the only way that democrats can regain a majority
Can the Democratic Party regain the kind of majority enjoyed by the New Deal Democrats between the 1930s and the 1960s? Not an occasional bare majority, but the kind of solid, enduring majority that permits the passage of major legislation?
The answer is yes--but only if the Democratic Party ceases to be defined by social liberalism. As a social liberal party with economic liberal and economic conservative wings, the Democrats are doomed to perpetual minority status. As an economic liberal party with social conservative and social liberal wings, the Democrats might have a chance--but only if the social conservative Democrats outnumber the social liberal Democrats in the Democratic Party itself.
First, a word about definitions. By liberal and conservative I mean center-left and center-right, not far-left and far-right. An economic liberal supports welfare-state capitalism, not far-left democratic socialism. A social conservative is a moderate traditionalist with qualms about abortion and gay marriage, not a far-right Christian fundamentalist who thinks that Satan controls the UN and that every unimplanted embryo is a child.
The United States has a right-of-center majority with respect to social issues and a a left-of-center majority with respect to economic issues. The stability of this popular consensus recently has been illustrated by the nearly simultaneous popular rejection of gay marriage and Social Security privatization. Social liberals are too far to the left of most Americans on social issues; economic conservatives are too far to the right of most Americans on economic issues.
This combination of moderate social conservatism with moderate economic liberalism explains the success of the New Deal Democrats and the failure of the party that succeeded them, the Civil Rights Democrats.
The 72 year period from 1932 to 2004 divides neatly into two 36 year periods, with 1968 as the turning point.
During the 1932-68 era the New Deal Democrats were an economic liberal party, with a social conservative wing and a social liberal wing. The social conservative Democrats--white Southern and Western Protestants and northern Catholics--outnumbered the small number of social liberals, most of them northern liberal Protestants and Jews. Even when the racism of many Southerners and white working-class Northerners is factored out, the New Deal Democrats were a predominantly social conservative party. Most New Deal constituencies were not liberal on the questions of abortion, gay rights, censorship, and other issues which were dealt with at the state and local level, so that Roosevelt, Truman, Kenney and Johnson never had to take positions on them.
As a result of the Civil Rights Revolution, the civil rights coalition of blacks with Northern white Protestants, Jews and, increasingly, Latinos replaced the old farmer-labor coalition of the New Deal Democrats. Despite a few holdovers from the New Deal era, the post-1968 Civil Rights Democrats were a new party whose actual precursors were failed Northeastern parties of the nineteenth century: Liberal Republicans, Whigs and Federalists. The Civil Rights Democrats were (and remain) a social liberal party with an economic liberal wing (the pro-union "Old Democrats") and an economic conservative wing (the free-business "New Democrats").
Between 1968 and 2004 the Democrats went from dominating U.S. government at all levels to being the minority party at all levels. Their 36 year downfall was a direct result of the fact that they define themselves by social liberalism. There aren't enough social liberals in the U.S. to sustain a social liberal majority party.
As Al From has pointed out, in 2004 45 percent of American voters identified themselves as moderate, 34 percent as conservative and only 21 percent as liberal.
You need 51 percent to be a majority. That means that a majority Democratic party at the very least must be 30 percent moderate and only 21 percent liberal. The larger the Democratic majority, the less important social liberals would be within the Democratic party.
The "moderate" category is somewhat misleading, since it includes two distinct groups: libertarians and populists, who hold opposite views about everything. Libertarians are social liberals and economic conservatives. Populists are social conservatives and economic liberals.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, the only two presidents the post-1968 Civil Rights Democrats have elected, ran as social conservative, economic liberal populists. But once they got elected by appealing to the populist vote, they betrayed the populists and promoted policies favored by moderate libertarians--that is, a combination of social liberalism and economic conservatism. Carter, in power, supported affirmative action and abortion (social liberalism) and broke with the New Deal tradition to push for economic deregulation (economic conservatism). Clinton, in power, defended affirmative action, abortion and gays in the military (social liberalism) and, after the failure of his business-friendly health care proposal, broke with most of his party to promote NAFTA, the WTO, and balanced budgets (economic conservatism).
The populist voters aren't stupid. Twice they were burned by Carter and Clinton, who pretended to be social conservative economic liberals only until they won election and then revealed the Democratic Party in its true colors as a social liberal party in which disagreement about abortion is banned but disagreement about free trade is acceptable. Instead of teaming up with Perot's populists against the economic conservatives, Clinton teamed up with the economic conservatives against Perot's populists. Clinton echoed the economic conservatives, announcing: "The era of big government is over." This was so far from being true that Clinton's successor George W. Bush, doing a reverse Clinton (that is, betraying the economic conservatives to side with the populists), presided over the biggest expanstion of socialized medicine in the U.S. since Lyndon Johnson, in the form of the Medicare drug benefit.
Many "New Democrats" and "neoliberals" approved of Clintonism, on the grounds that instead of reaching out to working-class white populists the Democrats should reach out to upscale libertarians who support choice and free trade. In one respect, this strategy succeeded. In recent elections, the Democrats have been gaining more and more of the socially liberal, economically conservative professional and managerial elite.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, working-class white populists with a high school education greatly outnumber elite professionals in the U.S. electorate. Some Democrats hope that Latino immigration will boost the Democrats into majority status. But Latinos tend to be social conservatives, and are likely to vote more like white populists than like loyal black Democrats as they assimilate.
Given the large number of populists and the small number of libertarians, a liberal-populist alliance can defeat a conservative-libertarian alliance--but a conservative-populist alliance, of the kind found in today's Republican party, can easily defeat a liberal-libertarian alliance, of the kind found in today's Democratic party.
All of this means good news for Democrats and bad news for social liberals.
The good news for Democrats is that they can regain the majority if the now-dead Civil Rights Democrat coalition of 1968-2004, a coalition of social liberals who agreed to disagree about economic issues, is replaced by something like the New Deal coalition of 1932-68, a coalition of economic liberals who agree to disagree about social issues.
The bad news for social liberals is that in a Democratic majority defined by economic liberalism the social liberals would be the minority in their own party and the socially conservative, economically liberal populists would be the majority. Not only would social liberals have to welcome back pro-middle-class-welfare-state social conservatives to the Democratic party, but also they would have to consent to being the junior partners, as in the New Deal era.
Social liberals can be the minority in a majority party. Or social liberals can be the majority in a minority party. But social liberals can't be the majority in a majority party--not in the United States, not in the foreseeable future. There just aren't enough social liberals in the American electorate.
The United States has a right-of-center majority with respect to social issues and a a left-of-center majority with respect to economic issues. The stability of this popular consensus recently has been illustrated by the nearly simultaneous popular rejection of gay marriage and Social Security privatization. Social liberals are too far to the left of most Americans on social issues; economic conservatives are too far to the right of most Americans on economic issues.
This combination of moderate social conservatism with moderate economic liberalism explains the success of the New Deal Democrats and the failure of the party that succeeded them, the Civil Rights Democrats.
The 72 year period from 1932 to 2004 divides neatly into two 36 year periods, with 1968 as the turning point.
