June 09, 2003
Power And Politics
"Choice is an illusion between those with power and those without."This is a quote from the latest Matrix movie. I've been thinking a lot about power the last few months, and I'm glad a pop culture movie seized on a concept that is very relevant to the political culture.
Power has many meanings. One meaning is the ability to limit another's set of choices. To set the agenda, to frame the parameters, etc. Even better yet, to do that while making the subject believe they still have full choice.
Would you like a chocolate bar or a bag of chips?
There's another kind of power though - the ability to recognize these techniques and tricks, and negotiate your way around them. Even better yet, to demonstrate this to others so they also realize they don't have to be constrained by these choices.
Who says you're the candyman? I didn't agree to that. I want both. I also want lobster.
One thing I've noticed recently is that the Republicans are pretty darn good at the first form of power, and the Democrats aren't very good at the second. This isn't just because the Republicans are in control of both houses and the presidency. They were also successful at this in the 2000 election.
There were more than a few Democratic failures in the 2000 election, but two of them in particular had to do with this kind of power play, and Gore/Lieberman's discomfort in wielding power.
The first one was Gore's refusal to campaign on Clinton's record with the economy. Gore succumbed to his opponents' power here. He let himself believe that there were only two choices: either campaign on Clinton's record and introduce Clinton's immorality, or, ignore the morality thing by ignoring Clinton.
By accepting this, he bought in to outside analysis (and manipulation) so much that he allowed himself to be convinced that he had no power to actually change the terms of the debate. He was certain that campaigning on Clinton's record would mean that some people would see him as condoning Clinton's social behavior. The Republicans were of course in favor of this interpretation. So all in all, the Republicans treatment and exposure of Clinton ended up being worth it. It got them close enough to have a contested 2000 election.
The second example was Lieberman's handling of the military absentee ballots. There was plenty of evidence to believe that the Republicans were taking advantage of overseas military absentee ballots to inflate their side of the count, but they successfully made it an issue by claiming that the Democrats didn't want to count the military vote. Gore and Lieberman were essentially convinced that this was not a challengeable issue, and eventually publicly requested that all military ballots be counted and be given the benefit of the doubt. In hindsight, it turned out that the difference might not have been enough to change the election outcome, but it was a significant impact. This was again an example of accepting the interpretation that the Republicans were asserting on them: accept how we are counting the overseas ballot, or admit that you are anti-military. Lieberman made the choice that he believed was the better of the two, but the real issue was that it was a false choice. He was taking no power, and was yielding to the Republicans.
This is why life is hard for the Democrats right now. They've gotten out of the habit of cultivating their own power, and are used to only railing against (or meekly accepting) the Republicans' power. And so far, the only presidential candidate I've heard point this out is Howard Dean. He brought it up when talking about the tax cut. "The instant they said they wouldn't accept something above 350 billion, the issue was over." He seems genuinely mystified that the Democrats see this as a victory. The Democrats are habitually allowing themselves to be manipulated into situations where they only choose among the choices allotted to them by the Republicans. This is why it's important to find a candidate that can point out false choices, that can object to the premise of a scenario presented to him, and can actually take steps to change public support of an issue by how he acts - in short, someone who actually is a leader. They're in pretty short supply on the Democrat side.