"You Can't Win If You Don't Play"
I'm convinced that the answer to the question about what will interest young people in politics is the same as the answer to what will interest older people, and the same as the answer to what the big liberal/Democratic idea is: economic security. To enter the workforce today is to encounter perilous uncertainty: How do I ever buy a house, save for retirement, have enough to get married, have health insurance, not get fired and fall out of the workforce when I'm 50 , etc. Sure, plenty of young people never think about the future -- "we live for just these 20 years" and all that -- but perhaps that's just because it's terrifying.
Economic insecurity is the common bond among young and old, even among middle class and poor. We all have more at risk than ever before, but also more opportunity: the lifetime job is gone, the pension is gone, but at the same time, with the right skills, luck, and some security to back us up, we can make more of our lives than the generation of the 1950s-70s, the era of the great middle class, ever could.
As I write this, I know that I'm simply echoing Jacob Hacker, whose latest article on economic security as a political issue is something that I hope everyone here will read and discuss. (Link does not require subscription.)
Hacker's main argument is that we should once again see "insurance" as a radical idea, one that can "transform the dislocations of modern capitalism into risks that could be managed and redistributed," even " an affirmation of free will over fate."
But there is also a distinctive and challenging political analysis. Hacker starts off by noting, as our TPMCafe colleague Karen Kornbluh has in the past, that it is George W. Bush, in his 2004 convention acceptance speech in particular, who spoke most trenchantly about the expectations and pressures on individuals and families from the changing nature of work, although his solutions -- "the ownership society" -- would immensely exacerbate those risks rather than manage or redistribute them.
Hacker writes:
while the ownership society can't guarantee economic security, it fits perfectly with the idea that "it's up to me"--that Americans are on their own in the new world of work and family. And, the more Americans believe that, the more likely it is that they will support conservative politicians who want to shift even more risk onto their shoulders. Call it the vicious cycle of insecurity--if Americans feel no one can help them, they will back leaders who won't. In the '30s, Democrats saw economic security as the keystone of a broad coalition in support of their party. Today, Republicans appear to see economic insecurity in much the same way.
Hacker is arguing that, in the absence of a meaningful alternative that addresses their real economic insecurity (as opposed to abstractions like income inequality), Americans don't substitute cultural issues, but actually see in Republican policies a better economic solution. I think that's credibly supported by public opinion that indicates that the number of people voting principally on "moral" issues as defined by the social right was not higher than in the past. It also explains much of the language of young people who did support Social Security privatization -- a sense that government can't protect me, so I'm going to max out everything in hope of the big score. It's also a rationale that Bush became more and more explicit about as he became more desperate on Social Security privatization, treating government as a source of insecurity and private ownership, despite the fact that it would take the one last piece of secure savings that families have and joins it to our other risky investments, as actually a source of security.
As a political philosophy, it's got all the appeal, and also all the logic, of the lottery's motto: "You can't win if you don't play."
Hacker's certainly correct that as a matter of policy, "social insurance" is the solution to the new challenges of capitalism, and -- having attempted to write speeches on this subject -- I admire his effort to imbue it with as much poetry and freshness and relevance as he has. I wish he'd gone a little further, and talked a bit about what's positive about the new economy and the new experience of work.
Younger people may want more security, or more of a sense that they won't fall completely through the cracks, but they are not looking to be the corporate automatons that their fathers (or, at this point, grandfathers) were in the 1950s-1970s. This is an economy that, at least for the time being, offers much greater opportunity for rapid advancement, for personal fulfillment, for some measure of autonomy even in the manufacturing sector, for those with education and access. We don't want to create any sense of a tradeoff, but rather that security itself makes it possible to take the risks that allow one to get ahead in the modern economy, whether it involves taking a year off to get an additional degree or quitting the job to start a small business.
The danger in winning on Social Security is that liberals will forget that it's about more than just that one program, and that we still need to answer the question about real economic security.
I hope various contributors and readers here will have much more to say about this topic.
