Kerrying Water for 'The Incidental Candidate'

For the first time since 1972 I will be voting for a Democrat for President.

But I do so with no illusions. I don’t think the election will “settle” much of anyhing.

Nor do I believe that this is the Most Important Election In My Lifetime.

Please take a moment and read my full argument in my latest and just-posted L.A. Weekly column.

Mostly, I can’t wait for this election to be over. It has infected the population with feverish delusions...both sides grossly exaggerating the stakes. Republican activists have convinced themselves that Kerry is a Kommunist. Democratic liberals likening this election to a fight against fascism.

I can’t help but noting my Weekly colleague Harold Meyerson’s current column, a frothy piece written after he visited the Democratic legions in central Florida. Harold’s a smart guy and a friend of mine, but he’s also caught the fever likening young Democratic canvassers to volunteers who joined the International Brigades in Spain!

Wow. Knocking on doors for Kerry is now the moral or political equivalent of risking your life to fight mano a mano with fascists?

I’m sure given a second chance, Harold would reconsider this simile. But as I said, let’s get this damn election over with already and return to some modicum of sanity.

Comments

[brucds]

Marc, buried within your tepid resolve, you concede things like more health coverage, no Opus Dei types to the Supreme Court, somewhat fairer tax policies, better environmental policies, etc, etc. Guys like you have dismissed the Democrats for "not a dimes worth of difference", but even on your own self-indulgent terms,it's many dollars and much power shifted in a more humane, responsible directoin. Anyone who'll actually be affected by the differences - and there will be millions - deserves your consideration, if not your compassion. And they've deserved it over the past thirty years.

(Who the hell have you been voting for all of these years ?)

I can muster as much disgust at the Democratic Party as you can on any given day, I'm sure. But I also recognize it as the only actually existing political party - albeit compromised and perhaps decrepit - that the coalition representing progressive politics can find any serious expression in. Frankly, I consider people like you as irresponsible as you are self-indulgent. Don't give me any bull about Greens or whatever. Paul Wellstone stood as a refutation of your cynicism. He wasn't alone, but he's the best example of a simple fact - that for any serious progressive to argue that they are too good and too pure or too smart or too correct or have a better plan than to share the grit and grime of a Democratic Party that Paul Wellstone claimed as his home is a bad joke.

(I'm not making what would be a crazy argument that progressive politics finds it's best expression in the Democratic Party. Far from it - just that serious progressive electoral politics can find an expression in the Democratic Party, and aside from a handful of local elections, it's the only place they actually do find consistent practical expression. I don't live in SF, but I'm in the Bay Area and follow their local politics. I can't tell you how happy I am that the Green was defeated by the Democrat. SF has a courageous, progressive mayor who isn't merely the object of a concerted assault by the business community. It's obvious even to a lot of the people who voted for the Green that SF's mayor is an effective liberal who anyone from humanistic centrist to hard-core progressive can be proud of. Gavin joined the hotel workers picket line today, freaking out the employers who had given him big bucks during the election. One of those moments - like his gay marriage stand and his now-frequent trips to the Hunters Point ghetto to berate city bureaucrats for not providing effective services - when I'm proud to be a Democrat.)

I know this grammar is going to come out like shit, but I'm not going back over it. Also can't do justice to the argument in even a long comment, but I think I put enough on the table for you to chew on.

[Marc Cooper]

You've got a bad case of hubris, my friend. I dont need to burn up blog space defending my record of NOT being a Democrat. Such a position requires no apology nor any explanation, thank you very much.

As it turns out, I was a pretty good personal friend of Paul Wellstone and spent many meals with him on the road and in D.C. So no lectures, please.

I think it's the Democrats who owe Americans some explanations-- not the other way around

[brucds]

Also must note that phobia about Democratic Presidential candidates is the dumbest place to reserve one's "purity". The top end of the ticket is so constrained by systemic problems, that to expect someone who isn't compromised to the teeth to emerge from the process is just plain silly. But the margins of difference also have the most serious consequences. If this election year, in the wake of 2000, doesn't make that clear, I'm baffled by your mode of analysis, priorities, agenda,etc. In my view, it amounts to an alternate reality for anyone outside the crackpot leftist not to recognize the folly of Nader 2000 and the urgency of supporting Kerry with more than spitballs at the candidate in deference to some left/libertarian contrarian micro-faction one might feel kinship with and an grudging mark on a piece of paper.

