Post-Peak Liberal: The Dangerous Middle Ground -- Part 1

Post-Peak Liberal

....... Life on the Downslope

The Dangerous Middle Ground -- Part 1

I was watching "Morning Joe" the other day (great show, by the way -- lots of great guests from across the ideological gamut -- one of the few talking-head shows that has actual liberals), and Joe Scarborough kept hewing to this theme of the common sense middle ground. The idea here is that the American people are tired of ideological extremes, and want sensible, responsible decisions from the center (or the center-right, in Scarborough's take). This trope is also starting to be picked up as a Republican talking point, under the banner of this language: "it's time to start having an adult discussion about the country's problems."

Now, in a couple ways, this interpretation does make sense. First of all, in looking at the staggering unpopularity of the Republican party this year (most polls had just a 25% approval rating going into the mid-terms), it is easy to see the massive GOP victories as essentially a just a resounding "no" to the general state of things, and not a wholesale embrace of conservatism per se. This was the people throwing out the bums, just as they did two years ago, and will likely do again in 2012 if things don't improve. In an earlier post, I called this "Musical Chair Politics," where the worst place to be when the electoral music stops every other November is actually in office. As long as things are bad, people will continue to blame the sitting party.

Another way in which this middle-ground wisdom motif makes sense is the horrible devolution of journalism and commentary into the shouting, spitting extremes of talk radio and the hyper-partisan blogosphere. We all (should) know the contours of this situation. Professional journalism is boring and expensive. Done correctly, it requires time, resources, careful fact-checking, reliable sourcing, and true objectivity. Journalistic outfits have to maintain field offices, travel budgets, editorial departments, and other trappings of an actual professional enterprise. But then to actually make a difference in the world, people need to pay attention to the output of these news organizations and alter their behavior accordingly. And in that sense, news is up against the glittering, twittering, titillating products of all the other entertainment sources, from Survivor MILF Island to America's Next Top Trapped Coal Miner, to the G56 iPhone Infinity (with Arouso-vision). And here, the boring old news just can't compete. So to get people to actually want to hear other people talk about current events 'n stuff, you have to get X-Treme. So confrontation, controversy, and outrageousness become the name of the game. What has Rush Limbaugh said this time? Who is Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" today? Who let what slip into which microphone, talking about which female body part or traditionally-marginalized ethnic group?

There is no doubt that a large portion of the public has become exhausted with the extremes of talk radio and crazy blogorama. And in this limited media sphere, it does make sense that people just want a more adult, constructive, collaborative, rational discussion to be happening. But I think it's a mis-reading of the landscape to let this middle-ground interpretation of media bleed over into our understanding of the federal government. It actually plays into the hands of the two major parties to blame lack of progress on ideological extremism. It gives them cover to hold on until the next election cycle, and supports their luxury of thinking short-term only. And it actually masks the need to embrace a radically-different course of action to confront the realities of the Long Emergency.

Let me elaborate here, as it gets a little tricky to actually describe what is so crystal clear in my little gray cells (and probably nowhere else). The thing with the whole 'Extremism Causes Political Gridlock' trope is that it is simply not accurate. It's an excuse, a rationalization -- really a campaigning tool designed to fire up the troops for their money and votes. It allows pols to point the finger at the other party and say, "Look what those extremists are trying to do! Those Socialists/Fascists/Communists/Elitists are trying to give your country away, so we need to put our foot down and say "no." Thus is righteous obstruction justified. But as discussed in my last post, when you look at the particulars, both parties end up carrying the water for their true constituents, the large corporate campaign donors. Even if the Dems or Republicans obstruct at the front door, there always seems to be money for Big Business flowing in somewhere. If times are bad, money flows to tax breaks and deregulation. If times are good, things flow to no-bid contracts and Pentagon black budgets. This is why the corporate sector, often even the same companies, will give generously to both parties, tipping the scales slightly to whichever side seems likely to ride the current electoral winds to victory. Their bases are always covered.

So in no way is the government gridlocked or stuck because of ideological polarization, at least not yet. Sure, it feels good for regular folks to gripe about the stupid hacks on the hill, who don't know their asses from their elbows. And yes, as far as lower and middle class families, as well as small businesses go, the federal government seems riddled with incompetence, complacence, and inertia. But make no mistake, the elite class of corporate lawyers and businessmen who make up our federal government are anything but inefficient. They have delivered everything they promised, and then some, for their real constituency, helping to facilitate the largest transfer of wealth into the fewest hands since the 1920s.

In short, our reluctance to engage in "class warfare," to actually call the federal government what it is (a delivery mechanism for the wealthy and powerful), forces us to embrace a lot of fake, faulty, and dangerous interpretations of reality. We have to ignore Ralph Nader's point from way back in the 2000 election: that on the major policy points (economic liberalism, free trade, anti-union, pro-corporate tax policies, Wall Street boosterism), the two major parties are all but indistinguishable. We have to sheepishly turn to other rationalizations for the horrible state of things: it's creeping Socialism!! (only in America can a corporate boondoggle like Obamacare be seen as pure Leftism) -- It's extremist gridlock!!! -- It's elitist aloofness and cronyism!!!

So when we play this game, when we assert that the two major parties have drifted too far apart, thus necessitating a revival of the Middle Ground, we're missing the fact that there has been massive, two-party agreement on the substantive middle ground for decades. We don't need more agreement between the parties, because their collaboration in creating a certain American way of life (maximum employment, hyper-consumption, operational individualism, pro-growth at all costs) has already done irreparable damage.

This rhetorical plea for a common-sense return to the Middle Ground is squelching and hampering the need to look at the radical changes necessary to prepare for a very different future. And it glosses over a more important, emerging ideological divide that really is a clash of extremes: the Tea Party view of an Ayn Randian u/dys-topia vs. a guided decentralist approach to the Long Emergency. I think that every possible path leads to a more medieval state of organization for America. And that can be awful or hopeful, depending on the involvement of government at all levels.

Next Time: Part 2 -- How I learned to stop worrying and learned to love extremism.