to go there.

Makes sense to me.

BTW, over the weekend, I thought of another "humanitarian" (not a Democrat) who exemplifies what I think Willentz is talking about: anyone who believes that abstinence is the best way to reduce STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

Like Willentz says, "they're always trying to perfect you, make you better. Acceptance of human imperfection would do a lot to help [their cause]."

Let's make sure we're not falling into the same trap.

That trap would be to conflate moralism and morality. They are not the same, although under Republican leadership, again, the distinction has become harder for people to recognize.


Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Full Feed RSS

Creative Commons LicenseThis weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2