We need more spite

Jacob Bacharach understands the visceral necessity of shouting off an odious little fascist like Ray Kelly:

You see, the point of shouting Ray Kelly off the dais isn’t to get rid of “stop-and-frisk,” which these students are sophisticated enough to understand as merely symptomatic of greater injustices and inequalities in American life. No, the point is to get rid of Ray Kelly, to make the point that he has nothing to say that’s deserving of public consumption, that he is a wicked fellow who ought to be drummed from public life, his opinions, like those of most of us, to be shared grumpily over beers with no one to listen but the other cranks and kooks drinking in the middle of the day. The point is to shame Brown University—admittedly, a difficult task, since the university in the form of its administration is, as noted, shameless—for inviting the weasely little fascist onto the stage in the first place.

More than ten years ago I already blogged on how the Argentinians treated some of their war criminals, those fuckers who helped torture and disappear tens of thousands of people during the military dictatorship and who had gotten largely away with it. Not that physical violence is desirable in this case, but we shouldn’t overlook the value of pure spite and grudge holding.

There are too many people who are making the world a worse place getting unjustified respect and financial rewards for doing so, whether it’s police chiefs like Kelly endorsing racist and hateful stop & search policies or the more common creep who cheerlead such policies. It’s all the little Eichmans being oh so reasonable and polite in making their case for destructive, cynical policies, like Matty Yglesias arguing that we shouldn’t worry about Bangladeshi textile workers dying when the factory collapses on top of them, because “different countries have different safety standards”. In a just world, such odious views should see him shunned by all well thinking people; instead things like this are quickly forgotten and he remains free to to write vaceous posts about the next tragedy.

Endless compromise is not a strategy

Matt Y. is right:

The basic dynamic here should be familiar. When Democrats decided about ten years ago to stop pushing for gun control legislation, that didn’t take the issue off the table it led to a wave of envelop-pushing pro-gun bills. When the GOP temporarily stopped opposing Social Security in the wake of World War II, it led to 30 years of steady increases in Social Security benefits and eligibility. Every conservative retreat from anti-gay bigotry inspires people to push deeper for equality. As long as a large minority of the public thinks people should be thrown in jail for having an abortion, we’ll either see continual fighting on this point or else continued slippage as the debate loses an anchor on the pro-choice side.

You can only win politicial fights by, erm, actually fighting rather than pre-emptively capitulating. It’s a lesson many liberal and soft left parties find hard to learn. In some cases, as with e.g. the way in which the Liberal Democrats surrendered so many of their own policies in order to form a coalition with the Tories, this is caused by a disconnect between electorial rhetoric and the party leadership’s true values. In other, as with the trouble the Dutch green party GroenLinks found itself in regarding a new Dutch mission in Afghanistan, it stems from being too eager to be seen as a serious party in a media climate more hostile towards leftwing than rightwing values.

Clegg’s Quandary

What a pretty little pickle Nick Clegg’s found himself in. If he goes with the Tories he gets;

  • Vague promises of voting ‘reform’ from Cameron that’ll evaporate once waxy-melty face Dave’s bespoke brogues are over the threshold of No.10;

whereupon Clegg’ll be;

  • used as a scapegoat by the Conservatives, the media and the public alike and blamed for allowing the Tories’ savage public service/spending cuts and the resulting social unrest,

after which, he’ll be

  • Discarded like a Cameroonian wank-stained tissue,

all whilst having earned;

  • The eternal hatred of a substantial portion of his party

and

  • the lasting contempt of anyone who voted for him

If he goes with Labour (but only if he can somehow get the numbers to work out) Clegg gets:

  • all of the above, with knobs on and extra added vitriol, because he enabled the continuance of this busted flush of a government and allowed a psychotic PM to stay in power, despite Gordon Brown’s having been soundly rejected by the voters when put to the electoral test;

plus

  • The danger of being lobotomized by a flying Nokia

and

  • the prospect of Peter Mandelson ruling his life

So far as I can see Clegg’s best (for certain values of ‘best’) option would be to refuse an alliance with either, let the Tories try and form a minority government, and start campaigning like hell for the next election when it all falls apart.

Which it undoubtedly will.

It’s your own fault

Lieberman keeps his Homeland Security committee chair:

Senator Harry Reid just spoke to reporters after the private caucus meeting with Dems over Joe Lieberman’s fate, and he confirmed it: Lieberman will not be stripped of his Homeland Security chairmanship, because the “vast majority” of the Democratic caucus wants him to stay.

“This was not a time for retribution,” Reid said, adding that “we’re moving forward.”

Lieberman was removed from the Environment and Public Works Committee, a largely meaningless punishment since it’s a topic (unlike Homeland Security) on which he has no differences with Dems.

Asked about liberal “anger” towards Lieberman, Reid said: “I pretty well understand anger. I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was.”

But he added: “If you will look at the problems that we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying boy did we get even?”

That’s what you get for insisting that supporting the Democratic Party is the only way for leftists to have any influence in American politics. This is a message that the left might support the Democrats, but the Democrats like Lieberman more than you.

The New Republic Syndrome

Glenn Greenwald on an old malady that still grips the Democratic Party:

The reason these posts are worth noting is because they so perfectly capture the mindset that needs to be undermined more than any other. It’s this mentality that has destroyed the concept of checks and limits in our political system; it’s why we have no real opposition party; and it’s why the history of the Democrats over the last seven years has been to ignore and then endorse one extremist Bush policy after the next. It’s because even as The New Republic Syndrome has been proven to be false and destructive over and over — even its practitioners have been forced to recognize that — it continues to be the guiding operating principle of the party’s leadership.

The defining beliefs of this Syndrome are depressingly familiar, and incomparably destructive: Anything other than tiny, marginal opposition to the Right’s agenda is un-Serious and radical. Objections to the demolition of core constitutional protections is shrill and hysterical. Protests against lawbreaking by our high government officials and corporations are disrespectful and disruptive. Challenging the Right’s national security premises is too scary and politically costly. Those campaigning against Democratic politicians who endorse and enable the worst aspects of Bush extremism are “nuts,” “need to have their heads examined,” and are “exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s.” Those who oppose totally unprovoked and illegal wars are guilty of “abject pacifism.”

An excellent diagnosis, but Glenn still has gotten one thing wrong in his write-up. It’s not just that there are rightwing forces within the Democratic Party that paralyse its opposition to Bush, it’s that the party as a whole has decided early on that they won’t oppose Bush if that means moving leftwards, or giving their own leftwing more of a voice within the party. Instead, as I’ve said before, both here and at Wis[s]e Words they’ve contended themselves with waiting for the Republicans own fuckups to drive the voters back to them as the only existing alternative. Bush was able to do things, like declaring war on Iraq, or driving through social legislation that they themselves could never do but were largely sympathetic towards, so by waiting until the electorate was fed up with the Republicans, they can have their cake and eat it too.