Hanging out in the Community Spotlight, there’s a well-written piece, "The Big Picture . . ." by Kossack “xaxnar.” It’s worth a read, even if the topic sounds familiar or you’ve seen it on Kos before.
I would like to amplify “xaxnar’s” diary. In the piece, the diarist asks why the cattle prod mechanism, known as the sequester, didn’t work. If it “was intended to be so painful for both political parties that they'd hammer out some kind of agreement to avoid it, what went wrong?”
First of all, it wasn’t and isn’t painful for them. There are no consequences for them. But set that aside for now.
What else went wrong?
Start with a scarcity of thought. The absence of ideas. It makes people timid.
We have Social Dominance Theory as a guide to understanding what conservatives believe and how it dictates their behavior. It’s a more advanced version of something most Americans observe in high school: people suck, especially mean people and bullies. Remember the stories of the young Mitt Romney?
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is a behavior. It’s not the same thing as conservativism but individuals who practice SDO gravitate to the conservative movement and to the Republican party. They find a niche for themselves there, a place where their behavior is encouraged and praised.
What’s a liberal supposed to do with this knowledge? SDO exists in societies as much as it’s allowed to exist. SDOs in the conservative movement expect liberals to submit. To them, it’s self-evident that their:
• authoritarian,
• plutocratic,
• exclusive,
• predominantly white male system of
• entrenched power and wealth
should prevail over the:
• liberal,
• egalitarian,
• democratic,
• inclusive system of
• diversity,
• social mobility, and
• opportunity for all.
Look at those two bulleted lists and add conservative and liberal traits to each. Decide for yourself whether the Social Dominance Orientation of conservatives is something that you want to allow. Remember, it exists only to the extent that it is allowed.
We need an authoritarian on the left and President Obama ain't it.
SDOs are always a minority. In the corporate business world, the population submits to SDOs, more or less voluntarily. Go along to get along is the rule. However, there’s no reason for liberals to submit to conservative SDOs in the federal government. If submission isn't voluntary, SDOs will always attempt to enforce it, anyway. When public policy is involved, go along to get along is a dangerous mistake.
We've seen plain examples of SDO behavior in the House of Representatives since the Republicans gained a majority in it. The SDOs in the Republican party have been running rampant. When the Republicans weren’t able to enact the public policies they wanted, they turned to coercion. Using the threat of a debt default to obtain a consent agreement from the Democrats to permit Republican policy is emblematic of SDO behavior. For Democrats, any negotiation with Republican elected officials who use extortion, is a serious blunder. There is no reason for the values and principles Democrats profess (see the list above) to ever take a subordinate role to anything else.
It may be hard for Americans to picture any alternative to the way things have been done in Washington DC for the last couple of years. And with 32 years of relentless insistence on submission, the neutered population cowers. What should our representatives do differently?
Is there an example for Americans to follow? Yes. In France, conservatives have also begun to assert their SDO tendancies since the Socialists came back to power nine months ago. In their version of the House, the Justice Minister, Christiane Taubira, recently demonstrated how to respond properly to SDOs who try to force their conservative agenda. In this one-minute clip, the Socialist Justice Minister is the woman speaking to a conservative representative, the gray-haired man seen briefly, in the gallery. You don’t have to understand French. Notice the Socialist representatives to the left of the gallery when they stand to applaud her. Ask yourself whether it’s likely the Minister is going to negotiate anything with these conservative opponents.
Minister Taubira kept that up for 10 days over a marriage equality bill the Socialists promised to pass. She was relentless. She didn't allow one word from those conservatives without chewing them up and spitting them out if it was warranted. At first, the public was taken aback.
Public opinion in France was swayed as the debate was televised and analyzed non-stop for two weeks. Minister Taubira didn't water down the bill to remove the protection of parental rights, including the right to adopt. She didn't negotiate with conservatives to accomodate their objections. She didn't allow the proceedings to falter when conservatives introduced hundreds of frivolous amendments. When conservatives demanded an apology from Minister Taubira before the proceedings could continue, she rose and gave them a scorching tongue-lashing. She stood on the founding principles of the Republic which are the same founding principles in the US. Democracy, liberty, equality for all. You don't compromise with people who don't respect those ideals. The right even called for demonstrations in the street. I think the French are now feeling an enhanced sense of self-respect. They know what they stand for. They had an election last year too. This is democracy. For some things, there is no compromise. The bill was passed 329-229.
That's my standard for dealing effectively with conservative SDOs. But our elected officials in DC are floundering helplessly while they get paid $174,000 a year + benefits. The adminstration is measured by the same standard. Can you imagine Attorney General Holder in 10 days of fiery debate with Congress? I cannot.
It all comes down to what you allow.
3:20 PM PT: Thank you for the Spotlight. I had to look twice to see if my eyes were playing a trick on me.