The Party Of Ideas
Count me as among those who believe that Democrats must offer not only opposition to the Bush program, but also counter the perception that they lack new ideas. With that in mind, the House New Democrat Caucus' quest for new ideas is welcome. But one new idea liberals should consider adopting is to stop conceding that Republicans have tons of nifty new ideas. Artur "When Republicans were out of power, they sat around thinking of ideas" Davis, I'm looking at you.
The Republicans have no ideas. That should be one of the main takeaway points from the Social Security debate. For years, liberals have been tormented with the notion that the right is full of ideas, with their "bold" thinking on Social Security having pride of place in that theory. But twenty something years after the "Leninist plan," three years after the Bush Commission Report, and five months after the President declared privatization to be his top legislative priority what we're seeing is that they don't have any real ideas on this front -- just some happy rhetoric and vague notions. The White House can't -- or won't -- answers months-old questions about the details of its plan. The congressional Republicans are in total disarray, lining up behind notions whose numbers obviously don't add up. It's become evident that nobody on their side of the aisle ever thought to do what Robert Schiller did and actually run the math on the risks involved in Bush's accounts. When any element of these proposals are scrutinized, you wind up looking at smoke, mirrors, unanswered questions, hidden problems, etc. It seems to have barely been thought about at all as an actual policy issue.
And this is the big idea they want to address!
On at least one issue -- health care -- the progressive policy community is overflowing with ideas. On the budget, the moderate Republican Ripon Institute had to turn to the DLC's Paul Weinstein (PDF) to find someone with ideas, Liberals and Democrats are also united in believing that these things should be priorities. Republicans have, on those fronts, nothing to offer.
Democrats could use new ideas on some old subjects -- I think their thinking on a few issues is a bit stale or fuzzy -- and more courage in tackling new issues, like "how to combine work and family and not go crazy". But at least they have some ideas, and some notion of how to turn ideas into real workable policies. The Republicans have lobbyists, whips, astroturf organizers, and sundry propagandists. But ideas? No way.
Comments (34)
There is no question that the Republicans are "the party of ideas."
Unfortunately for everyone, those ideas are all bad.
June 13, 2005 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, I couldn't agree more. Everytime I hear about Republicans being the party of ideas all I see are plans to dismantle present programs. Nothing new. Cut taxes, go to war, cut programs for the poor and privatize everything. It never changes.
What Dems need to do is sort through the ideas presented by their side that are out there, and do what Dems, liberals, progressives do best- argue their merits. Then, coalesce behind something and promote. Promote their own legislative agenda even if it has no chance, at least people will hear your plans. And preferrably long before elections. Stop being so passive and defensive and voice outside what is already being argued within your own party.
June 13, 2005 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politicians usually have only one idea: to gain more power and direct more loot towards their constituency. Therefore, the Republicans at the moment have an excellent idea and the Democrats have no idea.
June 13, 2005 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans have just one big idea, not that it's particularly novel, and that is to take money and wealth-creating opportunities from the less well off and give them to the rich. I won't deny that they have on occasion come up with fairly ingenious variations on this idea, but it basically comes down to the same thing.
(And the rest of their ideas were mostly borrowed from the less touchy-feely portions of the Old Testament.)
The one "big idea" the Democrats need is to clearly articulate how the Republican's idea is being realized and then do their damndest to stand firm against it.
June 13, 2005 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been saying this for months now. The GOP has no ideas, but the belief that they do comes from two sources: 1) their long trek through powerlessness until 1994 was accompanied by a building up of think tanks, etc. and 2) the GOP certainly has policy areas they are focused on.
I want to debunk the whole idea. People equate (as MY pointed out) having areas of policy you want to deal with and ideas on what to do to achieve a desired end. This is the difference between rhetoric and governing. What the GOP actually has is great rhetoric built from the think tanks up. Conservative think tanks are bereft of legislative ideas, but have plenty of election winning ideas. They talk about taxes, social issues, etc in new ways, but they have no actual lsgislative strategy. MY correctly notes Social Security as proof. They have all sorts of rhetoric (and an underlying philosophy that providing services through the government and taxes is bad, they only like cheap government activism - gay marraige ban, partial birth ban, stem cell ban. Bans are cheap, help to the poor/sick/elderly is not). The other idea that the GOP has a lot of ideas is that they are pushing corporate-written legislation that has been too far out until recently to be passed (example - every legislative initiative other than social issues acted on in the 109th Congress). Business knows what it wants and you can always get Rep. CrazyHack (R-Bumfuck) to sign on. This does not mean Rep. CrazyHack has any "new ideas" just that he whored himself out to pass corporate welfare.
