Regime Change?

I normally try not to post on stories that are being superbly covered elsewhere, but I can't get over this latest revelation that Obama's GOTV mega-drive is part of an overall remaking of the entire Democratic Party and somewhat nascent Progressive infrastructure in his own branded image.  As I wrote over at The Hillary 1000 (where I quote dday at length - READ IT), the organizing and mobilization scholar in me is totally impressed.  But the conflict theorist and skeptic of authority in me is totally horrified. 

Clinton loyalists are rightly infuriated by the smug anticipated reaping of the spoils by bloggers such as Chris Bowers, who are thrilled at their implied and exclusive relevance in the new Obama Party.  Democratic loyalists smartly see past the impressive organizing and fundraising for what turns out to be been-there-done-that-centrism, merely with a new generation of elites at the helm (and frankly, not the ones I'd like to see leading this country forward).  Turkana at The Left Coaster: "Obama's purple America schtick is more similar to Bill Clinton's 1992 schtick than is Hillary Clinton's current schtick."

One of the things I've liked least about Obama's presidential campaign is its treatment of politics as something dirty, shameful, to be avoided and overcome.  Keep in mind a few definitions of politics:

• the art or science of government; the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy; the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government;
• competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government);
• the total complex of relations between people living in society; relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view

I know, I know, Obama's campaigning against "partisanship."  But forgive me if I prefer my partisan views, and not those of others, who, for instance, would like to eliminate the social safety net, demolish public housing without sufficient affordable replacement, or limit my right to fight back against discriminatory policies.  Partisanship is part of politics; struggle, protest, negotiation, and compromise is inherent to politics, and politics is the act (or science) of fighting oppression, domination, and injustice, not to mention unfair distribution practices.   

Coverage of Obama's plan to remake the party indicate a replacement of ideology-driven politics with technocracy, that is, the "management of society by technical experts," and the existing progressive infrastructure subordinated to good-government, reform types.  These are the words that make my hair stand on end.  Trust me (I'm an expert!) when I tell you that data, measurement and analysis are nothing without an ideological or moral context in which to interpret such technocratic knowledge.   Ever wonder why the Ivory Tower is considered so remote?  Because we're taught to develop knowledge "objectively," without bias.  And guess what?  We're considered irrelevant, out of touch, and most often unwelcome outsiders in the communities or groups we scrutinize for our scholarly purposes (Take the case of social policy, where the evaluations of mostly white men of the social problems of mostly women and children and communities of color has its own tremendously negative ramifications.)  Given the unevenness of the playing field of potential experts for an Obama Administration - especially if Obama's mostly white, male campaign staff is any indication - we shouldn't expect this new younger leadership of technocrats to look much more like the citizenry than our supposedly ossified political power structure already does. 

Technocracy over ideology, an elimination of partisanship, unity instead of difference - this is not a world I would recognize, or welcome. A revolution in the name of Obama as it is described is not a revolution: it is a new face on an old system.  An enormous, volunteer-driven GOTV drive is worthy of effusive accolades.  But to undertake one at the willful and calculated expense of existing progressive institutions (really, it's all in the links), well, this is a proposed power structure that worries me deeply.  More than ever, I realize how starved for a leader Bush has left this country.  May we not succumb to the next one quite so easily.

Comments

[Redstar]

Wahoo! I was sad to be under Perlstein. Ooof.

[jinbaltimore]

Excellent post, Red.

"But forgive me if I prefer my partisan views, and not those of others, who, for instance, would like to eliminate the social safety net, demolish public housing without sufficient affordable replacement, or limit my right to fight back against discriminatory policies."

I've always been unhappy with Obama's notion of "all partisanship being equal." If that is so, then why run as a Democrat?

This worries me as well. This idolatry really does remind me of Reagan, who coincidentally got the votes of most of my college friends (not me though!) in 1984.

[greg]

Redstar, I agree entirely that "data, measurement and analysis are nothing without an ideological or moral context" and the rest of the qualms you have about ideas of objectivity.

However none of the material I've read on Obama's infrastructure changes to the Dem party correspond to your characterization of a "replacement of ideology-driven politics with technocracy."

Dday/Chris Bowers characterize the change as "a set of more technocratic, good-government advocates, policy types who have a command of their specific bailiwicks, rather than the corporate-friendly DLC types of recent yore."

It seems to me the (probable) transformation is more along the lines of replacing centrist triangulators (who have served the party poorly) with pragmatic policy types. In other words, the party wouldn't necessarily become more or less progressive, but it would become more effective.

I too wish that there was more of an ideologically-liberal component to all this, but as unideal as this transition may be it does seem like a modest improvement.