During the 1932-68 era the New Deal Democrats were an economic liberal party, with a social conservative wing and a social liberal wing. The social conservative Democrats--white Southern and Western Protestants and northern Catholics--outnumbered the small number of social liberals, most of them northern liberal Protestants and Jews. Even when the racism of many Southerners and white working-class Northerners is factored out, the New Deal Democrats were a predominantly social conservative party. Most New Deal constituencies were not liberal on the questions of abortion, gay rights, censorship, and other issues which were dealt with at the state and local level, so that Roosevelt, Truman, Kenney and Johnson never had to take positions on them.
As a result of the Civil Rights Revolution, the civil rights coalition of blacks with Northern white Protestants, Jews and, increasingly, Latinos replaced the old farmer-labor coalition of the New Deal Democrats. Despite a few holdovers from the New Deal era, the post-1968 Civil Rights Democrats were a new party whose actual precursors were failed Northeastern parties of the nineteenth century: Liberal Republicans, Whigs and Federalists. The Civil Rights Democrats were (and remain) a social liberal party with an economic liberal wing (the pro-union "Old Democrats") and an economic conservative wing (the free-business "New Democrats").
Between 1968 and 2004 the Democrats went from dominating U.S. government at all levels to being the minority party at all levels. Their 36 year downfall was a direct result of the fact that they define themselves by social liberalism. There aren't enough social liberals in the U.S. to sustain a social liberal majority party.
As Al From has pointed out, in 2004 45 percent of American voters identified themselves as moderate, 34 percent as conservative and only 21 percent as liberal.
You need 51 percent to be a majority. That means that a majority Democratic party at the very least must be 30 percent moderate and only 21 percent liberal. The larger the Democratic majority, the less important social liberals would be within the Democratic party.
The "moderate" category is somewhat misleading, since it includes two distinct groups: libertarians and populists, who hold opposite views about everything. Libertarians are social liberals and economic conservatives. Populists are social conservatives and economic liberals.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, the only two presidents the post-1968 Civil Rights Democrats have elected, ran as social conservative, economic liberal populists. But once they got elected by appealing to the populist vote, they betrayed the populists and promoted policies favored by moderate libertarians--that is, a combination of social liberalism and economic conservatism. Carter, in power, supported affirmative action and abortion (social liberalism) and broke with the New Deal tradition to push for economic deregulation (economic conservatism). Clinton, in power, defended affirmative action, abortion and gays in the military (social liberalism) and, after the failure of his business-friendly health care proposal, broke with most of his party to promote NAFTA, the WTO, and balanced budgets (economic conservatism).
The populist voters aren't stupid. Twice they were burned by Carter and Clinton, who pretended to be social conservative economic liberals only until they won election and then revealed the Democratic Party in its true colors as a social liberal party in which disagreement about abortion is banned but disagreement about free trade is acceptable. Instead of teaming up with Perot's populists against the economic conservatives, Clinton teamed up with the economic conservatives against Perot's populists. Clinton echoed the economic conservatives, announcing: "The era of big government is over." This was so far from being true that Clinton's successor George W. Bush, doing a reverse Clinton (that is, betraying the economic conservatives to side with the populists), presided over the biggest expanstion of socialized medicine in the U.S. since Lyndon Johnson, in the form of the Medicare drug benefit.
Many "New Democrats" and "neoliberals" approved of Clintonism, on the grounds that instead of reaching out to working-class white populists the Democrats should reach out to upscale libertarians who support choice and free trade. In one respect, this strategy succeeded. In recent elections, the Democrats have been gaining more and more of the socially liberal, economically conservative professional and managerial elite.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, working-class white populists with a high school education greatly outnumber elite professionals in the U.S. electorate. Some Democrats hope that Latino immigration will boost the Democrats into majority status. But Latinos tend to be social conservatives, and are likely to vote more like white populists than like loyal black Democrats as they assimilate.
Given the large number of populists and the small number of libertarians, a liberal-populist alliance can defeat a conservative-libertarian alliance--but a conservative-populist alliance, of the kind found in today's Republican party, can easily defeat a liberal-libertarian alliance, of the kind found in today's Democratic party.
All of this means good news for Democrats and bad news for social liberals.
The good news for Democrats is that they can regain the majority if the now-dead Civil Rights Democrat coalition of 1968-2004, a coalition of social liberals who agreed to disagree about economic issues, is replaced by something like the New Deal coalition of 1932-68, a coalition of economic liberals who agree to disagree about social issues.
The bad news for social liberals is that in a Democratic majority defined by economic liberalism the social liberals would be the minority in their own party and the socially conservative, economically liberal populists would be the majority. Not only would social liberals have to welcome back pro-middle-class-welfare-state social conservatives to the Democratic party, but also they would have to consent to being the junior partners, as in the New Deal era.
Social liberals can be the minority in a majority party. Or social liberals can be the majority in a minority party. But social liberals can't be the majority in a majority party--not in the United States, not in the foreseeable future. There just aren't enough social liberals in the American electorate.
Advertisement
Comments (162)
I've been looking at those numbers that you referenced, showing that moderates are the largest group in America, followed by conservatives and then liberals. I believe now that, every time, I've reached a mistaken conclusion that much of the party is also reaching - that if we capture all of the liberal vote and most of the moderates, we'll win. This is all well and good in theory, but the Republicans are running a similar game-plan - capture all of the conservative vote, and don't get completely steam-rolled in the moderate electorate. And since their base is bigger, they've got a head-start on us.
In a sense, I've been moving towards this new game-plan for a while. I'm a pro-life Democrat in what is essentially a pro-choice party, which can be frustrating at times. I'm a Bob Casey Jr. team-pllayer, not a Bob Casey Sr. crusader, so I don't go out my way to cause friction, but it's there whether I seek it or not.
My dream is not to belong to a pro-life party, but for abortion, and other hot-button issues, to no longer be - well, not depoliticized, but departisanized. If that hypothetical state of affairs would not only make me happy, but actually lead to electoral gains - in other words, I can have my cake and eat it to - I'm all for it.
August 4, 2005 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
A further question on the mod-con-lib numbers: are these for economic issues, or social ones?
I think I implied in my above post that economics come first with me, and social issues a distant and unloved second. (Foreign policy is somewhere in between.) So when I'm asked what ideology I idenitfy with, I automatically think of economics and respond "Liberal." but are the poll respondents thinking the same way?
August 4, 2005 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm a pro-life Democrat in what is essentially a pro-choice party, which can be frustrating at times."
While we're on the subject of definitions, I'm troubled by the use of pro-life and pro-choice as if the two are mutually exclusive. I know of no pro-choicer who is "anti-life." There are differing theological opinions regarding when human life begins, and abortion is not necessarily a family planning requirement.
Meanwhile, back on the distinctions between liberal and conservative....
Considering the social implications of economic policies, workable characterizations could just as well add up to the conclusion that liberals believe we are all in this together, and conservatives insist it is every man for himself.
These characterizations are consistent with current legislative, judicial and executive trends towards deregulation and privatization in the conservative Republican political agenda, as opposed to the legacy of liberal Democrats.
The New Deal/Great Society legacy is dissolving before the Ownership Society's war on the public sphere: from public airwaves, public lands, and public education, to the increasing dependence of the military on private security contractors. Further, all of these Ownership Society policies have advanced by an effective atomization of the electorate, dividing Americans between some vague "mainstream" vs. homosexual agendas, Massachusetts liberals, Hollywood elites, trial lawyers, activist judges, etc.
