About a month ago, my friend Sarah Goldstein wrote a critique of my first column, in which I argued that Democrats need to be more rhetorically aggressive. She insisted that my admiration for Republicans' "balls of steel" was "John Wayne-cum-Saturday Night Live humor that tries to pass itself off as a political agenda." It's long past time that I replied to her in print.
I disagree with Goldstein's assertion that Democrats should shy away from antagonistic rhetoric that might be considered masculine in its thrust. As I mentioned in a previous column, I believe that if Sen. John Kerry had been more aggressive against the Swift Boat Veteran sfor Truth and other political assailants, he might be president right now.
I think that Democrats need to adopt - at least in part - the sort of tone that Goldstein blows off as "macho." Otherwise, Dems can get used to political and electoral defeat.
The Democrats' present crisis is more about style than substance because in politics, style is substance too. As such, I have never been advocating a "political agenda," as Goldstein asserts, but rather a particular rhetorical tactic. And if the forceful attitude that I promote reflects what Goldstein refers to as the "flawed politics of masculinity," so be it.
My priority is winning control back from the conservative nuts who have taken over our country and my arguments all stem from that sentiment. The issue is effectiveness, not ideology.
In her guest column, Goldstein wrote: "Rather than asking the Democrats to grow bigger balls in order to overcome the 'rhetoric gap,' let's start being aggressively concerned with the fallacy of the 'ownership society'... and let's couple this concern with the moral justifications that the Republicans are so adept at utilizing for their party's advantage."
Like Goldstein, I am "aggressively concerned" about policy problems like Bush's "ownership society." But "concern" doesn't constitute an alternative and is not a substitute for political victory. Right now, Democrats are struggling in their efforts to confront bad policies because they pull punches and drown in politically correct, oversensitive nuance.
As such, I don't think we should look at policies and the rhetorical politics behind them as being opposed. On the contrary, strong language enables better policy offense and defense.
Goldstein wants Democrats to use "moral justifications" for their policies, and she has a point. Conservatives succeed in part because they exploit - as Goldstein says - the "rhetoric of integrity and conviction." But that image of conviction is derived from projections of strength.
Sen. John Kerry often dropped morality bombs like, "It is time for those who talk about family values to start valuing families." But his morally charged language didn't stick because without the sort of tough bravado that his rival employed, it just sounded like pandering.
Goldstein is also correct when she argues that I am, in a way, promoting "what conservatives excel at: spin." Nobody likes "spin" and in a perfect world we wouldn't have it. But let's be serious here. Dismissing "spin" reveals a painful naiveté towards the modern political process. Politics is posturing and we won't win until we accept that sad reality.
It should also be noted that machismo doesn't just belong to men anymore. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has been gallivanting around the globe in a black dominatrix outfit that makes her look like a character from The Matrix. She's determined to exude power at every meeting and by all accounts has been successful. Regardless of what one thinks of her policies, Secretary Rice dramatically disproves the notion that hard-hitting politics need be a man's world.
To be fair, I have occasionally conflated images of strength with bluntly male symbolism. And I know that it might irk some folks, but it's time for Democrats to stop panicking about their every word, stop hedging everything they say and start being more brash. If Democrats follow that advice, they might just end up sounding like real human beings and not a bunch of whiney, sappy, ideologically incoherent, annoyingly cerebral and - above all - spineless jackasses.
There's a real consequence to Democrats losing this war of words: When they are unable to powerfully argue their positions on the left, they begin moving to the right. Hillary Clinton recently started backpedaling on the abortion issue. That should scare the hell out of people.
Goldstein concludes by lamenting that "the kind of [political] culture Silberman describes does not hold a place for me." Personally, I believe that attempting in vain to hold oneself above the combative, occasionally masculine political fray is a truer act of disempowerment. Riding an overly-intellectual high horse is the surefire way to render oneself - and one's party - irrelevant.
Joel Silberman '05 believes that the National Organization for Women will have a pretty crappy four years if Rick Santorum is elected president.