[brucds]

No response. Fine. Figures...

[brucds]

Also, I must add that the assertion that one's "position requires no apology and no explanation" just might be considered a prime example of hubris.

But I could be wrong...

I'm just left here wondering why the hell, after that comment, we should give a shit who you're voting for.

[Marc Cooper]

Hey Brucds... ur gonna accuse me of not responding or shirking? Get off it, man. All I said is that I dont need to waste anyone's time defending my decision to not endorse the political party you prefer. I dont ask you to explain your fealty to that crew... ezcept in my case I have a 30 year fully public record of my political views. You can spend all the time you please going over it and learn from it all my reasoning over the years. But dont sit there and call me irresonsible for not being in your party-- that's just plain silly, not to say stupid. Nor did I say there wasnt a dimes worth of difference. You put those words in my mouth. There are great differences, and there are great similarities between the two parties. But I do not submit to moral blackmail, thanks. I cant tell yuou how irresponsibly happy I am for not having voted for Clinton.

[Marc Cooper]

PS. Bruce.. I'll remind you that this is my blog so, yes, I admit it tends to be a bit Marc-centric! So I dont care if you "give a shit" or not who I vote for. Apparently you care enough to participate in this blog and then to call my character into question because I dont agree with ur voting choice.
Pretty nifty!
What you evidence is the fallacy that zealousness is the exclusive domain of extremists. Indeed, we can say that isnt true. Your politics, as you constantly point out, are rather moderate, not extreme, quite responsible, pragamatic, etc etc. But none of that makes you any less a zealot. You've already amply stated on this blog your scorn and disrepect for anyone who dares to be a Republicans. Now you scorn because Im not a Republican or a Democrat. I understand...I had many of the same reflexes as a younger person albeit from a more radical position. With age I have learned, however, we can rarely glimpse the moral character of an individual by checking his or her voter reg card. In the meantime, stop insulting me... i dont like it.

[Woody]

Why aren't you guys watching the World Series? Boston is about to win its first since 1918. Also, we're having a total lunar eclipse. I'm sure there is some connection.

[rosedog]

IT FUCKING HAPPENED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SOX, SOX, SOX, SOX...............

R-O-O-O-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!

Ahem. Now back to our regular programming.

[Marc Cooper]

I heard that the Sox won. Im happy for u guys. Now if u could just use some of that energy to coax a school of big fat yellowtails to show uo in the Sta Monica Bay I would also be as happy.

[GMRoper]

Rosedog, Steve and I are in 7th Heaven. I will continue to be in 7th heaven on November 3rd when the others are morose. (easy, just having fun guys-gals)

I have voted left right and center all my life though I tend to vote right and center right when I can find candidates that believe as I do or show by their record that they believe as I do. I have voted for far more democrats than republicans over the years. Though I have voted for more Republican Presidential candidates, I had no problem with pulling the lever for The Happy Warrior and gritted my teeth as I voted for Clinton in 92.

Now the question is purity of party. bruc ds rants, raves and uses the most gutter-like vulgarity to express his outrage against anything republican, but fails to see that he is just the opposite side of the same coin.

bruc ds, who gives you the right to chastise Marc or anyone else? You have given no positive focus for the democratic support, you merely rile against the republican side or anyone that doesn’t see things your way. Your hyperbole is amazing my friend, simply amazing.

In my short 58 years on this earth, I have seen it all from right and left wing butchery to crooks in the Whitehouse, From the Soviet butchery in Hungary just a few hundred miles from my family to the abject poverty of "Hollywood" outside the CanalZone in Panama From Vice Presidents resigning to escape convictions for bribes to presidents committing perjury over a blowjob. Most of what I have seen in this world is pretty disgusting, whether it be they hypocrisy of some of the left for supporting tyrants like Stalin or Fidel to the unbelievable behavior of the right supporting tyrants like Pinochet or Ngo Dinh Diem.