August 4, 2005 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there are some pretty gross oversimplifications in this article. And I wonder if the basic premises are true in this moment or for as long as Lind posits.
The fastest-growing religious group is "none." Certainly the most conservative cohorts are the 30-49 year olds and the over 65 year olds. Younger people are much more socially liberal than the 30-49 year olds, and on some issues, such as gay rights, more than the 50-65 year olds. It is hard for me to believe that we 50-65 year olds will become less liberal in old age, so unless those born after 1985 revert to being majority socially conservative, I see more social liberals and libertarians on the horizon, not fewer. For example, if abortion were to become illegal or substantially more difficult than it is now, I cannot see that this would do anything but radicalize those under 30.
Where people come down on the economic liberal/conservative continuum depends on how it is pitched. What we have now is not free markets, but markets rigged for the benefit of large corporations and we have a tax system rigged for the benefit of the really wealthy. If economic liberalism meant a fairer tax system, a more secure safety net and more opportunity for advancement for more people, it would be a winning formula in my opinion.
In short, the Dems should not purge social conservatives, but neither should they cater to them. (I don't favor purging anyone at this point, because we can't afford it, but the corporatists would be a higher choice.) Shifting the ground on which issues are fought to areas of more agreement, like stressing access to contraception and reproductive health care generally (but without renouncing choice) is a good idea. Exhibiting tolerance for differing points of view within the party (and the public) is good, but let's find issues to stand on where we isolate the far right, like stem cells and respect for scientific research, particularly in medicine. And sacrificing things like gun control for a more libertarian stand also seems like a no-brainer at this point. Most important is probably losing the DC mindset, which, regardless of ones views, thends to reinforce a kind of elitism that the GOP finds it very easy to caricature.
August 4, 2005 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you overlook changing mores and values. Right now equal marital status for all, the so called gay marriage issue, is a big deal, as is the rights of GLBT in general. However, there is a younger generation that has grown up with Will and Grace, Queer as Folk and openly gay schoolmates, coworkers and friends.
In my generation, if you were for gay rights you were considered a queer. In the generation after me, it is not a big deal and I suspect it will matter even less to my daughter's generation.
The arguement you put forward assumes social and cultural mores remain static, but in fact they are amazingly flexible. Much of people's perception is shaped by the presentation of the issues. Almost nobody supports a procedure that terminates a third trimester pregnancy. Only a tiny minority supports banning birth control or legislation that would enter the bedroom.
Social liberals have a long way to go in communicating our issues effectively. Whether it is framing or detailed policy, the message is not being heard. A part and parcel of this is the way the media covers these issues; it would be nice if progressives could expand their infant message machine past Air America radio.
Your assumption is that the message that social liberals have is unwelcome to the ears of most Americans. To the contrary, I don't think most Americans have a clue what social liberals stand for.
Based on my very unscientific survey of my fellow Texans, when red state people actually hear the message that social liberals have to carry there is not much objection to that message. Perhaps this is not such an either/or proposition. There may be less conflict between socially conservative Democrats and socially liberal Democrats and the general public than you think.
August 4, 2005 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only way Democrats can become the majority is to "STAND FOR SOMETHING". You are all wet with your left, middle, moderate, right, social conservative, social liberal BALONEY!
I'm a DEMOCRAT I belive Americans have the right to private decisions in the Doctors Office as well as their gun cabinets.
I'm a DEMOCRAT I believe in great schools, strong communitys, retirement security, investing in the future and Leading the World by Example.
I'm a Democrat I believe Americans have the right to be secure in sickness as well as health.
I'm a DEMOCRAT I believe in in Prosperity and Opportunity for all.
Cut to the Quick "STAND FOR SOMETHING" and quit looking for execuses!
August 4, 2005 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that I agree that the only way to regain a Democratic majority is to eject social issues from the party platform. I completely agree that a firm line on economic issues should be drawn within the party but I think that is important for somewhat different reasons than are given here.
I think that we must push towards a more economically liberal stance, although somewhat moderate it must be, because we are living through a resurgance of the robber baron. There is a perception among the voters that the government it too corrupt to solve their problems and I think that the Democrats, through Dean's refocusing of the party and rethinking of the fundraising machine, can throw away their ties to big business and start addressing issues based on the economic needs of those that the modern robber barons are using to further their own economic desires.
Becoming the party of economic policy designed for the working class and the party that regects the corruption of big money will allow the Dems to fight the Republicans on issues that have real affects on peoples lives. The "moral" issues tend to have less impact on peoples lives and if a clear distinction is drawn on the major issues of health care and economic opportunity for all, the moral issues will loose their significance, allowing Dems to continue to fight for what's right: social justice and equality for all, including the right to have access to birth control and the rights of homosexual couples to enjoy the benifits given to all other Americans.
August 4, 2005 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, am a pro-life Democrat because I don't believe anyone is really anti-life. That said, I, like the majority of ALL Americans(ranging from 54-67 percent, depending on the poll), support a woman's right to choose on at least some level. If by saying pro-life, you mean anti-abortion then you are probably right of even the center-right on that single issue.
I do agree that the nature of political issues have become so polarized that only the most extremes in each party actually feel welcomed in it. That is very unfortunate because the Democratic Party used to be perceived as the party of inclusiveness and Republicans were seen (and actually still are) the party of exclusiveness.
Because of this polarization, I do agree that voters like you and I are forced to pick "watershed" issues (credit Andrew Sullivan) - the issues that make or break a voter's choice of party. I am not a supporter of Unions (in their current form) and would consider myself much more inline with true Republican conservatives on these issues; however, my watershed issues are related to civil liberties and minority rights (white, married female though I am). That puts me squarely in the Democratic party.
I don't find it possible that any one party could represent all the ideas of all its members. I do believe we can find a way to be inclusive.
Instead of infighting between the different factions in the Party, we really need to focus on making room for at least some ideas from all of them. That will allow us to "collect" the Independents and Moderates of the Republican party who are becoming disenfranchised with the far-right control of it. Without that, I am afraid we are entire party is destined to be identified with the way-left perception we have allowed the Republican party to create.
August 4, 2005 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
In one sense, the country is always becoming more socially liberal. Two generations ago, gay rights weren't on the map. One generation ago, supporting gays meant you were a tool of the evil homosexual agenda. My generation is either supportive, or doesn't really give a shit one way or another. There a few hardcore conservatives who hate "fags," but they're in third-place. The next generation will probably see the breakthrough.
On most social issues, from sex to race to religion, America's history is mostly one of moving forward. We have good reason to hope that the America of tomorrow will be more socially liberal than ours.
But that doesn't tell the whole story. While it will become more absolutely liberal, it will probably remain, relatively, just to the right of center, as it has been for most of history. (I can only think of one time when a social issue was exploited by liberals for great electoral success - the Republicans in the 1860s, and even slavery was inextricably linked with conomics.) For every far-right bugaboo that goes to the ash-heap, a new one rises to replace it. We won on civil rights, but instead of the "niggers," the right is railing about the "queers."
This raises some troubling questions. I have no doubt that the Democratic Party's support of cvil rights placed it on the right side of history. It also, unfortunately, placed it on the wrong side of the national mood. And I have reason to believe that this pattern will continue - anyone who moves in front of the curve on worthy issues, such as gay rights, is going to be on the wrong side of te national mood, at least at first.
