Visionaries, cont.

There were many thoughtful and insightful comments to my Visionaries entry. Let’s continue the conversation here, and I’ll try to address what I see in the responses.

Phil Wolff from East Bay Kerry talked about bringing people into the political process and fostering value-based policies... at both of which, he says “we [Democrats] suck.” To me, this is a function of the lack of a coherent vision that makes people “swoon” (which the Memo said Democrats don’t care about doing) and is congruent with American values. If we had policies that expressed the values we all share, Democrats and Republicans alike would be more likely to recognize and support them. The role of the visionary is to put into words a direction those values point to, and to express a vision of the future in which those values are made manifest in both politics and policy. That is not to say the visionary would necessarily win an election, but that his or her ideas and vision would inform our direction and shape the way issues are perceived. Visionaries need to accept losing. There’s a line in the movie White Men Can’t Jump that speaks to this: “Sometimes when you lose, you really win. And sometimes when you win, you really lose.”

I like Phil’s breakdown of what the Dems don’t have and need:

- The Democrats don't have infrastructure for bringing more people in to the political process.
- Don't have much of a political process for people to participate in, often reserved for an elite of local insiders.
- Don't have the think tanks and university research for identifying policies which work and which reflect Democratic values.
- Don't have the communications engines to bring those policies to the public in a way that works.

I think that both the vision and the means of promulgating it are necessary. And Dean certainly addressed, and continues to address, both. But maybe the problem is simpler: maybe the vision is not there because that’s not what those in power are looking for.

Clearly, it is what Carol Williams is looking for. Carol, I can relate to your disillusionment. But here’s the thing that keeps me going: When we have a choice of 2 directions, neither of which is the one we really want, we need to choose the better one and take hope along with us on the journey. So I will vote for my better choice, with the hope that it will lead to an even better choice the next time around. If I withdraw and choose nothing, I might have no choice at all next time.

Rick Heller from Centerfield has an interesting perspective. He said:

I don't accept the equation of visionary with the left, and stasis with centrist. This can certainly be true in some cases, but as I see it, there are valid aspects to both right and left--for instance social versus personal responsibility--and these have to be kept in balance.

A common model of political development is that change is always to the left, and the right serves as a brake. This model is increasingly outdated. Instead, there are different visions, and visionaries all all sides.

This sounds logical. However, if we define visionary as “having a values-driven, forward-looking vision of the future that expands our awareness of what is possible,” I’d like to know how the conservative, backward-looking ideas of the right would fit that description. And in my view, it is the process of compromise with the right that is leading towards stasis. My husband gave me a great example of this. A sign in a skating rink read: “No one may skate faster than the average speed of the other skaters.” Taken to its logical conclusion, this policy would eventually result in everyone standing still on the ice.

MWS makes the point that compromise is necessary in order to accomplish shared goals, and that the Constitution itself was a product of compromise. I agree. I also agree with his point that the founders were not ideologues. But they did not compromise their values. Details and specifics can be worked out pragmatically, but when we compromise our values, we lose our direction. The founders set out with a vision of liberty, equality, and justice, and although their end product was less than perfect (and what is not?), those values informed every action they took and every word they wrote. They kept their eyes on the prize, and other considerations--such as personalities, special interests, titles, and personal power–were seen as secondary or peripheral or superfluous.

Greg Wythe from Greg’s Opinion says I equate visionaries and activists. Well, I hadn’t really thought about it that way until I read the DLC memo. It’s their perspective, not mine. The memo talks about dreamers (another term for visionaries) being activists, so it makes the connection. Activists can be visionaries, and vice versa, but the two are not necessarily wedded. The DLC memo clearly puts down activists, equating them with both dreamers and ideologues... which is interesting, because they say they don’t like "elitist" activists but that “most Democrats... vote in hopes of getting things done.” Huh.

Finally, Cos makes what I think is an intriguing point about Clinton and the DLC. He (I hope you’re not a she) says that they're confusing Clinton’s success with the idea that centrism is necessary in order to win and maintain power. Perhaps the lesson the DLC thinks it learned from Clinton’s successes was a function of their confusing the man with the message. And judging from the enormous energy and enthusiasm generated by the Dean campaign, it seems likely that that’s true. How sad to think that Dean might have been marginalized because the DLC was looking for someone who exists only as a figment of an ideology they themselves extracted from Clinton’s powerful political and persuasive abilities.

Thanks again to all. You made me think, and believe it or not, I like that.

Posted by Elissa Bishop-Becker at August 3, 2004 3:24 PM | TrackBack