One of the things I learned is that the more I learn, the less it seems I know. I'm always amazed at truths (little t) that I discern on my way to learning Truth (Capital T). I'm reminded of Oscar Wilde's statement, "Only the shallow know themselves." Many of the commenters should have that tattooed on the inside of their eyelids so they can see it all the time (maybe even I should).

Oh, and as far as the vulgarity expressed by some on a continuing basis in here, Wilde had another thing to say; "...all vulgarity is crime."

bruc ds, learn some humility and gentleness amigo. You don't have all the answers but your thinking you do will lead you to an intellectual wilderness.

[rosedog]

Marc....Just read your Weekly piece. It's elegant, smart, and very wise and accurate in the details---about what's important, about the loathsomeness of the DN.. …the horrid Terry MAC. (If one had any doubts, the sight of Jon Stewart trying unsuccessfully to get ONE human moment out of the dude was really discouraging.)

All that said..... I agree with Harold.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/49/powerlines-meyerson.php

(Except for the loopy Spanish civil war analogy. My Topanga friends going on weekends, and on Nov 1---until it's over---to Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico, is not in the same universe as....say... Federico Garcia Lorca going to Granada. Where he was murdered.)

I also think this election is so serious, so frightening, so important, and very new in terms of the remarkable responses I'm seeing among those around me of all ages, colors and classes.

All your points about Nixon and Johnson were spot on. Still, I’m with those who believe it’s the most important election of my lifetime.

I admit it, I’m freaked about the outcome of Tuesday to the point of nausea. (But I’m too deadline ridden right now to speak in any but the broadest of generalities.)

I know you don’t agree.

But I appreciate mightily the eloquence and force of your opinion.

[brucds]

You published a snarky article on voting for Kerry, I criticized it's frame of reference, made a general political argument regarding the familiar and tiresome posturing of "people like you" and you treat it like it's some kind of vicious personal attack that's beneath a response. As I said. fine. If you think I'm impressed by your hauling out having shared meals with Paul Wellstone as a response to a defense of Wellstone's politics against yours, you really can go fuck youself.

And the last thing I'd be interested in after your tantrum is picking through thirty years of Collected Writings of Marc Cooper.

It's been interesting, but now it's officially a waste of my time...and presumably yours.

[rosedog]

PS: I do agree, to my sorrow, that Kerry really does suck on Israel/Palestine. I'm praying that it was only that he saw the hideous attacks leveled at Howard Dean when Dean had the temerity to suggest that to be an honest and successful broker of peace in that region one would have to be---God forbid---even handed. But that, once elected, Kerry would himself be even-handed as a broker. I may be terribly wrong. My friends in DC who are far more knowledgeable than I on this issue, believe Kerry’s already bought and sold. No more than Bush, but no less.

[GMRoper]

Oh, and Marc, come on down as my guest in Sept - December and we'll go Tarpon fishing... much more fun then yellowtail (even if you can't eat them.)

[rosedog]

Bru-u-u-uuuuuuuuuc ds. Don't go away. It's good to have you here. Really. You're really smart and a lotta fun.

(And I personally feel fine about your swearing.)

But when you fight, but don't shoot to kill.

That's all.

(Only expressing my opinion. I call no shots around here.)

[Marc Cooper]

Brucds-- why get so emotional? Just cool down and continue making your pointed contributions.
I didnt ask you to pick thryu my 26 volumes of work. I just think it self-evident that not voting Democratic MIGHT be understood by a Democrat.

Rosedog... Im sorry ur so worked up about the Importance of This Election. Ur in for a big letdown either way, Im sorry to say. Im not being dogmatic.. I just fail to see whats going to change very much either way. There's a tone from the Bushies which is quite offensive. But I dont see their policies as some great departure from our collective history. Nor do I see anything in Kerry that bodes very different.

I'll be interested to see ur reaction when Kerry escalates troop levels in Iraq. Because he will. I dont even think that's necessarily a bad thing. But againb, Im trying to glimpse what big change is in store.

Also as to Harold's piece.. it's what called being inside the bubble. I could have written the same piece from isnide the GOP GOTV operation in the same city.

GM.. ur a wise man... . SO do YOU think this is the most important election ever?

[steve]

Hey GM, it turns out Marc is right, I'm an idiot!!! and a damned happy one at that!!!
I've figured out the definition of idiot...a red sox fan who disagrees with Marc and Josh and who doesn't conform to the stereotypes they have about people who disagree with them from the left in this comments section. That would be me of course. Alas, was I ever relieved when that last pitch was thrown. It's been 18 long years...
Whatayear...First the Pistons beat LA, The Red Sox come back to beat the Yanks, and Kerry upsets Bush...

[GM Roper]

Extremely important? YES!
Most Important in My LIFETIME? Nope

Most Important Ever? Not even close... Washington's was, for it set the standard for the continuation of the Republic and our way of life; Warts, Butterflies and all. (I acknowledge that the election of Lincoln in 1864 was equally, if not a tad bit more important)

[Ken]

I agree and disagree with you Marc.

First of all, let me say that Democrats, Republicans, and everyone else who expects 2004 to be a pivotal, watershed election is probably correct to do so.

One of the major brands of realignment theory (correctly, me thinks) posits 28-36 year cycles in American history (that shift between a kind of libertarian federalism and populism with a strong central government) buttressed at each end by a pivotal, realigning election. 1824, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1968 were all realigning elections. 2004 will almost certainly prove to be so as well.

The transitions from libertarian federalism to central government populism and back again don't happen overnight, and we can often find markers for the shift before each pivotal election.

America has been in a libertarian federalist era since the pivotal realignment of 1968, deregulating markets, ending the progressive taxation of the new deal (1932-1968) era, cutting the social safety net, deregulating the culture (by ending the Hayes Code, and effectively legalizing many types of "obscenity"), legalizing abortion and passing gay rights legislation, de-evolving power to states and localities, and permitting vast amounts of immigration (including illegal immigration).

Given the passing of 36 years since the last realignment, and Mr. Bush's displays of populism over the last four years (from his vast expansion of the medicare entitlement to the FCC clampdown on "indecency") and the reversion of power from states the federal government (with everything from NCLB to the new surveillance state) the markers for the beginning of a new populist era are already there.

As Marc correctly points out, a second Bush term may prove to be a grand failure for the GOP's efforts to remain the majority party for the next several decades. If this proves to be the case, you can be certain that one of the chief reasons was Bush and Rove's misreading of the historical moemnt. It's no secret that Rove fetishizes team McKinley/Hanna, and dreams of creating the kind of GOP governing majority that lasted from 1896 to 1932.

If you're following my logic, you understand that the 1896-1932 era was a period of libertarian federalism, and that the kinds of policies that work during libertarian federalist eras are not the same kinds of policies that work during populist/strong federal government eras - the latter of which requires the president to govern from the broad populist center, and embrace Lincolnesque/FDResque policies of progressive taxation, criminal justice reform, etc, even as they display sometimes authoritarian tendencies (particularly on civil liberties and cultural freedoms).

This is another way of saying that Mr. Bush's "ownership society" is unlikely to pass even if he is re-elected, and its also quite possible that there will be no social security privatization (at least over the next several decades). You can be sure though at the very least we will begin to see the kind of progressive taxation we saw during the new deal era, even as we also see further curbs on civil liberties and freedom of speech.

Two other things are worth mentioning here.

First, that populist eras in American history tend to overlap with major crises that threaten the very foundations of the society, and the survival of the country. The last was of course the depression and WWII. Before that was the civil war and reconstruction era.

This is not a coincidence. During periods of major crisis the American people (like people generally) prefer a more activist federal government in the economy, and prefer a return to more traditional values. Given the historical precendents, you can be certain that the Democrats are both politically and strategically dead wrong in their belief that there will soon be a "return to normal." In fact you can expect the "war on terror" to last for years, and likely metastasize in something on the order of WWII, the civil war, and the American revolution.

The other point that bears making is that in only one previous instance has a party won a realinging election, and not gone on to be the majority party for the next cycle. That was in 1824, when John Quincy Adams "defeated" Jackson based on an already-antiquated electoral system. Had the electoral system as we know it been in place, Jackson would've won, and the libertarian federalist era of "Jacksonsian democracy" (which lasted until the 1860 realignment) would've come on time.

[GMRoper]

Steve, Re your last phrase "and Kerry upsets Bush..."

In your dreams my friend, in your dreams.

Now, how about them danged REDSOX..... Like you, I waited with bated breath for the last pitch; the grounder to the pitcher, the lope towards first (with me yelling "Toss it you idiot." to the step on base and the Magnificent Sox Do something NEVER done before. What a year and well worth the wait.

[GMRoper]

Ken, terrific post. I need to study this before responding (if I do respond that is) but the read was great. Thanks

[Andrew Gumbel]

Here's the paradox. A Kerry victory will cause a major shake-up in the Republican Party and probably steer it some way back towards the center and away from the dangerous lunatics. A Bush victory, on the other hand, would have an equally salutary shock effect on the Democrats, with luck forcing them to ditch the Clinton triangulation model once and for all and pushing them in a more unapologetically populist direction along the lines Howard Dean's campaign (if not necessarily Howard Dean himself) indicated.

The question, for those who care to contemplate it, is: which party needs reforming first? Though it pains me to think of the Democrats floundering hopelessly for the foreseeable future, I do think the Republican case is by some considerable margin the more urgent one. You can't have democracy in a country where one of the two major parties is controlled by paranoid bomb-throwing theocrats. And though there is some merit to the argument that a second Bush term would be riven by internal Republican Party strife, there is a lot of irreversible damage that could be done in the meantime: new Supreme Court appointments, nuclear proliferation, the wholesale destruction of the middle class etc etc.

So here's the healthiest scenario for US democracy.

2004: Kerry wins, makes the Supreme Court acceptable for the next generation but otherwise hobbles along with a Republican-controlled Congress, while the Republicans ditch Bush, DeLay, the neocons and find someone more presentable for next time.

2008: More acceptable Republican wins, triggering crisis among Democrats who still won't have control of the House and very possibly not the Senate either. More acceptable Republican falls out with congressional nutjobs, who still run the joint even without DeLay, and ends up floundering too.

2012: The Democrats finally have the balls to put up a genuinely progressive candidate (Hillary having fallen off the rails in 2008) and win -- with Marc's full endorsement this time!

[silent cal]

How come when I try to read Harold Myerson's article via your link, I get your piece ? I'd be interested in comparing the two.

And I'm more than a bit disappointed in the response to the wordy and near-insufferable "bruds". He made a practical, journeyman's political argument that was cogent and not nearly as "all-about-me" as most of the rest of what I've read here. (Except for Ken's doctoral thesis.) But you brushed it off rather arrogantly.

[Ken]

I would add several things:

1) It isn't a good sign for the Democrats that libertarians seem increasingly willing to shack up with them (see New Hampshire polls for more about that). The party of fiscal conservatism, states rights (look at the way Democrats have gone all federalist on gay marriage, drug decriminalization, and assisted suicide), civil liberties, and a non-interventist foreign policy is likely going to play the same role during the next three and a half decades that the Taft and later Goldwater Republicans played during the new deal era, from 1932-1968, which of course was the role of "loyal opposition." Whichever party gets shackled with the libertarian types during populist eras can expect to field exactly one successful presidential candidate (god bless ya Dwight and Grover).

2) It also isn't a good sign for Democrats that some of the most conservative elements of the GOP seem to be moving in the direction of economic populism. That tax increase in Alabama failed, but the Republican governor down there can hardly be described as a liberal. The GOP seems closer to me of getting over their opposition to progressive taxation than the Democrats of getting over their opposition to Wilsonian idealism on foreign policy. Economic populism + cultural conservatism + Wilsonian idealism = likely formula for political dominance in the coming era.

Democrats take note.