August 4, 2005 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Mr. Lind I am batting .500 with you. I agreed with your Citizenship post...and completely disagree with this one.
Socially conservative? Not me, NEVER!!! And I won't support the party if I am given somekind of status as a "political second class citizen". The government has no business to promote any kind of religious morality to the American public. The American public needs to take responsibility for their own morality, it isn't the government's job at all.
Far more people were outraged at the prospects of government getting involved in our personal decisions, vis-a-vis revulsion about the Schiavo Bill and overwhelming support for reproductive rights, then are opposed to gay marriage. No social conservatism is not the answer...it is making a principled unapologetic case that government has no business using morality to intrude in our personal right to privacy.
August 4, 2005 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quick response, since two people have brought it up already: I generally fall in that big gray area in the middle, the ones who don't believe that abortion is always acceptable, but don't believe that it's always unacceptable. Saying that a majority of Americans support the right to choose is misleading at best, at least with the numbers I just saw in Newsweek. You can just as easily say that a majority also oppose abortion.
(This is part of the reason why I believe that it's counterproductive, in the long run, for any party to be held captive by its activists on this issue: You're just pissing off the people in the middle who aren't wedded to the issue, no matter what they believe.)
Also, I use pro-life and pro-choice because those are the most widespread terms, and the least loaded. I generally discount anyone who uses "pro-abortion" or "anti-choice" when describing their opposition. One, very few people on either side actually hold those specific views, and Two, usually those who use those terms are looking for a fight, not a discussion.
August 4, 2005 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has been Al From's DLC debacle of trying to make this party like the GOP: 90% white and Christian... that has created the down fall of this party... funny how we were in control on Congress before Clinton...what do we have now....NOTHING
By all means "STAY THE COURSE" who would want to stop such a historic failure of a strategy. Go ahead... make this party GOPII... I'll go someplace else.
I refuse to become as delusional as the Log Cabin Republicans... a group of sad and pathetic people ...holding on to a party that refuses to acknowledge or represent them.
If you believe that this party should now stand for the CRIMINALIZATION OF ABORTION and putting women in jail who have abortions... then you are right ... I am in the wrong party, because I don't know who the hell you are.
I like to see you win a majority ... when those nasty "issue groups" abandon the party en masse.
August 4, 2005 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's be more like Republicans!
This way, voters can see that they really don't have a choice!
And at the same time, give up traditional Democratic issues like Affirmative Action, abortion and equal rights so you turn off all the liberals from the party.
Republicans win again.
Here's a better idea: base your politics on what's right, not what the polls say.
If you think abortion is wrong, or you don't think gays deserve the right to marry, just fucking say so.
But don't hide behind statistics and bullshit labels to justify your politics. Cause people see right through that shit.
August 4, 2005 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, let me say that this is a brilliant post, probably the best one I've seen since TPMCafe started.
But it doesn't go quite far enough because it does not factor in the biggest issue of all in recent years, national security. How much do national security liberals overlap with social liberals? Quite a bit I would say. But not completely. I can't tell you how many times have I have heard about people who disagree with social conservatism and economic conservatism but were turned off from voting for John Kerry because of a perceived weakness on national security.
The problem, as I see it, is that on the question of national security, Democrats have let the angry far left dominate the discussion. While the depredations of the Bush Administration make many people beyond the far left angry, let's also remember something that has been discussed elsewhere, which is that while Americans may not like the Iraq War, they really don't like the anti-American rabble that was out front and center opposing it in street protests.
The far left dominates Democratic discussion of national security in other ways that turn off the majority of Americans. Much of it has to do with style. The left would rather dwell on America's problems than celebrate its virtues. It would would rather gloss over the problems and evils of other countries in favor of criticizing us. While rightly concerned with the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the left seems never to find the same level of outrage at the (much worse) atrocities perpetrated by our enemies. It worries more about protecting minorities than in protecting the majority. For example, leftists place more worry on "racial profiling" rather than on the needs of the security services to stop terrorists. Lastly, leftists are profoundly uncomfortable with the exercise and projection of American power and influence around the world and do not believe it can be a force for good.
Democrats will always be handicapped if national security liberals are the majority.
August 4, 2005 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It helps to stand for the right things. Repub rhetoric has advanced to such a level that they make outright prejudice and bigotry sould like a virtue. If you can think, however, you can see through this.
Democracts can learn from this play on words as to how important presentation can be! My Democratic party should stand for fairness and collective security on all issues (as in we are all in this together)! What we Dems really need are lessons in public relations that allow us to frame out "better" message in a way that sounds convincing and right. What we should not do is change our message to one of hidden bigotry and racism!!! If that is what it takes to win, I would feel better losing.
August 4, 2005 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I'll dispute the characterization of antiwar protesters as "anti-American" (I disagreed with their tactics, but most were as patriotic as you and I), I agree that we can't be branded as the antiwar, antimilitary party. One of the most notable things about Paul Hackett and our other Democratic veterans is that even the ones who disagree with the war aren't throwing away their medals and denouncing it in public demonstrations. They may be deeply conflicted about it, but they're allowing their conflict to remain private while remaining, in public, proud of their service, as they should be.
Weakness on national security, whether real or perceived (I personally would have been proud to have John Kerry as commander-in-chief, but I was in the minority, apparently) cost us the election. Paul Hackett has shown us a way to recover our strength.
August 4, 2005 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree with some of the other comments that social liberalism has some good long-term growth prospects. I'm also struck by the similarities between today's urban-oriented social liberals and the Evangelicals of a generation ago who came out of the woodwork to organize and secure political power. I'm constantly noticing creative types I know who, ten years ago, seemed entirely apolitical (or, even worse, conservative) and who are now dedicated progressives.
But we do need to realize that emphasizing social issues helps the Right. Why else would they fixate on them? And it goes beyond using cultural issues to blind voters to their economic interests (in Kansas and beyond.) Emphasis on these issues manufactures "controversy" and "outrage." Left to its own devices, society will continue to liberalize as it has in fits and starts for generations. The only way to keep people from going out and meeting gay people who turn out to be all-American is to keep them inside watching O'Reilly.
How do we de-emphasize social issues while harnessing our demographic growth? The right has perfected "dog whistle" appeals that fly right by mainstream voters and push the base's buttons (Dred Scott, anyone?). A combination of our prudent dog whistling with the over-the-top histrionics of the occasional Dobson might do the trick.
I realize that this is all a bit split-the-difference wishy-washy. But that's coalition building.
August 4, 2005 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with Lind's appeal to moderation is that it isn't about moderation at all: it enshrines a right-wing lie. It has one imagining that Republicans are talking about things that matter, such as jobs, while Democrats are campaigning on a platform of gay marriage. Would Lind like to name one who did?
It certainly wasn't Kerry, who had trouble getting away from Iraq even during the debate set aside from domestic issues, who tried to make health care and outsourcing his next two talking points, and whose running mate seems to have been distracted from his two Americas routine largely by the war. Even in blue New York, gays haven't become a talking point for politicians.
Candidates have largely ignored issues like displays of the ten commandments or the teaching of evolution. The issues come up in a specific context: when Republicans, often under the radar, play them as sham issues in apeals to the infamous base, when they are not reaching out to moderates but hoping moderates won't notice, so long as terror, tax cuts, smears, and the false moderation of phrases like "healthy forests" can keep them in line.
