FIGHTING DEMS?

By Linda K. Armacost

An analysis and possible explanation for the Democratic Leadership's reluctance to boldly challenge the status quo of the Republican majority.

Linda K. Armacost, Ed.D.

The Bush administration and Congressional Republicans continue to be bombarded with bad news; Iraq descending into civil war, torture, multiple indictments, lobbying scandals, the Katrina debacle, failed Social Security and Medicare plans, and abysmal poll numbers. The bad news for Republicans seems like good news for Democratic candidates this November. The ruling party is on the ropes and we're waiting for our leaders in D.C. to deliver the knockout punch. But, D.C. Democrats appear to be squandering these golden opportunities by fighting each other, leaving grassroots Democrats wondering what the hell is going on. I offer one explanation for this puzzling dilemma---submissive aggressive syndrome.

Submissive aggressive syndrome emerges when one group has continued domination over another. The subordinate group often vents their anger and frustration through a process known as horizontal violence. Author and psychiatrist Franz Fanon first articulated this phenomenon in his 1963 book, The Wretched of the Earth, a chronicle of his experiences during the French occupation of Algeria. Fanon observed natives fighting and maiming each other, instead of fighting the occupiers. Paulo Freire, esteemed adult educator, explains horizontal violence arises when one group has nearly complete domination over another (Republicans control Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court). Freire has pointed out that the major characteristics of oppressed behavior stem from the ability of the dominant group to identify their norms and values as the "right" ones in society and from their power to enforce them. In most cases of oppression, the dominant group thinks differently from the subordinate group, and the characteristics of the subordinate group become distorted and devalued: For example, opposing the Iraq war means you don't support the troops, supporting the Constitutional separation of church and state means you hate religion, supporting women's reproductive rights means you condone murder, opposing warrantless spying on citizens means you support the terrorists.

This attribution of values, over time, contributes to the maintenance of the status quo. The tendency is for the subordinate group, as well as the dominant group, to internalize these norms and to believe that to be like the dominant group will lead to power and control. Members of the subordinate group begin to assimilate and try to become more like the dominant group. Persons who successfully assimilate are known as marginal because they do not belong to either group, rather, they are on the fringes of their own group and unable to be full members of the dominant group. Unfortunately, marginalized persons typically rise to leadership positions. Leaders in powerless groups have been noted to have negative attributes. They are controlling, coercive, and rigid. These characteristics stem from low self-esteem and a desire to be like the dominators. Freire has noted that; "it is the rare peasant who, if promoted to landowner does not become the tyrant of the peasant."

Members of the subordinate group who are brave enough to challenge the status quo are seen as heros to the people, but are branded as extremists and ostracized by the leadership. This is what happened to Russ Feingold. Feingold's poll numbers skyrocketed after his censure resolution was revealed---D.C. Democrats couldn't run away fast enough. According to Freire, this division, ". . . is another fundamental dimension of the theory of oppressive action . . . the oppressor . . . subordinates and dominates . . . it must divide [the subordinate] and keep it divided in order to remain in power."

Another strategy of oppression is manipulation; "By means of manipulation, the dominant elites try to conform the masses to their objectives. And, the greater the political immaturity of these people (rural or urban) the more easily the latter can be manipulated by those who do not wish to lose their power." Manipulation (such as fear of terrorists and homosexual marriage) by the dominant elite, coupled with the political immaturity of grassroots Conservatives helps to explain why they repeatedly support efforts (for example, tax cuts for the rich, evisceration of environmental laws, gutting education budgets, windfall profits for oil and pharmaceutical companies) that are against their own self-interests.

What can frustrated Democrats do? How can we convince the Democratic leadership that the values we espouse have merit? Freire suggests two paths; (1) unveiling of the world of the oppressor, and (2) expulsion of the myths created and developed by the old order. Freedom requires the rejection of the negative images of one's own beliefs and replacing them with pride. The dominator is not willing to grant authority, therefore, it must be acquired. Acquisition is achieved through dialogue, unity, and organization.

Dialogue: When the leaders have authentic dialogue with the grassroots and truly understand their values (equality, justice, personal responsibility, fairness for all people), they realize these beliefs reflect the opinions of a majority of the people. Grassroots activists must initiate this dialogue with party leaders. The leadership's willingness to listen and then articulate the grassroots' values is critical to a Democratic reinsurgence. Grassroots must communicate their views logically, cohesively, and intelligently. Brazilian revolutionary, Francisco Weffert explains why this is true, "All politics of the Left are based on the masses and depend on the consciousness of the latter. If that consciousness is confused, the Left will lose its roots and certain downfall will be imminent . . . the Left may be deluded into thinking it can achieve the revolution by means of a quick return to power."

Unity: Democrats take pride in being the "big tent" party, it is the source of our strength and virtue. It can also be the basis for our demise. We are the party of multiple issues: The environment, Iraq, education, reproductive rights, healthcare, social security, medicare, jobs, fair taxation, gender and racial equality, etc. It is difficult to be both unified and diversified, but it is possible. President Clinton was successful because he articulated a unifying theme--- the economy. The economy as an overarching theme allowed Democrats to respond to a number of issues, employment opportunities for all citizens, healthcare costs, reducing the budget deficit, and progressive taxation. A recent Zogby poll revealed a majority of Americans are increasingly inclined to vote for candidates who are against our continued presence in Iraq. The Iraq war could be the overarching theme for Democrats in 2006. Issues flowing from our exit from Iraq might include; ending the excessive costs of the war, focus on the administration's misleading justifications for the invasion, illegally spying on citizens while turning over port security to foreign companies, outrageous cronyism in no-bid contracts, Medicare laws that benefit big pharmaceutical companies, energy policies that favor oil companies, soaring budget deficits that steal funds from education and place the well-being of citizens at risk.

Organization: For Freire, "Organization is not only directly linked to unity, but is a natural development of that unity. Accordingly, the leaders' pursuit of unity is necessarily also an attempt to organize the people . . . it is therefore essential to have an increasingly critical knowledge of the current historical context, the view of the world held by the people, [and] the principal contradiction of society." In this context, organization means more than the various iterations of the Democratic party. Authentic organization demands, "consistency between words and actions; boldness . . . radicalization . . . courage to love . . . and faith in the people." Leaders must understand the values of the people. They must speak with and for the people, otherwise, they are not organizing, they are imposing their decisions on the people and manipulating them. This does not mean that leaders have no authority; "There is no freedom without authority, but there is also no authority without freedom . . . Authentic authority is not affirmed as such by a mere transfer of power, but through delegation . . . if authority is merely transferred from one group to another, or is imposed upon the majority, it degenerates into authoritarianism."

This discussion raises a number of critical questions for Democrats: Can Democrats overcome submissive aggressive syndrome? Will Democrats be able to accept that the dominant group is manipulating and dividing us? Will we work to elect authentic candidates who are proud of our Democratic principles, and make an effort to eliminate marginalized candidates? Can we promote dialogue, unity, and organization? It's up to us.