June 13, 2005 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think universal health care is a big enough idea for the next 20 years, at least. Plus, we've arrived at a rare juncture when what's good for General Motors really IS good for the whole country.
But if you're looking for a bigger, more abstract idea, I think it should be expanding, supporting and strengthening the Middle Class. I for one would love nothing more than to be "solidly" Middle Class! And I think most Americans share my anxieties over virtually every aspect of their social, economic and medical futures.
June 13, 2005 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
On at least one issue -- health care -- the progressive policy community is overflowing with ideas.
That's nice, but remember that there is no Social Security health care crisis. So the idea that we need to do anything about health care is mistaken.
June 13, 2005 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is generally accurate and useful. The goal for Democrats is not to come up with a giant new set of ideas on how to change the world, but rather to appeal to a (slightly) broader set of voters with a concept that appeals to them.
In this regard, I think they have at least two structural weaknesses:
1) Feel of (or hostility to) markets.
2) A guilt-based approach to foriegn policy.
As long as the left is trying to sell Americans on the idea that we must base our economy on utopian principals that have a poor track record and base our foriegn policy on apologizing for all the wrongs we did, people aren't going to buy it.
June 13, 2005 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, this whole meme is not just wrong but infuriatingly so. It is becoming blindingly obvious that the Repub Party has reached the point of intellectual exhaustion. One by one they have abandoned their big ideas for the sake of political expediency. To wit: R's used to claim they believed in fiscal responsibility; now, we have massive deficits as far as the eye can see, but no serious proposals to balance the budget are forthcoming. (More tax cuts for the wealthy are just peachy though.) R's used to claim that they believed in reducing the size of the federal government and giving more authority to state governments; now, they happily increase federal spending and are perfectly happy to stomp on state prerogatives to impose their preferred policy outcomes. R's used to claim that they believed that "nation-building" military interventions were draining the strenghth of the armed forces; now, they claim that a massive military program of nation-building is absolutely essential to our national security. This is the party of ideas?
June 13, 2005 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your premise Matt that just opposing the repackaged, decade's old bad repulican policy isn't enough. But we need to steer clear of letting ourselves get dragged into a discussion with the republicans so they can co-opt our ideas they like and call those ideas their own. I feel it should be part opposition to the failed GOP ideas of the past and part should be our forward thinking ideas on trade, health care, prescription drugs and greater opportunities and economic rewards for the American families.
June 13, 2005 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Matt. The Republicans had new ideas when Reagan was elected, but haven't had much on the brain since then.
Maybe the Democrats should start doing what the Republicans do when the Republicans talk about FDR . . . claim Reagan for themselves. You know, "Reagan was for fiscal responsibility and as Democrats we're for that. But unfortunately the Republicans have abandoned that ideal and given us deficits as far as the eye can see . . . "
Not that I'm a big fan of Reagan (far from it), but then the Republicans who claim FDR's legacy as their own are not really fans of FDR either . . .
June 13, 2005 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always liked the rejoinder to the demand that Democrats come up with ideas to match Bush's privatization gimmicks: the Democratic idea is called Social Security.
We don't need to come up with spiffy new ideas. We already have them. They're called democracy, justice, the common good. Individual rights, public responsibility.
The weekend: Brought to you by unions.
Universal education: Brought to you by liberals.
Right to privacy: Brought to you by Democrats.
Clean air, clean water: Brought to you by Democrats.
Exactly what do Republicans have to offer? Things like:
Jim Crow: Not Dead Yet!
Freedom of religion, Not freedom from religion!
Taxes and Deficits are for little people. Like you.
June 13, 2005 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
But unfortunately, the Republicans in power do have ideas about Foreign policy, meaning supporting Sharon/racist settler colonies in Jerusalem and Palestine, preventive war, take down Saddam, engage in profitable mutual exchange with oil companies and cover the lot in the guise, not entirely hypocritical, of advancing democracy, particularly when consistent with the other concepts. Look at what Perle etc were writing before 9/11.
When it comes to foreign policy on the Middle East, the problem for the Democrats is not, as is often thought, lack of backbone, but actually a real lack of ideas for an alternative strategy which does not descend into vacuousness and inactivity (we must cooperate more with our allies! we must work with the UN!). The Colin Powell/ Haas Republicans have the same problem: they think that Sharon/rolling preventive war/etc is foolish, but they don't know what they want in terms of an alternative active (not status quo) policy. The Democrats have fewer excuses for being in the same predicament. On foreign policy, they don't know what they want.
June 13, 2005 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK maybe there is no crisis, but there is little doubt that increasing health costs are going to be an increasingly large burden on the budget and that additional taxes are going to have to be raised to pay for it. Yes, Bush's profligacy had made this much worse and yes, the Social Security crisis was largely manufactured, but growing entitlements is an issue that will need to be dealt with. Matthew himself brought this up in a post a few days ago.
June 13, 2005 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of these successes brought to you by Democrats is right. The party should run on how much they have accomplished in areas such as the environment, race and other discrimination, and other areas.
But when they do speak, they have to say the environment is worse than ever, racism is rampant, and the world is coming to an end. I think this is largely to satisfy interest groups and donors.
The reality is that these issues are receding in importance to voters because Democratic policies have gone a long way to solving them. I think the rght answer is for Democrats to admit that progress has been made and to take credit for it.
Posters still shriek at racist republicans, but latino voters, and even increasingly black voters, see that Bush's cabinet certainly isn't whiter than Clinton's was.
June 13, 2005 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew's post contains the implicit, unquestioned (and indeed unquestionable) assumption that people actually *want* assholes running around in Washington deciding what is good for them.
Here's an idea for you: fuck off and leave us alone.
June 13, 2005 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the Republicans have that Democrats lack is coherence, not ideas. The governing ethos of the contemporary Republican Party hinges on two key beliefs: (i) Wealth didn't get where it is by mistake. As a result, those who have earned it deserve to keep at least most of it; and (ii) A specific set of ethical beliefs and cultural norms made America what it is. We must preserve these norms.
These central beliefs give the Republicans a framework within which to evaluate all issues and all proposals. Growth--which benefits all--is most likely when society's most capable people control the bulk of the resources. Institutional strength grows from a well defined moral center. And so on and so on. You can agree with some, all, or none of their conclusion, but the approach is coherent.
Democrats, on the other hand, are a notoriously incoherent lot. Personally, I believe in free trade, free markets, free choice, personal responsibility, and muscular liberalism. I have about as much in common with Naderite Greens as I do with Buchananite Paleoconservatives. And quite frankly, neither of these groups is any more concerned about offending me than I am about offending them. (And bravo to them for refusing to be embarassed by their own beliefs). The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is paralyzed by the thought of offending either me or the Greens--precisely because we both dislike the Paleos (not to mention the social conservatives).
That paralysis makes it seem that there are no ideas in the Democratic Party. Democrats have many, many ideas. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is afraid of embracing any of them because to do so would risk alienating some faction that the Republicans have already alienated.
If the Deomocratic Party wants to shed this reputation of being an idea-free zone, it's going to have to take some risks. Personally, I advocate following the New Democrat line and reaching out to Republicans who have been alienated by their own party--those who believe in social libertarianism, fiscal responsibility, tax simplification, free trade, and effective muscular liberalism. That means essentially telling the Naderites that we welcome their votes but not their influence. Alternatively, let the party go the other way. Let them embrace leftists and alienate the New Democrats. Perhaps we can align with like-minded Republicans to help them wrest their party back from the social conservatives. The former approach would turn the Democrats into a majority party, the latter into a minority party, but either would enhance party coherence--and coherence will always let ideas flow to the fore.
June 13, 2005 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Careful, that sounds suspiciously like the situation with Social Security!
and that additional taxes are going to have to be raised to pay for it
Or benefits cut!
Yes, Bush's profligacy had made this much worse
Not much. The problem is demographic trends, not any short term things Bush has done.
and yes, the Social Security crisis was largely manufactured
No different than the manufactured health care crisis.
but growing entitlements is an issue that will need to be dealt with.
I thought that was Bush's point in trying to reform Social Security. But we can't even get the easy entitlements reformed, much less the difficult ones!
June 13, 2005 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al,
Maybe I did a bad job of trying to walk a fine line. I don't disagree with you until the end. Whatever Bush was trying to do with Social Security, he didn't manage to convince me, or a majority of Americans, that he had good ideas or intentions.
My point was that Democrats can't afford to ignore looming entitlement issues. Matthew earlier noted that taxes would have to be raised for issues such as this, although you are right that benefit cuts are likely to play a role.
Entitlement problems are an issue we share in differing degrees with Europe, Japan and even China, so, yes, the cause is demographic. However, the money Bush is hurling at Iraq, the ridiculous energy bill and other pork isn't making it any better.