Advertisement
I read this article a couple days ago and it was like a lightbulb going off in my head too. When asked about what would get young voters interested I pointed out that I wanted to feel the security to be able to start a family without worry.
I'm a college graduate who can't really find a job paying more than $10/hr. Thankfully, I have supportive parents or I'd already be in a position of economic anxiety. I'm about to start my graduate work and by the time I graduate I'll have some $30,000 in student loans. This provides a great deal of economic anxiety because that means I need to get a job paying $35-40k/year minimum to make ends meet much less start a family. Beyond jobs, health care has been a big concern.
I really think campaigning on security could really do wonders among both younger adults and middle class moderates. This also works great as a family issue because, as shown well in "30 Days," economic insecurity puts a great strain on marriages and parenting. I think the Democrats should take the focus on family away from the theocrats and point out that what is really hurting families is economic insecurity, not wedge issues.
July 3, 2005 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a teriffic piece overall, but I have one quibble: the idea that we "have more opportunity" now than did people back in the economic golden age of the 1950s and 60s.
I suppose it depends on how you define "opportunity," but in strict economic terms this is not true for all Americans. Economic mobility, the dependence of people's incomes on how well their parents did, is much higher today than it was 30 or 40 years ago. The institutions and conditions that provided people with a helping hand into the middle class -- labor unions, government regulation of the labor market, full employment, have all come under attack. Wage and income growth is slower, and economic inequality is rising.
Now, I think I see your larger point, in that there is potentially more scope for individuals (especially well-educated individuals of the upper-middle class; again I'm not so sure this applies to all Americans so easily) to change careers, define their own life courses, etc, compared to an economy in which economic advancement was more closely associated with increasing seniority at a given firm.
But the point is that this is only a potential, and one that (a) depends on building the new institutions of economic growth and security that you mention; and (b) ensuring that all Americans, not just a well-educated elite, have access to this ideal.
I think these points need to be emphasized: this increased opportunity will not come about in an economy run by Republicans. It's not a natural feature of the economy. You have to vote for Democrats to get it.
July 3, 2005 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is something I've been working on since I graduated from highschool in 2000, these ideas about economic insecurity and the benefits of economic security.
But the thing is, my parents chose security, they took jobs with the state of minnesota and still work for the state up to last thursday (the state gov. is shut down by the GOP so no work for a while) but they moved from professional white collar jobs to blue collar jobs because they didn't want to move because of my sister and myself. Interestingly, all of our relatives are now much much richer, in that 100-200k range while my parents have taken a 40k cut in the last 4 years. They chose security back in the 70s, but they chose poorly and now they are paying for it. It's a sympthom I think, of the changes in the country since then.
It's one of the reasons I don't like my parents very much actually. I resent us not making more money just because they didn't want us to move.
July 4, 2005 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Young voters (under 30) went heavily for Kerry in 2004. And I would be willing to bet good money that if you polled the under 30s who didn't vote, their leanings were MORE pro-Kerry than those who did vote. So the question is, what gets these voters who didn't vote to vote.
Neither Hacker nor Schmitt really provide an answer to that. I think that the notion of Bush getting all these votes from his rhetoric about an "ownership society", when viewers of the debates favored Kerry in the debates and on the economic and domestic issues, even though the debate focused inordinately on issues like religion, homosexuality, and other values discussions that weaken Democratic appeal, especially among those voters most heavily relying on the debates to determine their vote.
Bush did not put forward a powerful 'ownership' society message in the debate -- the Repugs main strategy (curiously successful, with a lot of help from SNL, was to focus on Mary Cheney after the third debate -- and instead focused on terrorism. I say have Schmitt advise the Republicans, please.
Opposition to Kerry in this election was more important that support for Bush, in even getting the election close enough in Ohio to steal. He was seen as wishy-washy, indecisive, and, as portrayed by Matt Bai in the New York Times Magazine on Oct 10, and echoed in a daily avalanche of columns from the RW, unanswered (like the flipflop spin) when it mattered, to the end of October. The failure of the Democrats, 527s and MSM to respond to these spins resonated with the interesting (but also too late, like Jonathan Chait (TNR) on the flipflop spin, first online Oct 7) analysis of the Kerry/Edwards' logo conveying, as by 'hidden persuaders' a sense of weakness and indecision (NY Times, Oct 9) by a graphic designer. In short, the Democrats got with the program, which as in 2000 was for Bush to be put in, by stealing the election if necessary. And if it came to that again, there was a media lockdown, which has yet to be seriously discussed at this site -- another elephant in the room. If we are going to talk about elections let's talk about what really happened instead of focusing on all-but-irrelevant factors like the appeal of the 'ownership society' to young nonRepublican non rightwing voters. Bush's image as a straight shooter and as strong on terrorism were key -- and especially key in contrast to Kerry, who didn't inspire much confidence and hence not the kind of turnout the closeness of the election warranted.
OK, now let's focus on economics and the under 30 vote. The question remember, is not why they voted for Bush but why (despite a record turnout in the 18-21 demographic for eny presidential election since they have had the franchise, despite protestations in the media to the contrary, as the Conyers media hearing revealed) didn't more people in that demographic vote.
First and foremost, turnout is low among the young because, as Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone) notes, overall participation in social activities and politics in that demographic is down not only in general relative to other groups but relative to other generations, including the 70s and 80s. They are just tuned out.
Is talk about economic security going to turn them on? Not if they feel it doesn't make a difference who wins, not if they feel that no matter what politicians say, Social Security probably won't be there for them, not if they just aren't 'into' politics. And young voters voted in large numbers more over the war and over the possibility of the draft, and over the dangerousness and awfulness and dishonesty of Bush than over economic security.
Yes, in Ohio, that probably made for what would have been a Kerry victory in the absence of cheating (a fact covered up in the MSM, not even seriously analyzed, only assumed in the New York Times) But over the whole country, the reason voters who favor Democrats on economic issues voted Republican was that they didn't vote their pocketbooks. They stayed home or voted for the 'strong leader' who will 'protect us from terrorism'. Democrats fell down on this issue. Example: The Clarke interview in Fahrenheit 9/11. That interview where Clarke reveals Bush's sole focus, with his terrorism chief, on Iraq -- not on other possible nations backing Osama, not even on Al Qaeda, but on Iraq on 9/12, looking for a link as an excuse to go to war could have cost Bush the rigged "election" if it had been played repeatedly across America like the Willie Horton ad was played for the Bush effort in 1988 over and over. But when it isn't the program, you don't play those winning cards in your hand. And
just as you can't win if you don't play -- IF YOU GET WITH THE PROGRAM, THE PROGRAM IS WHAT YOU'LL GET.
there's the diagnosis of the Democrats failure -- and the DLC. They're too busy getting with the program of defeating progressive politics to champion progressive ideas to victory.
July 4, 2005 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
<i>It's one of the reasons I don't like my parents very much actually. I resent us not making more money just because they didn't want us to move. </i>
I hope you are being snarky, as opposed to speaking honestly. If it is the later, then you don't deserve your parents.
July 4, 2005 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
“This is an economy that, at least for the time being, offers much greater opportunity for rapid advancement, for personal fulfillment, for some measure of autonomy even in the manufacturing sector, for those with education and access.”
What jumps out to me in the above statement is “for those with education and access.” Because it seems to me you are leaving a good number people out of this economy of opportunity.
The whole slant of your blog seems to be that if we just stand on our heads the economy looks great. I beg to disagree.
Furthermore I resent you calling my father an automaton. That is just too ridiculous. The people that you are diminishing grew up during the great depression and out of the ashes of World War II created the greatest economy the world has ever seen. To me the existing economy is a result of poor legislation regarding deregulation, Bush’s extraordinary tax cuts during a war that is so under funded that our military does not even have proper armor, the World Trade Agreement and 9/11. All of these factors are contributing or have contributed to our economic condition. My point is that there is nothing anywhere written in stone that says the economy must exist as it does today.
Misreading the problem or looking at it through rose tinted glasses will not solve anything and only prevent us from reaching realistic solutions.
July 4, 2005 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
...taps into a sense of future possibilities.
Liberals too often talk about good economic proposals in doom and gloom terms, as if this was the 30's all over again, then tick off a list of things we'll do to chase the clouds away. The right, via Reagan and now Bush, seem to have mastered the art of talking about economic issues in sunny terms, even as they present insidious ideas.
Here's an opportunity not to repeat that mistake. Because the bright side of economic security is freedom: being free to try new things, to launch a business, start a family, find the career that suits you, find your bliss, try something new later on in life, retire when you want to, etc. In other words, the bright side of economic security is the freedom to try things that you would otherwise not be free to do.
As Bush's cynical manipulation of the word "freedom" shows, the notion is part and parcel of the American mythos we all have clamoring around in our heads. But merging freedom to economic security is not cynical; au contraire it lends itself to a rather entrepreneurial, Horatio Alger message for current and future workers.
July 4, 2005 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note: As you all know, debate on the internet can appear reductive, crude and polarizing. This is due - at least in part - to the characteristics of the underlying code (which has its own ideology), flawed as it is right now. However, I do want to keep my comment short and to the point so I'll have to write 'argumentative shorthand'
...
Fascinating how attractive Social Darwinism has become at a time when the most reactionary administration for decades is trying to turn back the clock to the late 19th century on almost any social, political and cultural issue. (That was a time when Social Darwinism was tremendously popular as well, and for exactly the same reasons that are being proffered here: mainly to 'justify' rapidly rising social inequality.)
Even the most casual reader of Josh Marshall's blog will have been confronted with powerful arguments as to why the dismantling of Social Security has nothing to do with 'opportunity' nor 'ownership'. In fact, what you are describing is nothing if not a handbook for fascism -- how to get there, and fast.
It has been noted far and wide that this administration is conservative by name only. Therefore, it seems disingenuous at best to argue that 'ownership society' and fiscal recklessness are popular conservative programmes. They are not.
What are the advocates of such a society asking for? They want a populace so frightened and paralyzed by anxiety that it will ratify a neo-fascist police state at the ballot box. And that's when we'll start talking again about the superiority of a master race...
Somebody else has already taken issue with your characterization, if one may call it that, of the people who built today's society as 'automatons', and so I won't go into this.
And lastly: Do you know what a "You Can't Win If You Don't Play" society is going to look like? You are going to get a society armed to the teeth. You are going to have a society where today's headline -- Teenager Kills Teenager Over iPod (NYT) -- is going to be relegated to the back pages of the local section. And what will you read about on the front page? You will read about nation-wide riots that will make Watts and Detroit look like a neighbourhood parties. To be precise: this country is going to go down in flames. 270 Million people are not going to stand idly by while a dozen families are cashing out.
Not any more.
July 4, 2005 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Economic opportunity has two parts to it, bolstering the floor and raising the ceiling.
The floor is the minimum wage, guaranteed health care, fair bankruptcy terms, social security -- policies that keep people from falling into destitution.
The ceiling for individuals is raised by education. The ceiling for the nation's economy is raised by energy policy that gets us out of oil dependency and creates the post-oil energy industry. The ceiling is raised by telecom policies that get us more bandwidth, not more monopoly.
July 4, 2005 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comments remind me of Harry Truman's statement: "If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic."
I came of age during the 1960's when the defining American myth was still, "You can better your life by getting an education and working hard." I don't believe that myth is still dominant for young people seeking a way in the world.
In my generation we looked ahead with optimism and confidence that tomorrow would be better. The young people I know personally, and they are many in number, look forward today with anxiety and mistrust.
Jobs have disappeared. Doubts exist about solvency of pension plans. Social Security is in peril. This administration uses fear to motivate the citizenry and indeed has given us plenty to fear! Its policies have turned Iraq into a recruiting ground for terrorism in ways that OBL could only have dreamed about.
I am shocked at the different America Bush has managed to create in less than five years.
July 4, 2005 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The US is going through a period of economic realignment. It is no longer guaranteed to be the pre-eminent power in the future. The standard of living of the working class has stagnated for the past 20-30 years.
This is the first generation which will be less wealthy than their parents. Some of these trends have been overlooked because certain manufactured items have fallen in price, personal debt has allowed for a maintanence of purchasing power and macro economic data which averages in the super rich distorts the averages.
All the discussion by both parties revolves around the same platitudes that have been offered in the past: growing the economy, better jobs through education, etc. Lately we have been hearing immigration reform and protectionism emerge again.
Perhaps when people feel overwhelmed by economic insecurity they turn to other areas such as religion for solace or distraction. Promises of a better hereafter have worked in the past to keep the workers submissive.
Finally, many people just don't pay any attention to politics or economics (including their own). When it comes time to vote those that do, do so on the basis of trust and personality - not policy.
July 4, 2005 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is not a single decision in this White House which is not politically targeted either to energize the committed base, to push the administration's agenda or to smear an opponent. The dems would be well instructed to learn from this discipline.
As one of the writers above commented: in 1994 the repubs won the house by screaming corruption and touting their "Contract with America". Right now after 10 years of control the tables are turned...Corruption on the Repub side has reached the rooftops and it should be shouted about in news conferences, research projects, articles in the press, on the floor in congress and thru every other avenue available. Delay, Abramoff, Ralph Reed, Duke Cunningham, John Thune, Nordquist, even the chairman of the House Ethics Committee Doc (something) at Abramoff's law firm's request inserted a section in legislation exempting employers in the Marianas from US fair labor law. And tomorrow there will be more and more and more. Dems should not be reluctant because to scream at every possible opportunity about the growing Repub corruption just as Newt did.
Second there's nothing wrong with a little pandering. Since its obvious at this point that globalization (read free trade) is simply a race to the bottom its about time the Dems used "Fair Trade" tied to JOBS as a major pounding point. Its a nice niche because the Repubs are so connected at the head with business they cannot respond. This will be a major issue in 2008 if not before
I realize this is a no no but I would also have some strong words to say about illegal immigration and border crossing. Bush can't move on that one either because business wants cheap labor. I can still hear Dick Armey's a true idelogue of the right talking glowingly about this subject. Again this will be a major issue in 2006 especially in the southwest.........
Third and almost last because I am running out of time......A big chunk of the Rebub win last Nov. was that Americans don't change leadership in the middle of a perceived war. I feel that the Dems should calibrate their message on this subject to coalese with the poll data. Obviously any republican running will cite and cite and cite the war on terrorism as the reason to stick with them. The dems gotta have a strong story on defence against terror and they better start knitting it together now.
Fourth and last the other gut issues are universal healthcare and social security protection...........these are and should continue to be pre-eminent in the Dem program. What I am saying simply is grab a half a dozen points and pound them and pound them and pound them.......Refine them and pound them some more.
Thats what Newt did and it worked. The trick is to keep it simple and repeat it endlessly............Corruption, free trade, immigration, national healthcare, social security and don't forget education.
July 4, 2005 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
My issue with this piece is the same one I have with Thomas Frank. It's not just a matter of having a good enough economic policy, because many conservatives (and conservative youth) see economics as part of a larger cultural issue.
You're absolutely right that it's not just about social security, but it's also not just about being able to pay the bills. In an economy where you constantly have to move from job to job, what does home mean? Does being an American mean anything if an American company can throw you out to hire cheaper workers from China or India? What happens to family when your children have to move somewhere else to get a job? What's the point of hard work and personal responsibility if it's easier to make it big by gambling on the stock market? What does immigration mean for the community?
A good economic security platform is a good start, but it's not enough. If a family from rural Oklahoma sees their small town blowing away in the wind during an economic slowdown, getting them a steady income at a big city may assure that they don't starve, but it doesn't do much for the psychological shock of seeing your home waste away. For youth especially, who are grappling with issues of identity and whatnot anyway, these things matter.
July 4, 2005 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel there is a subtly different equation in Red State voters' minds than Hacker's:
"... it fits perfectly with the idea that 'it's up to me'--that Americans are on their own in the new world of work and family. And, the more Americans believe that, the more likely it is that they will support conservative politicians who want to shift even more risk onto their shoulders."
Why, actually, do Americans support conservative politicians who tell them, in effect, that things will get worse?
Republicans have managed to shift ever greater risk onto lower- and middle-class shoulders by selling the notion of Hope--Hope that you will be able to join the elite, Hope that you will be able to take advantage of tax loopholes one day, Hope that if you just have the Right Stuff you too will join the winners' circle.
And if things are hard right now, it's the American Way to be independent, self-sufficient, a doer, not a complainer. It's been written many times that conservatives believe that the poor must somehow deserve their lot in life if they haven't been able to cash in on the endless opportunities offered by American society.
It's the greatest of all Republican jokes: They have managed to make people believe that they are themselves to blame when they're screwed by the system.
Of course, statistics are now starting to underscore the reality: More people are losing ground rather than gaining. The monied elites have managed to consolidate their grip on tax and social policy to ensure that the fruits of labor are awarded disproportionately to the investor class.
At the same time, opportunity has contracted measurably as well-paid jobs are eliminated or sent offshore while redundant layers of overpaid management remain intact.
We have become a Darwinian society with a twist. Those in the winners' circle have congratulated themselves on being the fittest and most deserving of reward. It is, actually, survival of the most rapacious.
It's ironic that so many religious conservatives would, unconsciously at least, endorse evolution as the ruling principle of American society.
As a governing principle of the human economy, it is so fundamentally immoral, mean-spirited and uncivilized that I can barely speak for rage and indignation. Enlightened democratic civilization was invented to thwart the harshest ends of Darwinian social mechanics.
To see the pressures on American households in this way can be eye-opening. It would also help to remember that the finest tradition of American social history is one of working together in communities to protect and advance the whole.
July 4, 2005 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
He probably is being snarky, but even if not... this is a big problem. If you set up a system where the economy rules the policy, where the people in Washington confront a problem like "move or make less money," with a shrug because the economy takes precedence over all other concerns, then... this is result you get. The "Economy first" point of view so permeates society that kids and parents, husbands and wives, succumb the the tension.
The real problem isn't what was said here, it's that if you went to just about any congressional representative, or any party, and told them that this guy's folks make less money than they should because they didn't want to move or switch careers, the politicians would not see a problem in what you're saying. They'd dismiss it as a choice made or a gamble lost, plain and simple.
On this site, we talk a lot about economic policy. In the real world of politics, I think people talk a lot more about policy in the service of economics. In most places, you'd be laughed off any public forum for implying that we should start with policy choices, aimed at creating a certain kind of society and that our economics should be adjusted to suit those choices. Most everywhere, though the decision makers won't say this directly, it's the opposite model, the economy is revered as some sort of god and choices are made to placate the deity.
July 4, 2005 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can build infrastructure. For example, broadband to the small town, so people can go to school and get jobs where they are.
But we can't bring change to a halt. Mass migration to cities happened during the industrial revolution in this country. Farming stopped being economical in much of New England in the late 1700.
Nostalgia isn't a good enough political platform.
July 4, 2005 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly a strong message about economic security needs to be central to any strategic effort to mobilize the public and attract voters. Having said that, though, there are serious pitfalls in putting too simplistic of an emphasis on the "economics" part of "economic security".
First of all, thanks in large part to decades of deceptive political rhetoric, many of us seem to think that if we have to disadvantage someone else in order for us to get ahead that somehow that's ok. For many the idea that; "a rising tide lifts all boats" never enters their calculations as to what the nature of true economic security might be in an advanced and enlightened democratic society. Many prefer to simply gain whatever they can regardless of whether it's at the expense of others or not, and these are the people who never grasp the important truth that real economic security depends on all citizens being able to prosper.
They never understand that in the end, we, as a nation, as a people, as a culture, are never really more secure than the least of us. We need to get across the idea that we are each more secure when our neighbors are likewise secure; that rather than seeing our neighbor as competition for the same slice of the pie, we see him as a partner, working with us to raise the standards of living across the board.
Whether it's the Wal-Mart "race-to-the-bottom" style of economic malfeasance, the corporate looting of the treasury, the outsourcing of jobs, or Bush's inimical "ownership society" scam, all these models encourage for us as a society to rob and exploit each other, rather than joining together in raising the level for all.
If I were advising Democratic strategists and policy thinkers, I'd tell them to work on weaving the "rising tide lifts all boats" mantra into every facet of economic and social life in America. Then we might start to have a compelling message that not only stirs the public spirit but also neutralizes the absurdities and emotionally exploitative propaganda from the right wing.
July 4, 2005 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Security includes the ability to take risks like the ability to change jobs and start a business without fear of financial catastrophe.
July 4, 2005 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the really big question is: WHY?
July 4, 2005 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Mark Schmitt on the importance of Jacob Hacker's article. It should be required reading for every Democratic leader in the country. Economic Security...no theme better encapsulates what the Democrats should be promising to the American People.
Unfortunately, Democrats will be able to do nothing with this theme unless they are able to (1) recognize & deftly respond to Republicans' savvy character assassination techniques, and (2) defend the use of Government institutions to provide key right-of-citizenship services (like health care) to all Americans.
The political opportunity is there, waiting for us to exploit it. It remains to be seen if we are going to get all Democrats on the same page, presenting a compelling vision of a better world.
July 4, 2005 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appreciate the seriousness of the thought behind this post, but it's complete crap.
You misunderstand the importance of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" (Caveat: I have not read the book but have heard the author speak extensively on the subject several times.) The important point is NOT, as you report, that voters reject their own economic self-interest in favor of other issues because Democrats haven't presented a compelling alternative economic vision. It IS that voters in many red states reject their economic self-interest in favor of voting their identities, which they perceive in conservative candidates. That is to say, they don't vote on issues at all. In fact, they haven't in decades, but progressive politicos make this mistake over and over and over and over ....
I'm not sure why progressives keep getting tripped up on this. Perhaps because we care so much about issues, we assume others do as well. But the plain fact is that the average voter pays attention to politics and public policy about 5 minutes a week (as compared to the poster's, I'm guessing, 60 hours). They not only don't know that they're voting against their own economic self-interest, nor care, they don't believe whom they elect has much to do with their economic situation. So why should they pay attention to candidates' issue platforms? This is just a fact. We can't make it not so, no matter how much more satisfying it is to imagine it.
One of my favorite little pieces of political research was done a few months ago and published in Science magazine. Researchers at Princeton determined that random adults can predict who will win a congressional race at a 70% rate just by glancing at head shots of the two candidates for 60 seconds, without knowing anything about either. When you consider that a whole lot of congressional races are total mismatches (which the subjects of the experiment wouldn't know) this percentage gets even more impressive. Thus, we can talk all we want about this issue or that, economic security versus health care versus Iraq versus God-knows-what. It's all completely irrelevant. Or, if you prefer, it's intellectual masturbation or whistling by the graveyard. What matters to winning is identity: The qualities the voters tend to attribute to the candidates by virtue of looks, attitude, and how they talk. Not what what issues they talk about. How do you think Kerry lost?
This is not a great state of affairs as far as democracy goes. But it is what it is. We can't fight it. The Goopers have known it since Reagan. When will we learn?
July 4, 2005 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Farming stopped being economical in much of New England in the late 1700.
I'm not suggesting we revert back to the 1700s (or even the 1950s) but simply that we have to talk about it. The Ownership Society is not a reversal of trends but it is an alternative (albeit, one that sounds increasingly like "to heck with community").
July 5, 2005 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This link http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/1/16180/44007
takes away all the crapola about 'blue/red' and 'metaphors regarding family'.
July 5, 2005 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink