Le Dernier Cri

After the 2004 presidential election, Adam Werbach, then-president of the Sierra Club, wrote a number of theses critiquing the performance of the Democratic Party, which he posted, in the style of Martin Luther, on the door of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C. He did this because he felt the party was being led by ”people who have failed to articulate a moral-intellectual vision for America and the world,” and as a result, Democrats had become the minority party for “the foreseeable future.” Among other things, Werbach’s theses stated that “Democrats are now history’s spectators, Republicans its actors”; that “Democratic candidates will continue to lose as long as they treat Americans as rational actors who vote their ’self-interest’ after weighing competing offers for health care, jobs, and security”; and that Democrats’ “obsession with denouncing the radical conservative project as a “lie” has become a useful substitute for vision.” In order to reverse the trend toward irrelevancy, Werbach said, Democrats needed to shed their party of anyone who “resist[s] the process to create a new vision” or who insists that the path to redemption needs only “more money and effort” rather than a new-found dedication to political realignment and a coherent set of values. ”In despair and defeat lie the seeds of triumph and victory,” he stated. “In that loss lies the opportunity to define a new progressive politics in the new century.” (For a complete list of Adam Werbach’s November 3rd Theses, see http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1112-34.htm).

But just two years later Republicans lost control of both the House and the Senate, and last year they lost the White House. The new minority for the foreseeable future is now the Republican Party. What happened?

Personally, I’m not so sure it was because the Democrats “got religion” so much as it was that the Republicans failed to meet the expectations of the American people. Werbach spoke of a need for “fulfillment” in his theses; Americans want “a deeper sense of personal meaning, a national mission, and passion in times of fear.” The Republican Party has spent decades building itself as the party of traditional values, but somewhere along the way those values became little more than campaign tactics that lost their urgency once the election was over.

I’ve been watching the deterioration—or is it self-destruction?—of the Republican Party since Obama assumed the presidency. There appears to be no consistency in the Republican position anymore, except to stand in opposition to all things Obama regardless of who it helps or hurts. For example, one of Republicans’ main arguments against health care reform is that it will undermine Medicare—a stance, notes Paul Krugman (“The Politics of Spite”; NYT 10/4/09), “utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.” But, Krugman goes on to say, because Obama’s plan to reform health care relies on funding taken from Medicare savings, the GOP “has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.” In effect, Republicans’ obsession with denouncing the liberal agenda as a “lie” has become their useful substitute for vision.

But this doesn’t give Democrats license to rest easy. If anything, the elections of 2006 demonstrated how quickly the pendulum can swing back the other way. Besides, “[e]lections aren’t necessarily won by the candidate with the most rational argument,” says Krugman (“Paranoia Strikes Deep”; NYT 11/9/09). “They’re often determined, instead, by events and economic conditions.” If the economy is slow to recover and jobs remain scarce, voters might start looking to Republicans out of frustration. The lesson to be learned by Democrats and Republicans alike is that your success is sometimes nothing more than your opponent’s failure. An election won is no cause to bask in the glory of new-found political capital—especially since such capital is so quickly spent—but time to roll up the sleeves and get to work defining a new politics for a new century. Loss of position and power is only ever an election away.

I’m feeling dryer-guilt.

I’m somewhat of an environmentalist. I say somewhat because my activist days of rallying and lobbying are, at least for now, pretty well over. Nowadays, I assert my environmentalism mainly through lifestyle: I drive a small fuel-efficient car and use public transportation for my commute; I recycle; I buy natural non-toxic cleaning products; I turn lights off when I’m not in the room; I keep my thermostat lower in the winter and higher in the summer; I run my dishwasher only when it’s full. Maybe it’s not much; I try to make conscious decisions to lessen my impact on the planet, but I know there is always more I could do. So I read with great interest recently about a campaign headed by a group called Project Laundry List to promote clothelines and ditch the dryer.

According to Alexander Lee, executive director of PLL, “[t]here is no such sense as an Energy Star dryer; these machines are inherently inefficient, using natural gas or electricity to heat air.” The Dept. of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy site says basically the same thing: the amount of energy used by a clothes dryers does not vary much between models, and therefore dryers do not display EnergyGuide labels, nor are they listed in the Energy Star database (*gasp*). Lee also notes that the dryer is the second most energy-consumptive appliance in the house. I am guessing that the number one energy hog is the refrigerator, because it’s always running. I can’t really shut off my refrigerator though—even if it is usually almost empty—but I had never thought about treating the dryer as optional. 

So now I’m thinking about it, and there are some pretty strong arguments for eliminating the dryer. On any given week, I do 3 or 4 loads of laundry, and for each load my dryer runs up to an hour, depending on the size of the load and the types of clothes I am drying (and whether I remembered to clean the lint trap before I started the cycle). Since I live in a small condo, my electric bill isn’t large to begin with so I don’t know if I would see a significant financial savings—at least from month to month—if I didn’t run the dryer, but being the environmentally-conscious hippie that I am, it’s the energy savings that intrigues me. I’m all about benefitting the environment.

Of course, there are obvious benefits to the clothes themselves. Air-dried clothes last longer (all the material that collects from drying will still be on the clothes, not stuck in the lint trap); they don’t shrink; they don’t have static cling (no more Bounce sheets!). I still have yet to test the theory that clothes dried in the sun smell better, but isn’t it true that detergents and fabric softeners are always trying to mimic that “fresh air-dried scent”? And sunlight naturally whitens and brightens clothes, so there is no need for toxic chlorine bleaches (although, obviously, I avoid those anyway).

And if that isn’t enough, there are even benefits from drying clothes indoors. I was disappointed—but not necessarily surprised—to read that many communities, particularly those managed by HOAs, have clothesline restrictions (believe it or not, there are some people who think that preventing “unsightly” clotheslines from cluttering the neighborhood is more important than conserving energy and reducing climate change). Others, like me, are space-challenged and have nowhere to put an outdoor clothesline. Drying clothes indoors may not give them that fresh air scent, but it does increase humidity levels in the house (something I think might also benefit my house plants). For someone like me who lives in a dry climate and is constantly battling the effects of dry air, especially in the winter, anything that generates humidity (and energy-free) is a welcome addition.

Hence the dryer-guilt. Do I have any good reasons left not to ditch my dryer?—or at least demote it? I’m going shopping for a drying rack…