I'm not clear on how this is at the "expense of existing progressive institutions" since the institutions being replaced aren't particularly progressive, from what I can tell.

I agree with this assessment from Tristero: " by displacing the sclerotic leaders who managed, incredibly, to make both the 2004 election and the 2000 race so close that a candidate as clearly awful as Bush could steal the presidency (once if not twice), there are potential opportunities for liberals...If Obama can, in fact, create a newer, larger, broader, and more responsive party infrastructure - and I think he can - then liberals have a chance to have their influence felt once more in a substantive way, as they haven't for what seems like aeons"

[weboy]

I should probably leave it to Red to reply - she knows what she meant better than I... though it seems to me greg that the "technocracy" aspect of Obama's approach is in the section you quote - "a set of more technocratic, good-government advocates".

However one wants to parse that, though, I think this notion of Obama as somehow separate from old, nineties era "DLC" type centrist thinking seems far fetched: Obama talks about a renewed notion of listening to all sides and finding common ground; if he's serious about that, it sounds a whole lot like what Bill Clinton wanted to do... and often did, which was centrism then, and still seems like it now. And frankly, that's an aspect of Obama that's never troubled me... much the way I think the notion of him as an "elite" is a plus, not a negative.

Red and I have talked about this a bit, lately (I suspect that, plus her interest in the subject led to this post), and where I differ with her is that I don't see the momentous change in what Obama proposes: the approaches to organizing are not new, the use of the web to build community is not new, and the idea of building these elements around a personality isn't new... and often doesn't work. The left is doing this stuff every day, right now. To see Obama's notions as transformative, I think, one has to see what's come before as unsuccessful... but if that's the case, why does what he's doing feel so familiar, and in many ways, so rote?

Where I think Red is onto something is what connects to a general divide between Obama and Clinton supporters that's the real rift within the party: the question of who is organizing whom, for what purpose. And I tend to agree with Red on this: we can't come into communities where we are outsiders, with our educations and our sense of the perfect good, and not expect pushback from people who live an experience much different from our own.

Academic notions of poverty relief, fair housing, racial justice and all sound wonderful in the abstract... but they are wonderful abstractions, separate from the political realities of how you use government (or any large organization really... which pulls in this whole "corporatist" discussion which I think is well beside the point) to get things done. Because in the end, I think, that's the goal we share... getting some of this done. And while I think Obama's lofty ambitions may lead to his loss in november, I also agree with Red... if he wins, he could well be disastrous.

[Redstar]

Greg - weboy is right, the part you quote back at me is the point I'm getting at. "Technocracy" = an administration of "technocratic, good government types focused on policy." Just because they are policy-focused does not make them less corporatist. Look at Brookings: they are a policy thinktank that recruits fellows with specific expertise to study specific social problems. They have as in institution led the charge to revitalize cities by specifically appealing to corporations and the upper-middle class as urban residents. This displaces the moderate- and low-income, and the foreign-born and communities of color who disproportionately live in cities. I find Obama's call about bringing in these "new" types is alarming when what he's replacing is the old with a new old, with a promise to make them even more detached from the "real" world than they already are. Which Weboy expands on nicely in his comment above this one.

Also, beware "good government" - part of many reform efforts to streamline government, make it more effective, etc. often involve removing the troubling elements that stymie cities to begin with - such as labor unions and their demands for living wages; or district-based elections where neighborhoods feel they have a particular advocate to address their grievances, versus a good govt. model of all at-large elected officials who address everyone universally, when we don't all - as citizens/residents - have the same needs or the same resources to fight to make our needs heard.

Weboy does a great job of taking many of my thoughts further, especially: "the question of who is organizing whom, for what purpose."

You'll find I also agree with Tristero, in the sentence directly below the paragraphy you cite: "LIke Krugman, I think Obama's call to transcend partisanship, while it appeals to many, is neither realistic nor desirable."

As for "progressive institutions," Women's Voices, Women's Votes, VoteVets, Progressive Media, and America Votes - are these not progressive?

[Redstar]

PS: greg, you seem to comment here a fair amount. I like that.

[Slave Revolt]

Why don't you want to cooperate with us? We are here to help you, and to help our society too.

Are you anti-American.

By the way, I find your derogatory use of the term 'corporatist' to be off-putting.

Please refrain from engaging further anti-American statements.

Perhaps some time on the Obama Reformatory Farm will help disabuse you of some of your more disconcerting notions.

[Redstar]

Not sure who you are, Slave Revolt, but I think I'll pass on your offer to "help" me. This is a classic trope among the middle-class/entitled, at least from what I see in our Master's planning students - they just want to "help" low-income communities or communities of color. Patronizing much?