Bowers

In an update to a recent post defending Dean's comments that the Republican party is basically a "white Christian party," Chris points back to something he wrote in April which I somehow missed.

By contrast, the liberal coalition in this country is rapidly becoming more and more pluralistic. Already, there is no majority ethnic-religious identity group within the coalition, nor one even approaching a majority. This coalition is repeatedly criticized by pundits for not taking national security seriously enough, not taking faith seriously enough, and not knowing what it stands for. You know this list of complaints by heart as well. Though caricatured by the Right Wing Noise Machine, these criticisms are probably at least somewhat accurate. How can they not be, at least when compared to the other coalition, which is waging what amounts to a war of identity against those it finds threatening? Of course they are going to talk more faith, since they have a far more singular view of faith to discuss. Of course they are going to take national security as a higher priority, since they view the world as a clash of identities rather than as pluralistic and interdependent. Of course, they are going to have clearer positions, since they are way, way more homogeneous. The liberal coalition has become so diverse that it is almost already living in a post-identity world, and it is becoming more diverse all the time. No wonder we love Obama so damn much: he is almost the physical embodiment of the new liberal coalition. His political viewpoints are almost a natural extension of having lived within that world.

The clash of civilizations is thus being fought asymmetrically. One side considers itself the "us" in a battle between "us vs. them," while the other side is trying to destroy the notion of both "us" and "them" in order to end the battle. One coalition wins when the clash of civilizations is being fought, since its existence is predicted upon at least the visualization (if not the realization) of identities that fight such a battle, while the other coalition wins when the clash of civilizations ends or is at least sputtering, since its very existence is predicated upon the possibility of a world without "civilization identities." The end of the clash of civilizations will also result in the end of the two coalitions, as what is currently the main difference between the two coalitions will cease to have any meaning. At that point there will be a major realignment.

Actually, the whole post is a good read. While I still wish Dean could find a way to phrase things so that elected Democrats wouldn't have to be asked about his every utterance on the Sunday morning talk shows, I think he was right in pointing out the fact that one side is "monolithic" in their make up (hence the evenifBushkilledababyonliveTV 48% approval crowd) and seemed to hint at the challenge for Democrats in regaining majority status.