Partisanized Moderates

(updated below)

Josh Marshall's latest post hits very close to home. He begins by posting an email from a reader:

When I found your site, you had a similar sort of "New
Democrat" approach. You talked a lot about ideas and
while you were certainly a Democrat, but not in a partisan
or overly ideological way. . . .

What I first loved about your site is gone, however, but I
don't blame you. I blame Bush et al. And that's a shame.
I feel like I lost a real part of me is gone [sic], taken by Bush
and the greater Republican movement. That all of our
efforts must focus on opposing each and every assertion
made by this group; detailing, chronicling and exposing
every lie, fallacy, and evil act. Clearly, you too realize
this is the only reasonable tactic for us to pursue.

The era of ideas, debate, and moderation is gone (for now),
not by our choice, but by theirs. That is Lieberman's
problem and an ever shrinking number of holdouts. I really
am angry about the loss of a worldview and approach that
I valued. Your site's transition is one small bit of evidence
of that loss.

After a long response, which is well worth reading in its entirety, Josh concludes:

In any case, this is all a way of saying that in this
all-or-nothing crisis the country has been passing through,
I think it's made sense to line up with those who say, No.
I guess I'm one of those partisanized moderates Kevin Drum
has spoken of (not sure that's precisely the phrase he used.)
That leads to a certain loss of nuance sometimes in
commentary and a loss in the variegation of our politics
generally. As a writer, often it's less satisfying.

But I cannot see looking back on all this, the threat the
country is under, and saying, I stood aloof.

Except for his use of the word "variegation"--which is apparently a botanical term--Josh pretty well sums up what I've been feeling lately.

The American left is by no means a homogeneous group. It never has been. And during the Clinton years, the Democratic party had the luxury of engaging in a considerable amount of internal debate with respect to policy issues. The Clinton White House was wonkish to its core and encouraged this sort of reassessment. Many people, myself included, emerged from the Clinton era considering ourselves to be "new Democrats" or "neoliberals" or some similar variation. Indeed, when I first thought about starting a blog, the first domain name I considered was www.neoliberal.com (apparently still not taken).

But by the time I actually got around to starting this blog, it was already pretty clear to me that the Bush administration had succeeded in rendering these distinctions all but meaningless. With the Democratic party in the political wilderness, the Bush administration and the GOP Congress set the agenda.

And what difference does it make where you fall on the political spectrum when the primary subject of debate is whether massive tax cuts for the wealthy will pay for themselves or whether social security is on the verge of going "bankrupt"? These aren't even policy questions; they're empirical/factual ones. How can you have a real policy debate when the facts themselves are made up?

By the same token, does it really matter whether you're a "paleoliberal" or "neoliberal" when the issue is whether or not to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage and flag burning? And what exactly is the "new Democrat" position on whether or not the President has the inherent power to violate longstanding criminal laws?

And, for that matter, shouldn't pretty much everyone be against widespread Congressional corruption and a system where our most important legislation is drafted by lobbyists for the industries regulated by it?

Even in the area of foreign policy--where liberal "doves" are supposedly always at odds with liberal "hawks"--just about everyone without partisan blinders on (or named Joe Lieberman) can see that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and that the execution of the war has been marked by incompetence of the highest order.

With respect to all these issues, there is no real policy debate to be had. Left-leaning folks of any stripe have little choice but to try to step in and holler "stop." That's why, to a casual observer, blogs like this one are often indistinguishable from those written by people much further to my left. As much as I'd love to talk about issues that separate various left-of-center constituencies, those issues just aren't on the table at the moment. Those debates will have to wait until the Democratic party once again has some ability to control the agenda in this country.

Hopefully that day will come sooner rather than later.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum responds to Josh's post:

I've tried harder than Josh to retain a moderate tone over
the years, but this describes me pretty well too. And just
recently I've been thinking about what a genuinely
profound story this is, one that the mainstream media
ought to be more interested in. Instead of writing
incessantly about "angry bloggers," they ought to be
asking why so many mild-mannered moderate liberals
have become so radicalized during George Bush's tenure.
It deserves attention beyond the level of cliches and
slogans.

Greg Wythe weighs in as well.