Citizens as Sports Fans

If I could sum up what's wrong with American political culture in one phrase, it would be that we care too much about what someone is and not enough about what someone does. This feature of our politics complicates the liberal project more than any other. And ironically we did it to ourselves.

Mark Schmitt at TPMCafe hints at this problem when discussing the strange appeal of John McCain. McCain has earned a free ride in the media despite his pusillanimity and conservatism because he is a “straight shooter.” In much the same way, George Bush used to be able to marginalize criticism by presenting himself as a "regular guy." On the other hand, people like John Kerry and Al Gore lose elections not because of their policy positions, but because people have been persuaded (by Republicans) that these political figures are somehow alien to the common man.

The problem is far greater than just advantaging conservative Republican Presidential candidates, however. The "cult of authenticity" is the personalized reflection of today's dominant political paradigm: identity politics. The basis for supporting candidates has less to do with what positions that candidate holds than what demographic or symbolic characteristics the candidate exemplifies. It is the most puerile, professional sports-inspired, "ra ra, go team!" sort of politics. It is not only inconvenient for liberals, it is destructive of democracy itself.

The primordial conservative political tactic is to use identity politics to shift the political debate away from class alignments. The right will inflame any latent division in society to serve this end: gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, region, etc., etc. Once they have changed the subject away from class, the elites in society (who unlike everyone else still vote monolithically for the conservative party) can enlist enough residual support among the working and middle classes to win election victories.

Liberals only win elections that are about class rather than identity (or if you prefer, economic identity as opposed to some other kind). Unfortunately for the left, the usual habit of people is practice identity politics, which is why conservatives usually win. The left has 3 basic responses to the conservative tactic of divide and rule. It can hope that something splits the conservative base - usually either some handy cleavage issue or a catastrophe of some kind or another. It can wait for economics to become an overriding concern. Or it can use universalistic rhetoric that emphasizes nationalism and common citizenship, a form of identity of politics that mutes sub-national loyalties.

Michael Tomasky to his credit has pointed to the latter strategy with his suggestion that Democrats use the language of the "common good." Digby points out the most obvious problem with this strategy – that people may ignore it in favor of identity politics. And he also identifies the reason that liberalism abandoned the universalistic strategy in the first place, and how conservatism was able to get back into the game in the 1960's.

When liberals were focused on broad (largely economic) issues of middle class prosperity, it maintained its New Deal majority. When it moved on to narrow problems, like civil rights and cultural liberation, it shifted the grounds of political debate back to identity politics. As such, it sacrificed much of its working class base. Now I want it clear that I think that Democrats were right to pursue equal rights for historically oppressed groups. I just want it clear that as usual no good deed goes unpunished.

Civil rights alone wasn't enough to destroy liberalism's postwar rhetorical advantage. The other thing that did it was the Vietnam War. Democrats' failure in the war and opposition to military intervention allowed the Republicans to paint themselves as the party of America. In other words, they stole nationalism from us. Without the cement of national loyalties to give universalistic rhetoric some political bite, the left was simply unable to counter the divisive strategy used by Republicans.

So here we are. Democrats are caught in a post-1960's multiculturalism in which our basic strategy is to talk about how one group or another is getting screwed. This kind of talk is exactly what the right wants. As long as we keep doing it, they will continue to be able to play the identity card. The lack of a common vision also makes it extremely difficult for Democrats to organize, or to push back against conservative propaganda. But the problem is bigger than just changing our tone (as Tomasky seems to think). As a practical matter, the voters do care more about identity politics that generalized nationalism or class politics. So such an appeal might fall on deaf ears in any event.

I wish that the effect of identity politics was limited to undermining liberalism. Unfortunately it goes much deeper than that. The more serious problem is that when voters have a knee-jerk support for a candidate because he or she is "one of them," then that politician can take those voters entirely for granted. No matter what that person does while campaigning or in office, their supporters will find a way to make excuses. No matter what sins they commit, no matter how corrupt they become, no matter how dishonest or hypocritical they behave, their actions will still be justified by their loyalists. Identity politics destroys political accountability and paves the way for irresponsible leaders, and ultimately authoritarian politics.

So I beg you: the next time a candidate tries to enlist your support by telling you that he is "one of you," ask yourself if you want someone who is like you or who is for you. And whatever you do, don't just take their word for it. Otherwise, you risk being one of the suckers born every minute.