November 2004

Post-election debate:

Left, Right and Center in Post-Modern America – An Independent’s View

by Jim Mangia

The 2004 presidential elections reveal an interesting post-modern twist on the political performance of the Republican Party, now clearly the majority party at every level of American political life. The Democrats have not caught on to the nuance of that change, (which is at least partly responsible for their widespread electoral failures) as most of the party leadership is advocating that the Democrats continue to move “to the right” politically, and abandon support for progressive economic and social policy.

In his first four years in office and in the campaign, President Bush governed and campaigned to the “right” (all part of Karl Rove’s brilliant re-election strategy). Since being re-elected, Bush has quickly moved to govern in his second term from the center. Traditionally a first-term president would have governed toward the center, much as Bill Clinton did. President Clinton for example, was brilliant at sounding and campaigning “left” and then once elected, governing to the center. His support for welfare “reform” and the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act in his first term are examples of Clinton’s re-election strategy of governing “right” while sounding “left.” After winning re-election Clinton initiated a host of liberal policy moves in his second term.

But the Bush re-election has turned that conventional, modernistic vision on its head. Fundamentalists are up in arms by a post-election statement Bush made in support of civil unions for lesbians and gays and are furious about Bush’s unconditional support for moderate Arlen Spector to assume the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also stated explicitly in nominating Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General that there would be “absolutely” no litmus tests on social issues for his cabinet and judicial appointees.

It would seem that now that Bush is safely secured for his final term, he would respond otherwise to the fundamentalist base of support, which just about every political pundit is crediting as being the engine to his re-election bid. But in postmodern American traditional strategies and meanings are increasingly meaningless.

What seems clear about our current political culture in America, is that our country is increasingly divided ideologically, socially and economically. In my opinion, this is a direct result of the two-party political environment which flourishes off of “us-versus-them” political tactics. While politicians will still say anything to get elected, the intensifying partisanship has been increasingly detrimental to finding solutions to the problems that we face as a nation.

As an independent political leader and gay activist for over twenty years, I would argue that if progressive America is to break out of the losing stranglehold of the Democratic Party (or more accurately the losing stranglehold of a two-party monopoly), we must explore new political options. The Democrats are not only losing badly, but they are throwing away every progressive moral voice and issue in the process. In their quest to succeed in our perverted “winner-take-all” political culture they have failed to sense the shift in strategy necessary to win in a divided and partisan political environment.

Where does that leave the progressive movement? Can we break out of the partisan divide? Can we break with our historic allegiance to the Democratic Party?

It is estimated that the Democratic Party spent 70 million dollars in their effort to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot in states across the country. What would have happened to their electoral chances if they had invested that money instead, in Ohio? But the larger question, of course is how damaging that activity was to our democratic process in America, and how their attacks on a citizen’s right to run for office disparaged our Constitution and further alienated the 35% of Americans who currently refuse to register in either party and thus identify as “independents.”

If progressives could see through the modernistic (and anachronistic) ideological maze and look towards what we could become (rather than what we currently are) – they could see through to an alliance with independent voters who’s main concern is more democracy, challenging the partisan divide, reinvigorating American democracy and changing our political culture. Wouldn’t it be interesting to build a nonpartisan coalition with independents that could once again foster the development of a progressive and moral social vision for the United States of America. Clearly the Democrats cannot.

____________________________________

Jim Mangia is the Co-Chair of the Committee for an Independent Voice and the CEO for a network of federally qualified community health centers in Los Angeles.