Once one sees the dynamic, the falsity of Lind's whole scheme falls into place. One can start to realize that most Americans do share fairly similar values and that, as noted in article after article debunking the famous exit polls, these do not play that great a role anyhow. One can start to see that Democrats who reply to direct questions about a woman's right to abortion in unequivocal terms have little choice, because they simply believe it and cannot do otherwise, whatever Lind would like or whatever the polls may show, but also because most others agree as well.
One can start to grasp, too, why the right-wing platform isn't about putting ideals over self-interest, but about the usual strategy of buzzwords that preempt thought and even conscience. One can start to see why they had to turn the rare time that gays did come up in the campaign, again in reply to a direct question and to a reasonable, broadly acceptable appeal by Kerry to some kind of vague tolerance, the Republicans had to displace the issue into a smear, as if Kerry had been lying about Cheney's daughter.
I applaud Lind and Frank for stressing economics, and I hope Democrats will. I just want that to remain, as it has been in the past, not part of a pale compromise, but part of the essence of liberalism.
August 4, 2005 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should neither support or oppose gay marriage & abortion. We should just say it's a matter of individual choice that the government shouldn't meddle with. The government has no right to butt into our personal lives and what happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business.
August 4, 2005 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote ... "Weakness on national security, whether real or perceived (I personally would have been proud to have John Kerry as commander-in-chief, but I was in the minority, apparently) cost us the election. Paul Hackett has shown us a way to recover our strength. "
John Kerry and Wes Clark gave us credibility on national security in 2003 and 2004. They stopped the "Democrats are weak on national security" hemorrhaging that had been going on for three decades, and it put us back in the ballgame. That's why Karl Rove went out of his way to smear us as law enforcement types several weeks ago. He knows we have a chance to get out our social and economic messages if we don't have to spend all of our time campaigning for our pacifist wing. Paul Hackett was a beneficiary of that change in perception brought about by Kerry and Clark, especially when combined with the fact that he had his own sterling military record. I hope the Democratic Party has learned something, but I have my doubts. The anti-military knee-jerks are very vocal in the party, and they are working hard to make us once again the pantywaists party as far as public perception is concerned. If we run someone without a sterling military and national security background in 2008, we will lose the advantage we have gained.
August 4, 2005 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: That should be "apologizing for our pacifist wing", not "campaigning"
August 4, 2005 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this advice for the national party, or individual members? Becuase I'd personally like to let candidates decide that for themselves.
August 4, 2005 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
thank you... i couldn't have said it better myself and i, personally, would lean toward something a bit stronger than "all wet..." full of shit comes to mind...
with bushco, we are facing some of the darkest forces i have seen in my nearly 60 years... alliances, factions, strategies, centrists, social liberals, economic populists... take your categorizations and jargonistic, insider-speak and stick it where the sun doesn't shine... it's gobbledegook like this that's enabling our rapid transit the rest of the way down the road to fascism... we need to plant ourselves foursquare on what's decent, compassionate, human, and RIGHT... spare me your intellectual masturbation...
August 4, 2005 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
while Americans may not like the Iraq War, they really don't like the anti-American rabble that was out front and center opposing it in street protests.
I don't even know where to start here. Do you know anything about the Constitution? Do you know we have a RIGHT to go out in the streets and protest? Do you know sound like a 1960's Alabama bigot who would have said the same thing about the civil rights protests?
And is it "they" don't like the rabble, or "you?" Project, much?
Oh, and by the way -- those anti-American pieces of shit that you describe WERE RIGHT on Iraq.
the left seems never to find the same level of outrage at the (much worse) atrocities perpetrated by our enemies.
Do we have to? Do we REALLY have to? Isn't it just ASSUMED that all Americans are appalled by what our enemies do?
It's like you stepped right off the set of Fox News. Seriously -- does everything have to be softened and wrapped around the flag? Can't we just call bullshit when we see it? Do we really have to caveat every criticism of America with some bullshit proclamation of how we LOVE our country?
I know that I assume that everyone -- whether they're on the left or right or center -- holds their country dear to them. Why don't you? Do we really have to play "who loves their country more?"
It worries more about protecting minorities than in protecting the majority.
Yeah, and it was a shame they helped out all those niggas down South, huh?
Leftists are profoundly uncomfortable with the exercise and projection of American power
When since WWII have we done that for good? Nicaragua? Chile? Vietnam? Iraq?
Sorry, but the projection of power is a mixed record, at best.
You may want to paint America as some untouchable Norman Rockwell where all is good. But we've got faults. And someone needs to point that out. America is good, but can ALWAYS be better.
And, as an American, I have a right to take to the streets and point out our flaws, and make this country better. Because if I stop doing that, then we no longer have a Democracy. We have a dictatorship. Sorry -- not in my interest.
And I'm sorry to be so harsh here. But I take EXTREME offense at being called anti-American.
August 4, 2005 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with kiltedliberal and with the followup post by Craig: while "most Americans are right-of-center on social issues" may be true, the center is shifting and it is shifting left. And it is shifting left due to the work done by the "social liberals", so dreaded in the post.
The post itself appears to be about the way for the Democratic Party to regain control. But to a large degree the issue is not really about the name of the party in control, it is about the direction in which the party in control is taking the country. And I am not certain I would a agree with a direction in which any party of social conservatives would be taking the country.
August 4, 2005 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do they pull it off? By declaring (in its platform?) that the Democratic Party has no identification whatsoever with pro- or anti-abortion positions, pro- or anti-gay rights positions, pro-or anti-pornography positions, etc. In distancing itself from these issues, the Democratic Party would be declaring that it is wrapping its identity primarily around its historic commitment to economic justice and to the economic security of Average Americans.
It should not be a secret any more that there are gay Republicans who like the GOP's anti-tax policy, and anti-abortion Democrats who believe passionately in the goal of economic justice. In distancing itself from any specific position on the most polarizing of social/moral issues, the Democratic Party would be telling the American people that it recognizes (1) that these divisive issues cut across party lines, and (2) that none of the positions on any of these moral issues is necessarily connected to either the economic agenda historically pursued by the Republican Party or the economic agenda historically pursued by the Democratic Party.
By refusing to allow the Republicans define them as [Values] Liberals, Democrats would then be free to welcome into the party any Values Conservatives who share the same basic yearning for Economic Justice. Yes, Values Liberals who currently identify with the Democratic Party can be expected to scream and yell and protest this idea vehemently, but nothing is stopping them from focusing their energy on building up a strong, passionate non-partisan Advocacy Movement that would promote their agenda across party lines. After all, why should those who are passionate advocates of, say...gay rights...unnecessarily alienate those Republicans who might be sympathetic with their cause if not for the Democrats' economic agenda? They might even find that their funding would improve greatly if they became "non-partisan."
In order to successfully pull of this change of identity, all Democrats--no matter what their persuasions---would need to zealously defend the Party's non-partisan stance on social/moral issues. Any who try to represent their personal views on these hot-button issues as the views of the Democratic Party should be zealously reprimanded by the party faithful. We should encourage those who feel strongly about Abortion rights, Gay Rights, etc. to speak loudly for their causes---not as Democrats---but as advocates of certain causes who also happen to identify with the Democrats' economic agenda.
