Tactics vs. Morality

Mark writes:

Ted, I just can’t buy into the arguments of your two most recent columns. First you wrote that FDR and

Resident Bush are pretty much the same, except that FDR was elected. Then you wrote that liberal Democrats who vote their values instead of their economics are the same as right-wingers who do the same.

Given that FDR was not a saint, and was not close to one, it’s clear to me that the programs FDR fought to put in place are ones that have made the United States a better place to live in. The programs that GWB fights for are almost universally at odds with basic human decency. Both presidents sought to increase executive power, it’s impossible to disagree with that. But I think it’s quite unfair to put FDR, who did some things that were wrong and left the nation a better place, in the same category with the worst executive in the history of the country.

As for this thing with the values voters, I think you’re completely wrong. The liberal values voters you describe are very fortunate people who vote to make society more fair. The right-wingers you describe are poor and working-class people who vote to screw themselves in order to dehumanize others and, in the case of national security, vote for inept leadership over potentially competent leadership. Your well-off liberals sound fair-minded; your right-wingers are sado-masochists.

These two columns are challenging and interesting but they do not draw all the necessary distinctions.

Basically, I agree with Mark. Roosevelt’s programs saved capitalism from itself, as the historians say, by providing a safety net to those for whom free markets didn’t reward hard work. Social Security reduced the number of senior citizens digging through the trash for a meal, the WPA built bridges we still drive across today and the general idea of the New Deal–that government owes its citizens the basic necessities of life–is one with which I agree wholeheartedly. You only have to read my writing over the past four years to learn how I feel about the neofascistic looters illegally occupying the White House.

But my FDR-GWB column wasn’t about any of that. It was about tactics and how both men used very similar styles to achieve their ends. Obviously Democrats believe that FDR’s ends justified his means. But Democrats shouldn’t doubt that Republican partisans believe the same thing about Bush. The question I hoped to provoke in that column is: when do unfair tactics impugn desired ends? There’s a secondary one as well: why don’t Democrats use such tactics more often? Not since LBJ has a Democrat been willing to bend the rules to get what he wanted. Every Republican in memory, on the other hand, has.

I also agree with Mark’s observations about the nature of self-defeating Democratic and Republican voters. Again, however, Mark is focusing on the end results–something I’ve written about extensively–whereas I’m merely attempting to explain the mindset. Voters of all political stripes vote against their economic interests. The task of progressives is to convince the electorate not to vote selfishly for themselves and their tax bracket (because it won’t work, for one thing) but rather to support politicies and candidates because they’re just better and more just.