June 13, 2005 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, you leave us alone. It doesn't matter what people want. Since its inception, this great country has had elitist assholes running around the capitol city deciding what is good for the rest of us. It will always be so. This is not a partisan issue.
June 13, 2005 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great comments! I want to write a "Letter-to the Editor" in the local paper rebutting about how the Republicans have all the ideas and the Democrats better step up and offer some ideas on SS. It sounds like the editor is just talking Republican Talking Points. Clovis
June 13, 2005 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are you so I'll know to leave you alone? You are very angry. You need some help. MGBWY. Clovis
June 13, 2005 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
except they lie and twist the facts and manipulate the media and control information to the point that the people have no clue as to what their real agenda is.
Tax cuts always sound great. Keeping us "safe from terror" always sounds great. "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forest" always sound great. "Reform" always sounds great.
The problem isn't that the Democrats lack ideas, it's that they are just to scared to embrace them. The best path is to EXPLAIN them.
Explain why tax cuts during massive deficits are a bad thing, especially when they go mainly to the rich. Explain why Bush's environmental and energy policies are nothing more than land-raping, corporate hand-outs. Explain that in GOP terms "reform" means elemination (of Social Security, of progressive taxation, etc, etc).
This insanse notion that because Republicans are in power means that we should move toward their policies is ludicrous. Their policies are WRONG. And while good may not always prevail over evil, when policies are wrong, eventually the people catch on.
In my opinion, it's better to err on the side of right than to accept wrong for short-term gain. It's also best to air one's true feelings up front, rather than hide behind rhetoric and fence-riding.
I have said it before and I will say it again. The main question any person must ask is "does this policy/legislastion/etc hurt me and/or our country, or does it help us?"
If it hurts us, it's probably wrong. If it helps us it's probably right.
Gay marraige doesn't hurt us. Increasing taxes on the rich helps us. Removing any certain religion from being state sanctioned doesn't hurt us. Forcing said religion on the country does hurt us. Free health care for all helps us. The current system hurts us. Staying out of illegal wars helps us. The opposite only hurts us. Social Security helps us. All safety nets help us.
Sure, there are exceptions to this rule, but when it comes down to it, this is what we should be pressing. And this is where the Democrats need to lay the balls on the table.
Enough hedging. Enough wooing the "center." Let's just look at right vs. wrong, and go from there.
[Note: When I say right vs. wrong, I mean that with religion aside. I mean right vs. wrong for society as a whole, and fully believe that religion has NO PLACE in politics.]
June 13, 2005 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clovis, I'm not angry at all. Just trying to separate wheat from the chaff, focus on what's important etc. I just get a little worked up when I sense people sneering at public minded people interested in politics. It's not a crime or a character flaw to want our gov't to implement good, better policies. I grew up in a tiny western argucultural town where people understood and appreciated these civic-minded, dare I say, American, instincts.
June 14, 2005 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have to pick out a few "ideas" and start to run with them. Edwards gets this, I believe. Health care is not an idea. Strengthening Social Security is not an idea. Accountability in government is not an idea. These are boring, tedious wonk-y things that only a Kerry, Gore or Dukakis could love.
Ideas are things like "Health Care as a Right, not a privilege." "Taxes that are fair." "Government that helps people, not big corporations." "An America we can be proud of."
In short, ideas must have a relevant emotional component if they are to work.
Also, one of our ideas must be, "Republicans are only interested in the richest Americans."
We have to stop wonking-out at every opportunity and start showing some emotional empathy with voters.
June 14, 2005 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you attempt to think of a great Republican idea you will accomplish little more than hurting your head. Realistically you have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt to find one. Agreed Nixon did sign the act creating the EPA and the Clean Water and Air Acts - but with a Democratic House etc. you can hardly call this Republican brilliance.
The Democratic party, however, has enacted every major beneficial program of the 20th century. The Marshall Plan, The 1963 Civil Rights Act, the 1964 Voting Rights Act, the GI Bill (probably the single most important legislative act of the century: it set the ground work for the 1950s middles class)
The Republican party has very few ideas - and most of the ones they do have involve little more than maintaining the current status quo as it relates to making the rich richer. What the Republican party has is rhetoric - they speak in slogans and make it appear that they have bright new ideas - its a sham but it works.