It's a solution that I think almost all parties would benefit from. Gay Rights and Abortion Rights advocates would be able to appeal to sympathizers in both parties and the Democratic Party would be able to escape the branding that has worked so well for them. The only interest group that would really stand to lose from this kind of Identity Makeover would be---you guessed it---THE REPUBLICANS!
http://taxwisdom.org/republican_nemesis.htm
August 4, 2005 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The anti-military knee-jerks are very vocal in the party, and they are working hard to make us once again the pantywaists party
Why don't you get that it's not ALL military actions we're (at least I'm) opposed to? It's just the bullshit imperialistic neo-con wet dreams we don't like: Chile, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Iraq.
It's fine to use the military for good, when needed. But way too often it's based on a lie -- why should the knee-jerk reaction be to support that?
That's what I don't understand about you hawks. Why should be simply "trust" our government's doing the right thing? Haven't they NOT done the right thing enough to earn skepticism from We The People?
August 4, 2005 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agreee with the above posts.
I also want to express that as a populist myself I am much more moderate or even liberal on social issues than conservative. I may be personally conservative, but I respect personal choices.
My populism focuses on the inequality of big business vs average american. The wealthy investor vs the poverty-stricken citizen.
I'm glad you (Mr. Lind) are making these posts, even if I disagree with you.
-Zen Blade
August 4, 2005 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As always Mr. Lind finds a way to articulate a truth I am loathe to accept in a way that makes me see he is correct.
August 4, 2005 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we need to change any of our positions; it is more about how the positions are defined by the right that are becoming accepted as conventional wisdom. I'm not sure if I can really explain this well.
For example; on abortion, the far right pro lifers take the position that all abortion is murder, end of story no compromise is accepted. Very few people agree with this. But the republicans manage to frame the debate that our position is abortion on demand, for any woman whenever she wants for any reason. Which is also a minority position. Most of the country is somewhere in the middle; pro choice, but queasy about abortion and so on. The right wins the debate and convices anyone to the right of the extreme position to vote for the republican. What we need to do is re-frame the debate; force the Republicans to own the far-right, no abortion whatsoever position and convince everyone to the left of them to vote Dem.
August 4, 2005 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I really can't do that, or let the party do that. It'd be like saying "we should have no position on abolishing Jim Crow laws." It isn't right. Same sex couples have the right to marry each other, it's simple. You don't hold "no opinion" on a civil rights issue.
August 4, 2005 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for saying it. You know, there were a lot of lefties, and I mean real left leaning types, who weren't against, say, taking out the Taliban. In fact, a lot of them complained that we tried to do it too cheaply and let OBL get away. The left has supported wars. Some on the left wanted us to send troops into Rwanda. Many supported the war in the Balkans. Yes, there are some hardcore pacifists on the left, but there are hard core isolationists on the right. If we're to be criticized, let it be for what we are -- we don't swoon for EVERY war.
August 4, 2005 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, how did I know this would happen?
Do you know anything about the Constitution? Do you know we have a RIGHT to go out in the streets and protest? Do you know sound like a 1960's Alabama bigot who would have said the same thing about the civil rights protests?
I never said anything about rights. Of course you have a right to protest. But if you actually looked at the nature of the protests, you saw a strong anti-American element, which I take to mean a presumption that America is up to no good, that the war was, as you put it, "imperialistic" or "all about oil" rather than related to national security.
My point is that the antiwar protests in the winter and spring of 02/03 were largely organized and driven by groups such as the International Solidarity Movement, which are EXPLICITLY anti-American. Does that mean every person in the crowd was anti-American? Of course not. But the flavor of the protests was anti-American.
Oh, and by the way -- those anti-American pieces of shit that you describe WERE RIGHT on Iraq.
Perhaps, but that's not the point. The point is that they sufficiently turned off mainstream America that Bush was re-elected with majorities in both houses of Congress. So what precisely did the protests accomplish?
Isn't it just ASSUMED that all Americans are appalled by what our enemies do?
No!!!!!! Politics is a game of PERCEPTION. When you find fault with America but gloss over the atrocities of our enemies, you are PERCEIVED as anti-American. Naturally the GOP will be all too happy to nurture that perception, but the seeds will already have been planted. Look, I'm not saying don't criticize the US for our mistakes and faults. But keep it in perspective. There is no moral equivalence between us and our enemies. Bush is not Hitler. We did not go to war to "get" Iraq's oil. Saying these kinds of things is counterproductive.
When since WWII have we done that for good? Nicaragua? Chile? Vietnam? Iraq?
How about keeping all of Western Europe and most of Asia free from communist domination for the better part of half a century? Do you think that the prosperity that Europeans and some Asians enjoy would have happened without American protection? Sheesh, get a clue.
You may want to paint America as some untouchable Norman Rockwell where all is good.
I do nothing of a sort. I believe in dissent. I believe in progressive values and the imperative of improving American democracy. But I also believe in winning. And we will not win if we are perceived as placing a higher priority on self-criticism than on defeating our enemies.
August 4, 2005 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I use pro-life and pro-choice because those are the most widespread terms, and the least loaded. I generally discount anyone who uses "pro-abortion" or "anti-choice" when describing their opposition. One, very few people on either side actually hold those specific views, and Two, usually those who use those terms are looking for a fight, not a discussion.
Well said; I've been frustrated reading through the thread and having people who support abortion rights complain that they too are "pro-life." Obviously the terms pro-choice and pro-life have an English meaning, but in the context of a political discussion they are used to broadly identify a particular set of views about abortion. People using this line are conflating two distinct meanings when the question of which should apply is obvious.
August 4, 2005 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, I'd like to ask Mr. Lind to briefly discuss the New America's Foundation relationship to the DLC-PPI-Third Way foundation group. Is the New America Foundation independent of the former? (Several members of the NEF board, Scott Delman, and Bernard Schwartz, are also on the board of the Third Way). Also, where does your group gets its financing from? (Any Bradley Foundation/Corporate PAC money?)
In response to your argument, I just want to state that Democrats are only losing the culture war, because of failed leadership. People like you are undermining our warriors, and making everyone look weak in the process.
You only need to look to the Hackett campaign to see how successful the Party could be, if it completely abandoned the mealy-mouthed, Republican-lite approach that you espouse. Hackett didn't wobble on abortion. He stated his beliefs plainly. On gay rights, he said that he was for them, and that anybody who didn't believe in equal rights was Un-American. And he flatly stood up to the Chickenhawk-in-Chief, and this outrageous war.
Guess what? Hackett sold well. And it wasn't because he did the Kerry waffle, the Hillary flip-flop, or the Daschle dodge. Instead, he stood up straight, professed real beliefs, and people respected him for it!
Your position against social liberalism has been field tested. It hasn't worked. Will you ever learn that all people want is Paul Hackett like honesty and leadership?
Finally, another question: "If this country is so socially conservative, why is Desperate Housewives so popular?" I mean Las Vegas, the Dallas Cheerleaders, Hooters, dirty jokes, XXX videos, etc. Republicans all partake. Don't they?
August 4, 2005 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a DEMOCRAT who trusts women to make their own decisions about their reproductive health care. Women are in charge of their personal health care. END OF DISCUSION.
August 4, 2005 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad,
The problem is your buying the right-wing spin that says those far-left protestors equal the Democratic party.
Most of the groups you cite are people who vote for Nader or real fringe parties like the Communists.
