via Clinton triangulation you get Sarah Palin...

The Democratic Paradox p6-7 Chantal Mouffe

"From the political standpoint what guides me is the conviction that the unchallenged hegemony of neo-liberalism represents a threat for democratic institutions. neo-liberal dogmas about the inviolable rights of property, and the all-encompassing virtues of the market and the dangers of interfering with its logics constitute nowadays the 'common sense' in liberal-democratic societies and they are having a profound impact on the left, as many left parties are moving to the right and euphemistically redefining themselves as 'centre-left'. In a very similar way, Blair's 'third way' and Schroder's 'neue Mitte', both inspired by Clinton's strategy of 'triangulation', accept the terrain established by their neo-liberal predecessors. Unable--or unwilling--to visualize an alternative to the present hegemonic configuration, they advocate a form of politics which pretends to be located 'beyond left and right', categories which are presented as outdated. Their objective is the creation of a 'consensus at the centre', declared to be the only type of politics adapted to the new information society, all those who oppose their 'modernizing' project being dismissed as 'forces of conservatism'. However... when we scratch behind their rhetoric, we quickly realize that in fact they have simply given up the traditional struggle of the left for equality. Under the pretence of rethinking and updating democratic demands, their calls for 'modernization', 'flexibility' and 'responsibility' disguise their refusal to consider the demands of the popular sectors which are excluded from their political and societal priorities. Worse even, they are rejected as 'anti-democratic, 'retrograde' and as remnants of a thoroughly discredited 'old left' project. In this increasingly 'one-dimensional' world, in which any possibility of transformation of the relations of power has been erased, it is not surprising that right-wing populist parties are making significant inroads in several countries. In many cases they are the only ones denouncing the 'consensus at the centre' and trying to occupy the terrain of contestation deserted by the left. Particularly worrying is the fact that many sectors of the working classes feel that their interests are better defended by those parties than by social democrats. Having lost faith in the traditional democratic process, they are an easy target for the demagogues of the right."

for the test... Chantal Mouffe

First I'll let MaclooMedia give you the run down on Chantal Mouffe:

The Democratic Paradox

Mouffe, Chantal. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso, 2000. I finished reading this on Wednesday, and it was a complete pleasure. Mouffe is strong on reasoning and low on jargon. She's committed to reviving a radical politics, but she's not given to raving and gnashing her teeth. On the contrary! She focuses closely on the way plurality works in the world -- if you say you want a democracy, you have to be ready to deal with the realities of diversity (or classically, a plurality). A "people" does not become a unified, undifferentiated mass even when they agree on something. In every agreement (or consensus), there must be disagreement (or exclusion). She takes Habermas to task (as have others, of course) for imagining an "ideal speech situation" -- well, not for imagining it, but for arguing as if it could be made real.


Mouffe also writes sensibly about the tension (or conflict) between equality and liberty (which I tend to characterize as the conflict between rights and responsibilities). She situates the conflict in the framework of the paradox that is the subject of this book, placing the equality argument with the radical left, and the liberty argument with the "liberals" -- who in the U.S. we would call the libertarians today, I think.


Mouffe also argues the flaws in the "third way," especially as it has played out in contemporary British politics.