On Polarization, Liberals, and Conservatives

by Rishubhav

Hello everybody I'm Rishubhav, you probably know me from the comments I've made on a few of the posts that seem to have stirred up some controversy. But then again stirring up controversy is my specialty.

First lets get something out of the way. I am not a *gasp* Republican. I despise the Bush Administration and neoconservative movement just as much as the next guy. I am, that rarest of species, the left/Democrat leaning independent. I consider myself a liberal, and agree with the Democrats on most political issues, but I classify myself as an independent because I refuse to tow a party line, and to make blanket distinctions based on party membership.

What really disgusts me about the Bush Administration is not its ideas, harebrained as they may be, because ideas can be discussed, debated, and changed. No, the real sin of the Bush Administration is their attitude towards their ideas, ther intellectual arrogance and ideological intolerance, their demanding of blind faith from the American people. It is this attitude, and more importantly the fact that it wasn't backed up by results, that so alienated the American people.

Sadly, the Democrats seem to have taken exactly the wrong lesson from Bush. After the fiascos that were the 2000 and 2004 elections, the Democrats seem to have concluded that they need to appear tough and polarizing to attract voters. The best example of this trend is the ousting of Joe Lieberman from the Democratic party for the cardinal sin of being too moderate, though he went on to win the general election as a third party candidate anyway, exposing the weakness of radicals among the general public. [Continued.]

The Bush years have spawned a generation of militant young liberals who have taken the tactics and attitudes of the Bush Administration and applied them to progressive ideals. Is there any real substantive difference in tone and style between the DailyKos and Fox News? Both are highly polarized opinionboards that preach to their respective choirs, and both only serve to worsen the combative political climate that exists today.

It is ironic then, that these young angry politicos have rallied around Barack Obama, the supposedly unifying candidate. However, this alignment may have more to do with age and issues than on the actual attitudes of the candidate and his supporters. Obama's youth has attracted many of these similarly young activists, as has his consistent opposition to the Iraq war which has become almost a battle cry for the Obama 08 campaign. Obama has become a conduit for the frustrations of eight years of Bush rule, and it is this that fuels the explosive energy that has characterized his campaign. He has inspired almost a cult of personality, a hallmark of those who draw their support from the young, angry and alienated.

Hillary on the other hand was much more of a tactical fit for this new generation of liberals, with her winner-take-all mentality, polarizing presence, and disdain for compromise. Thankfully, she lost to Obama who, for all the faults of his supporters is a genuine consensus-builder.

Still, much like Hillary, he might not be able to control the machine he has created, a network of radicals who feel that this is their election, and are in no mood to compromise. Already we've seen the tactics of Bush being resurrected by his opponents - witness the constant repetition of McCain's "100 years" quote, which I'm sure will become the "I voted for the War in Iraq" of the 2008 season. This example is particularly egregious, because any half-intelligent observer realized that he was referring to "occupation" in the sense that we "occupy" half of Europe and East Asia, with small amounts of troops.

All things considered, this is still the Democrat's race to lose - they have not yet managed to alienate as many voters as Bush has. The challenge for Obama now is to do for the Democrats what Lincoln did for the Republicans - quell the extremist edge of his party and put out a moderate but still progressive message. In Lincoln's time the country was too far along the path of polarization to avoid war - thankfully we are not.