The "mainstream" and how to be in and out of it
I can think of no term so completely up for rhetorical grabs than "the mainstream." As in, "Bush is out of the mainstream," "liberals don't represent mainstream America," "Alito falls within the mainstream of American views." The last claim was made yesterday by James Pinkerton of Newsday. In his concluding paragraphs, Pinkerton faults today's Democrats for falling out of line with white, Protestant, middle class values by embracing "left-litigation" tactics of "promoting" homosexuality, abortion, religion-free municipal buildings et al. By legally overturning the status quo of several generations ago (the era of Dems like FDR and Truman), they have put themselves...dum dum DUM...outside the mainstream.
For the moment, let's forget the obvious message lying beneath the surface here--that only white, Protestant, middle class virtues are valuable and that homosexuality and abortion are beyond the pale. (Pinkerton says they used to be the jurisdiction of "vice squads.") Obviously, Pinkerton thinks it would have done Democrats (and probably America as a whole) a lot of good if the rights of gays and women had never been recognized. We can also excuse the ridiculousness of talking about overturning the status quo from sixty years ago. If this had not changed, I would think we were talking about ancient Sparta or something.
My main point (yes, here it is!) is a question: Do you care if your politicians are "within the mainstream"? Can the mainstream even be said to exist, in an ideological sense? (Make that two questions.) Obviously, certain radical views will answer "no, yes," but think about the candidate you actually voted for in 2004. I mention this because both sides invest a lot of time and effort into portraying the other side as outside the mainstream (OTM). Democrats gloating over Bush's record low approval ratings this year certainly did. Republicans battling gay marriage in Massachusetts lambast their opponents' "OTM views." But let's be honest: does this actually mean anything? Even if Bush's approval rating were 68%, as Reagan's was at its peak in 1986, many of us wouldn't care; Bush's/Reagan's political actions are OTM, even if many Americans don't realize it.
Alternatively, if we realize that OTM is an empty term, do we nonetheless want our candidates to be within the mainstream of opinion polls so that they can eke out, however slowly and partially, their agenda? And isn't that agenda, or mine at least, far OTM itself? This is an unashamedly practical post about one's views in the American two-party system and a chance to be honest about what we want accomplished in the system as it stands, so think it over: what is the importance of the rather empty term "outside the mainstream," how much do you really care about opinion polls, and (somewhat tangential) what is the best strategy for implementing an agenda many, even some less conservative than Pinkerton, might find extreme?
For the moment, let's forget the obvious message lying beneath the surface here--that only white, Protestant, middle class virtues are valuable and that homosexuality and abortion are beyond the pale. (Pinkerton says they used to be the jurisdiction of "vice squads.") Obviously, Pinkerton thinks it would have done Democrats (and probably America as a whole) a lot of good if the rights of gays and women had never been recognized. We can also excuse the ridiculousness of talking about overturning the status quo from sixty years ago. If this had not changed, I would think we were talking about ancient Sparta or something.
My main point (yes, here it is!) is a question: Do you care if your politicians are "within the mainstream"? Can the mainstream even be said to exist, in an ideological sense? (Make that two questions.) Obviously, certain radical views will answer "no, yes," but think about the candidate you actually voted for in 2004. I mention this because both sides invest a lot of time and effort into portraying the other side as outside the mainstream (OTM). Democrats gloating over Bush's record low approval ratings this year certainly did. Republicans battling gay marriage in Massachusetts lambast their opponents' "OTM views." But let's be honest: does this actually mean anything? Even if Bush's approval rating were 68%, as Reagan's was at its peak in 1986, many of us wouldn't care; Bush's/Reagan's political actions are OTM, even if many Americans don't realize it.
Alternatively, if we realize that OTM is an empty term, do we nonetheless want our candidates to be within the mainstream of opinion polls so that they can eke out, however slowly and partially, their agenda? And isn't that agenda, or mine at least, far OTM itself? This is an unashamedly practical post about one's views in the American two-party system and a chance to be honest about what we want accomplished in the system as it stands, so think it over: what is the importance of the rather empty term "outside the mainstream," how much do you really care about opinion polls, and (somewhat tangential) what is the best strategy for implementing an agenda many, even some less conservative than Pinkerton, might find extreme?
posted by to scranton at 4:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home