It is like how instapundit and his ilk try ot get the Dems to own Ward Churchill. He is on record as saying the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same corporatist coin. This guy isn't a Democrat.
Show me a Democratic candidate for any office who opposed the Afgan war?
August 4, 2005 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Oh, and by the way -- those anti-American pieces of shit that you describe WERE RIGHT on Iraq."
Being right wasn't good enough. We failed to stop it.
Because America didn't listen. Because we made it too easy for them to see us as "anti-American pieces of shit".
August 4, 2005 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Oh, and by the way -- those anti-American pieces of shit that you describe WERE RIGHT on Iraq. "
Being right wasn't good enough.
We didn't stop the war, nor the re-election of the President who lied us into it.
Because America didn't listen.
Because some of us made it too easy for America to see us as "anti-American pieces of shit?"
Only effective dissent protects democracy.
August 4, 2005 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's picking candidates solely based on their resumes that we need to stop. Kerry and Clark look great on paper, but they didn't pan out in the polls because it's not record that matters these days, but image, a unified party message, and a well-oiled party machine. The sooner the Dems see that, the better. The GOP sure has. Did they run a military genius? Nope, they ran a draft-dodging crackhead, and won. Can't argue with success.
You can see examples of this everywhere. Saxby Chambliss beat Max Cleland. Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole. Jean Schmidt beat Paul Hackett. Yes, I know some Dems call this latter defeat a victory. That just shows how desperate and pathetic they are.
Mind you, I'm not saying that the fact that image and party message matters more these days is bad. It's good, to the extent that it moves us more toward shaping a brand for the electorate to buy and away from the obsession with picking the "right" candidate. If the Democratic message is strong enough, the party could run a pinata stuffed with sawdust and win. This is more like how parliamentary systems run.
August 4, 2005 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is if they cease to be run by finger-to-the-wind opportunists like Lind and start standing up for what they believe in, setting the agenda, and framing the debate.
This hand-wringing over accommodating the center is something only minority parties do. Reagan didn't do it. Bush doesn't do it. FDR never did it. See a pattern?
We should be focused on taking the fight to the Republicans, not on seemingly endless navelgazing exercises by our DLC types. It's the navelgazing and accommodation that makes Democrats look weak and ineffectual... mostly because they <b>do</b> make Democrats weak and ineffectual. Enough already!
August 4, 2005 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
AMEN! I'm not a religious peron but AMEN!
This is a privacy issue. John Roberts and Rick Santorum are two Republican leaders who have stated that they don't believe the Constitution protects our right to privacy. As Democrats we should nail them on this one.
I live in Central Oregon (the Red part of Oregon). The west has tradition of live and let live. Democrats need to tap into that sentiment.
August 4, 2005 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Lind is proposing is that the Democrats never place a future Ken Mehlman in the position of unctuously thanking us for upholding the rights of gay couples, the rights of secular citizens not to have their morals and behavior dictated to them by fundamentalist zealots, and so on. To surrender progressive ideals is to embrace inertia and become an even more emasculated opposition party. Lind and I may be in the same party, but I suggest he not be quite so pushy about where he wants me to go--with or without him.
August 4, 2005 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is your buying the right-wing spin that says those far-left protestors equal the Democratic party.
I know they don't equal the Democratic Party, but politics is a game of perception. And when far-left charlatans like Michael Moore are given front-row seating at the Democratic National Convention, it contributes a great deal to the perception that the Democrats are beholden to the most extreme elements. Personally, I think if Kerry had done a Sister Souljah on Michael Moore, it would have gone a long way.
I also know that the GOP playbook calls for trying to blur the distinctions between every left-wing loony like Ward Churchill and the Democrats as a whole. My point is that too often we've made it easy for them.
August 4, 2005 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of think that people like Lind are afraid and so they wrap their discussion of ideas up in political practicality, rather than spending time discussing the merits and shortcomings of the ideas that they're saying need to be a marginal part of the party.
I believe that Lind owes us some answers to a few specific questions:
1) Do you believe that homosexuals have the right to marry same sex partners?
2) Do you believe that the government should fund stem cell research?
3) Do you believe that a woman should have an unrestricted right to an abortion? If not, do you beliebe that a woman has that right under certain conditions (early in the pregnancy, health threat, rape victim...)?
4) Were you for or against the bankruptcy bill, and why?
5) Do you believe that the government should regulate the content of entertainment media?
That should get us started. How about dealing with some of these ideas, rather than the political convenience of social lefties?
August 4, 2005 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can take all your labels and stick them in your ass. That's all just misdirection to give us something to argue about. We are all Americans and care deeply about this country. Anybody with half a brain knows that big business and money are what run this country and the world and that is why we had Vietnam and that is why we have Iraq. And that is why Bush is president.
A lot of people like myself in their late fifties and sixties know we got screwed in Vietnam and we know we are being dealt the same thing now. I don't give a damn about who wants an abortion or who gets a welfare check. In 1950 over half of tax receipts were from business and today that number is sixteen percent. American business is the biggest welfare recipient by far. I know for a fact government doesn't give a hoot about who lives or dies or gets three squares.
I give a big damn though when my government lies to me and sends the children and grandchildren of my generation off to die somewhere so big companies can make a buck. Red and blue state and lib and repug is a lot of crap. We are all Americans being sold a bill of goods. It's all about $$$$$$. And if you'll notice that is a major complaint of the terrorists. That is, the west stealing their wealth. I don't doubt how big business treats them. I just have to look around in the U.S. to know the way big business operates. Big business screws us all the time and I'm sure they do so routinely in all their dealings. Just happens that they've done it to some people we call terrorists that happen not to like it very much who want to even things up a bit. And because the center of the global economy is NYC that is where they struck. It's about $$$$$ and the crappy business practices of capitalism. Ask yourself how long U.S. corporate interests have closed their eyes to child and slave labor in third world countries? That still hasn't stopped. Remember Bhopal? Remember agent orange? It's a wonder Muslims are the only ones who want a piece of us. But that's OK. Pretty soon nobody will care about us. Everyone will hate China before too long. They'll own everything in another half century. And it will still be about $$$$$$$$$$$$$.
thepeoplechoose
August 4, 2005 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest mistake Democrats made was thinking that because John Kerry was a veteran with a strong war record, that this would somehow "innoculate" him from being perceived as weak on national security.
Whether that was ever true, Kerry managed to fritter it away and make himself vulnerable to the GOP attack machine. It was so predictable and so depressing to watch while it was happening.
August 4, 2005 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget that people, off the very partisan web, tend to identify themselves as "the middle" when they're really not. Think Perot -- he was a wingnut, in a lot of ways. He was popular with Buchanan followers. But he called himself a "middle ground."
August 4, 2005 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dark Helmet, Dude in Burbank, and someone else: I'm right with you. Mr. Lind, I'm right with you, too.
And dude who posted this:
You've missed the point. First of all, those who claim Lind has his "finger to the wind" are right and wrong. You have to keep your finger to the wind on social issues, because the prevailing winds, over time, tell you the direction of the country. We should keep our fingers to the wind on social issues. They are immensely important. Our social values should reflect the national consensus and vigorously protect minority rights. As Adlai Stevenson said, we need a republic in which it is "safe to be unpopular." But we shouldn't try and tack back and forth with "absolutes" and litmus tests every time there's an election.