The Democratic Party has plenty of ideas. Alas, far too many for far too long have had the guts to actually say anything about those ideas - we need to stop worrying about offending everyone for every possible grievance, real or perceived. We need to speak up - defend our ideas - defend our record (of which we should be very proud) and challenge Republicans to defend the indefensible.
June 14, 2005 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
There IS a health care crisis. There is NO SS crisis, but there IS a SS problem that can be solved rather painlessly.
June 14, 2005 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're confusing ideas with policy wonkery, Matt. When people say the Republicans are the party of the ideas, they don't mean they're the party that crunches numbers on risk-adjusted rates of return or designs a politically feasible universal health care plan. They mean they're the party that proposes public policies that are genuinely groundbreaking for modern industrial nations, such as deregulation, privatization, spreading freedom, etc.
The best response isn't that the Republicans don't have ideas, or even that their ideas are half-baked, but that their ideas are wrong.
June 14, 2005 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt,
I think you are on the right track with this post, but you slightly miss the point. This is a fight about politics versus substance. I think you are wrong when you say that the Republicans don't have ANY ideas. Of course, they do. And saying that they don't just makes us look petty and whiny. There is just no substance to that argument. As political rhetoric, the Rep. portrayal of us as having no NEW ideas is just that... political retorical trick to make us look out of touch and as such has been pretty effective. However, this should be easy to counter. Our response every time some sanctimonious boob accuses the Dems of having no NEW ideas, our response should be, "Who cares about NEW ideas? I'm interested in GOOD ideas, whether new or old, aren't you?" Then rattle off a bunch of the GOOD ideas we do have. This changes the frame of the debate to our advantage because that makes your Rep. opponent defend the merits of his/her ideas (the substance) rather than the relative time of conception (the politics). And as you know, we generally win on the merits. What do you think?
June 14, 2005 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what's wrong with Democrats: they think "how to combine work and family and not go crazy" is a public policy issue.
June 14, 2005 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good thought. I don't suppose it matters that Reagan had no actual interest in fiscal responsibility at all.
June 14, 2005 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
How's this for a theory: if an idea is good, then once it is applied, it produces tangible benefits and becomes part of conventional wisdom. At that point, it ceases to be an "idea" in the political sense. Examples of this are social security, the pure food and drug act, and civil rights laws. No amount of praise for these once controversial ideas will turn you into an "idea person."
I think it's already been pointed out that the GOP has been the party of the same ideas repeated over and over again for decades. At this point, they can hardly claim that their ideas haven't been tried yet, so it is more likely that these are ideas that don't work, such as the assertion contrary to all evidence that we're on the "too much tax" side of the Laffer curve and will increase revenue by cutting taxes.
Off topic, but I found myself reading NYT's resident "idea man" John Tierney today. His brilliant idea is that old people ought to work more.
June 14, 2005 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course not. He ran up a huge deficit. But no one remembers that anymore and the Republicans certainly aren't gonna remind anyone of this . . .
June 14, 2005 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Per Kevin Smith, ideas are more important than beliefs. Chances are, if you believe that, you already vote Democratic. I'm not sure our problem is that we've let the Republicans be called the party of ideas, or that Dems haven't expressed their ideas clearly enough (though I believe we have much more work to do in that area). I'm just not sure that anyone can win elections based on ideas any longer. There is an ever-growing number of people in this country who are much more comfortable with beliefs - however false they may be - than ideas. What do Dems have to offer by way of beliefs? Are we even comfortable talking about them? Bush appears entirely comfortable talking about things like "freedom" and "Culture of Life". Knowing how hypocritical and self-serving those "beliefs" are coming from someone like Bush might make you cringe, but that doesn't matter to the people who voted for the man because they believe that he believes in those things when he says them.
What do Dems have to offer in return? Why did Gore not win decisively in 2000? Why did Kerry not win in '04? They didn't lack for ideas. Their ideas were blatantly smarter and better for the country than anything the Repubs had to offer. They lost because they couldn't convincingly convey a belief in much of anything. By contrast, why did Clinton win 2 terms? The DLC would like to believe it was because he offered better "moderate" ideas. Other Dems think it was because he's basically a genius and assembled a crack squad around him. All true I'm sure, but I think Bill charmed the country for 8yrs because people trusted that he believed in something.
Where is our "true believer" now? For those of you who missed the mentions on this site of Barack Obama's recent commencement address, check it out here. I'm not saying he's the be-all and end-all of the Democratic Party right now, but I am suggesting that if we ever want to regain power, this dude should be giving speech lessons to anyone who want to make a run for it.
June 14, 2005 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink