|
there will be a great deal of discussion about moving right or left.
but i think the real division in our party is about something different: cool technocrats v. hot philosophers (ideologues).
It is possible to be a centrist 'ideologue,' so don't confuse 'ideologue' with left. For instance, one can feel a burning moral passion about reducing the deficit, even tho that is a more-or-less a centrist position.
ideologues and philosophers tend to have the "vision thing." technocrats, on the other hand, tend to rely on "competence."
both philosophers and technocrats criticize the results of the opposition, but they do so with a slightly different emphasis. technocrats tend to tend focus more heavily on the empirical data (for example, such-and-such # of jobs lost); while philosophers tend to discuss failures in the opposition's theories (for instance, by attacking "trickle down economics").
Ideologues tend to talk in sharp moral absolutes; technocrats tend to want to manage problems. (Clinton introduced a sense of morality in the '92 campaign by talking about helping people who "play by the rules;" this appealed to people's sense that, not only did they want to vote their self-interest, but it was moral for them them to do so since they were rule-abiding, i.e., morally good and worthy.)
technocrats make good advisers and cabinet secretaries. philosophers tend to be elected prez.
not to kick him while he is down, but john Kerry's comment about (i paraphrase) 'we need to reduce terrorism back to the level of a mere manageable nuisance, like illicit drugs and prostitution, so that it no longer dominates our lives' was technocratic (whatever its merits).
when Kerry made this comment, many here defended Kerry because Brent Scowcroft had said much the same thing. But, Scowcroft was not running for prez and was a mere adviser. People look for a different quality of rhetoric from a one who would be prez.
BTW, by contrast, consider an incident that took place almost 6 years ago. After the incident in which an African-American gentleman in Texas(a Mr. Byrd, I believe) was lynched by being dragged to death behind a truck, people like John Kerry didn't say 'we need to reduce these racist crimes to the level of a mere manageable nuisance like illicit drugs and prostitution so that it no longer dominates African-Americans' lives.' Rather, there was an expression of outrage and an expression of the need to eliminate the underlying problem of racism which was often identified by the word 'evil.'
so, liberals are capable of being non-technocratic in certain circumstances.
Another problem with technocrats, is that technocrats tend to defend their positions as "mainstream," i.e., endorsed by the experts. However, one thing that motivates voters to get out and vote is a sense that the "mainstream" (the establishment of experts) has things wrong or has not done enough.
For example, remember mike dukakis defending his prisoner furlough program (which had released Willie Horton) on the grounds that most other states had similar programs? That presumes that people were satisfied with the status quo in terms of law enforcement & crim justice. in fact, at the time, most felt that mainstream crim justice was too lax and wanted to change course; most wanted to get tougher.
so, the technocratic defense that this is the way it is usually done is unsatisfactory to those who don't like the way things are usually done.
generally, i think, the lower the education level of a voter the more the voter finds stark condemnation of "evil" appealing. these are the voters dems are losing (at least, according to exit polling discussed at length over at emergingdemocraticmajority.com).
also, in wartime (which most Americans feel we are in) people tend more towards casting issues in stark moralistic terms.
also, many voters who do understand nuance and complexity nevertheless feel reassured by a leader's ability to cast matters in simplified absolute terms: they realize that simplifications are easier for others (their fellow countrymen) to rally around and that rallying around a leader is important in a crisis. in other words, even voters with subtle perceptions like a leader who can distill the subtleties to a simple emotional rallying cry: it represents good leadership.
for these reasons and others, i prefer ideologues (philosophers; visionaries) as Dem prez candidates. i also think this is a distinct issue separate form left v. right.
what do you think?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(214 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
