the non-ideological anti-war party

In the blogosphere, there’s a new showdown on “the left,” this one precipitated by a blog post from Jonathan Chait in The Plank:

In the end, though, I can’t quite root for [Joe] Lieberman to lose his primary. What’s holding me back is that the ["netroots"] anti-Lieberman campaign has come to stand for much more than Lieberman’s sins. It’s a test of strength for the new breed of left-wing activists who are flexing their muscles within the party. These are exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early ’70s. They think in simple slogans and refuse to tolerate any ideological dissent. Moreover, since their anti-Lieberman jihad is seen as stemming from his pro-war stance, the practical effect of toppling Lieberman would be to intimidate other hawkish Democrats and encourage more primary challengers against them.

Chait’s posting brought on a deluge of negative comments, remarked upon by the Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum, who didn’t want to get involved but then added his own complaints about the “netroots” activists:

Chait calls the Kos/Atrios wing “left-wing activists.” Marshall Wittman more colorfully calls them “McGovernites with modems.” But this is a serious misreading. In fact, if I have a problem with the Kossite wing of the blogosphere, it’s the fact that they aren’t especially left wing. Markos in particular specifically prides himself on caring mostly about winning elections, not fighting ideological battles….

So is the liberal blogosphere liberal? Of course it is. But to compare it to the left-wing radicals of the early 70s is to misunderstand it completely. Netroots favorite Howard Dean is no lefty radical, and at a policy level most of the high-traffic liberal blogs are only modestly to the left of the DLC — except on Iraq.

It’s a long, sad journey reading through the comments on both sites. There is a great deal of incoherence and ignorance, especially about the meaning of the word “ideology.”

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of the Daily Kos isn’t a leftist, it’s claimed (as if leftism or rightism are the only manifestations of ideology). He is merely partisan. Well, okay. He is, of course, fanatically anti-Bush and fanatically anti-war. Other than that, he’s not ideological at all.

And when Atrios says

But, just to make clear why people like me don’t like Joe Lieberman - it’s because he’s a Fox News Democrat. Yes, his unwavering support for Bush’s disastrous foreign policy and his love for torture don’t win him any points either, but he’s not the only Democrat for whom that applies.

then that’s not ideological either, right? (especially the guilt-by-association name-calling-smear tactic favored by totalitarians of all political stripes).

Note #1 to the netroots folks: whether you’re leftists or liberals or progressives or centrists or conservatives, even if the only stance you agree on (and are willing to take) is that you are anti-Bush and anti-war, you will be perceived as ideological—because you are ideological. You tell us what you’re against. And what the rest of us are supposed to be against. What are you, for, though, other than a victory at the poll for Democrats? What happens when you win?

Note #2: If you don’t state your political position, your opposition will misstate it for you. (”He was for it before he was against it.”) And you may have to resort to losing tactics like this:

Here’s a smart observation from the comments section of Drum’s blog post cited above [emphasis mine]:

KOS and his netroots supporters are a fascinating phenomena. Markos does talk endlessly about winning and not ideology, but thus far he has never won and mostly has not even come close. And perhaps even more importantly, what is the sense of dedicating yourself to winning elections if you do not have some ideaology to promote.

Today’s New York Times front’s a story about the ideological disarray. And the paper chooses sides in the debate about whether the party should tack left:

With Democrats increasingly optimistic about this year’s midterm elections and the landscape for 2008, intellectuals in the center and on the left are debating how to sharpen the party’s identity and present a clear alternative to the conservatism that has dominated political thought for a generation. [emphasis added]

That’s bullshit. There hasn’t been any political thought on the Democratic side for a long time—that’s the real problem.

Michael Tomasky, of the American Prospect, thinks he knows why—it’s the media’s fault! it’s the pollsters’ fault!:

Mr. Tomasky argued in his article that “the party and the constellation of interests around it don’t even think in philosophical terms and haven’t for quite some time. There’s a reason for this. They’ve all been trained to believe—by the media, by their pollsters—that their philosophy is an electoral loser.”

Mr. Tomasky needs a lesson in logic: you don’t have a philosophy because the media tells you your philosophy is a loser? Um, no. A philosophy is something you believe in, subscribe to, and follow, regardless of what the media and the polls say. Kinda like what Bush has…whether you like it or not: he’s a true believer. That is the source of his appeal (when people aren’t mad at him).
Peter Beinart also needs to clear the cobwebs, though, because he sounds just like John Kerry. Who lost in 2004.

Peter Beinart, editor-at-large for The New Republic, argues for a new Democratic foreign policy in a new book, “The Good Fight,” saying liberals need to reclaim the tough-minded approach they brought to the cold war— recognizing the need for strong engagement in the fight against totalitarianism and for democracy, but doing so through international institutions. [emphasis added]

I see. America should keep its head down. Now, that’s a real winner.

Mr. Beinart, who backed the war in Iraq but now says, “I was wrong,” said there were “important cautionary lessons” for supporters of that war about the dangers of “apocalyptic thinking” and the conviction that quick action is essential. On the other hand, he said, “It was the wrong lessons of Vietnam that led the Democratic Party off the cliff into mass opposition to the gulf war” in 1991.

Call me crazy, but I think if the liberal hawks had the courage to stick to their guns and say that deposing Saddam was the right thing to do despite the fact that we are still there and that things continue to look awful, they could win an election in the United States.

Saying the war was a mistake is the only thing you can say if you want to be accepted socially in certain circles—i.e., the circles that journalists travel in. It is, however, an electoral loser.

You were for it before you were against it. What kind of principle is that?