I'm for adopting a position of saying: well, the democratic party is a big tent party on social issues. We embrace the freedom of choice, because that is the national consensus. We embrace the right to bear arms, because that is the national consensus. We want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and we want to eliminate the travel of guns to those who should not have them through enforcing existing gun control laws to the hilt.
On the economic issues, let there be no doubt: we are liberal. We support universal quality education, universal health care, and economic policies that insure a fair market economy (Eliot Spitzer, anyone) that delivers economic returns to all working Americans.
And I say all of this as a democratic socialist. But hey, I'm realistic. And I'll just work to create a little socialist burgh in some state that would have a lot of minority social liberals, like me.
August 4, 2005 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) Lind seems to go further than necessary in his point that cultural liberals MUST become the junior partner to socially conservative populists in a new Democratic majority, which intentionally or not, implies the Democratic party Lind envisions to be culturally conservative rather than culturally centrist. Indeed, the new coalition should where possible take advantage of wedge issues that unite moderate conservative and liberals against the cultural far right, such as stem cell research or legalization of contraception.
2) The major obstacle to any such transformation of the Democratic Party is money. The only way that the Democratic Party has been able to stay competitive against GOP K-Street machine is through tapping well-off cultural liberals on both coasts. A populist message may be a winner, but without sufificent funds to get that message out, it will still lose.
Exhibit A here may be the 2000 PA Senate race between Klink and Santorum. Klink was a populist (anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-Union) whose positions mirrored far more PA voters that the party line conservative views of Santorum. However, Klink was unable to raise any money. The state's primary source of Democratic donors, cultural liberals from surburban Philly, after seeing their preferred candidate go down in the primaries, gave Klink little to nothing. (If the process does not repeat itself with Bob Casey's run in 2006, it will only be because 6 years of GOP dominance has made them desperate).
3) As many of the posters aptly note, while the majority of the country is culturally conservative, it is trending to the left. Gay marriage might be a very effective bogeyman for the rest of this decade, but it is doubtful it will have the same effect in 20 years, given the dramatic divide on the issue between older and younger Americans. Any long-term strategic planning has to address this reality.
4) Finally, as others have already noted, Lind does not addresss national security and foreign policy. While to some extent these issues play out similar to cultural issues (Andrew Sullivan aside, the number of staunch supporters of the war in Iraq and gay marriage is quite small), it is not necessarily so. Trying to anticipate the positions of the plurality of Americans who have a populist, Jacksonian bent is quite difficult.
On the one hand, Jacksonians, the longer Iraq drags on without a clear "victory," the less support they will tend to have for the conflict, given their aversion to long-term international committments. On the other hand, the Jacksonians are highly skeptical of the Democrats ability to protect the country, rejecting the pacifism of the Jeffersonian grass-roots and the liberal internationalism of the elite. What exactly are the Dems to do then? Keep in mind how Jacksonian voters punished the Dems for their role in ending Vietnam, even those that had come to oppose the war by the end.
I'm interested in hearing what Michael and everyone else has to say about these points.
August 4, 2005 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reality many of you refuse to face is that national security and abortion are as fundamental to many liberals as any other issue. We may agree to fudge the issues, as Kerry did, and all gather under our 48% of the electorate tent, but if you think the Dem Party can run a successful campaign based on the strategy of trashing its own base, you are smoking something this liberal does not smoke. If you are going to run a campaign against me, then you better start looking for somebody else to knock on doors in my precinct because I'm still going to be knocking on the doors -- to defeat you.
August 4, 2005 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also advocate moving the party in a more populist direction. But my sense is that if Democrats simply recovered their economic liberalism, and aggressively promoted it and lead with it, they would not really have to change their message on social issues - which is in any case already much more diverse than it is typically portrayed as being. By offering a substantial majority of Americans a sweet economic deal, many fence-sitters and independents will be attracted to the party. It is only because for many people the Democrats offer hardly anything at all of great economic value to them that they become so fixated on the social issues that irritate them.
But let's not kid ourselves about populism as a long-term solution. Populism, per se, is not the basis for a permanent majority. By succeeding, populism always destroys itself. Populists are have nots, of some kind or other, motivated by an resentment toward some group of haves by whom they feel put upon - it may be that they are people without college educations who resent those that have them; or people without money who resent those who have it; or people who don't live in a toney section of the country who resent those that do; or people who don't have good looks or polished manners or refined tastes, who resent people who have those things. By moving people out of the aggrieved class, one lessens their resentment. They may cease to be populists - and certainly their children will cease to be populists. So only a permanent, bitter minority can be permanently populist. The Republicans, for example, are not a thoroughly populist party: they are a diverse coalition that has opportunistically recruited to its side a vociferous populist wing. But a permanent majority must be built of deep and durable moral and political ideals, not just the resentments of the political moment.
It is in fact very hard to separate social liberalism from economic liberalism in a coherent way. Many of the behaviors and attitudes we think of as socially liberal are not simply matters of relatively shallow "lifestyle freedom", they are tied to issues of economic equality and independence. The problem in the contemporary period is that, by dropping its commitment to economic liberalism, Democrats have undermined the deeper ideological foundations of the socially liberal causes they have traditionally advanced.
Democrats need to do more to re-establish those ties. Much of the initial impulse between the abortion rights movement, for example, was economic and liberationist - only by asserting and defending the absolute sovereignty of women over the space inside their own bodies, and providing that they have the final say in all decisions related to whether or not to use, and continue to use, their bodies for reproductive purposes, could women emerge from their traditional economic dependence on, and subordination to, men. That was the right view then, and is the right view now. But, we now have a generation of younger women who take the greater economic freedom of women for granted, and who sometimes fail to understand the connection between that freedom and reproductive rights - particularly abortion rights.
Similarly, the connection between a left economic outlook and anti-militarism is no accident. It is an inherent part of the traditional intellectual legacy of the left, and a truly valuable insight, that the prevalence of wars is in great part a function of economic inequality. The economically ascendant classes are able to recruit, or conscript, those with fewer economic options as cannon fodder to throw into wars that serve the interests of the ascendant class. Economic liberation has always gone hand in hand with liberating the have nots from the burden of military service. An truly egalitarian society would also be less militarist and imperialistic, because the price of imperialism is judged to be too high once its odious burdens are spread equally. (The Soviet Union is a good example. Although nominally egalitarian, it was in fact a tyranny of an unaccountable elite, and thus able to pursue a militarist foreign policy on the backs of its non-voting masses.)
It is part of the outlook of economic liberationism that people often internalize traditional moral attitudes that contribute to the perpetuation of their own economic domination by others. Thus there are severe practical and philosophical limits to how far the left can go in compromising with the "traditional values" of the society they seek to improve. Many of those traditional values are just the ground rules for the preservation of traditional economic arrangements. Economic improvement of the lives of the less advantaged must always go hand-in-hand with a certain amount of "consciousness raising."
The pursuit of economic betterment and equality is not just a matter of providing people with more stuff. It's a mater of balancing the scales, giving people more power, and liberating them from their subservience to others. In a word, it involves making society more democratic. Consider even the matter of gay rights, which many think of as a pure "social issue" unconnected with economics. How can a person be free to pursue happiness, and make the most economically out of the talents with which they have been blessed, if they are compelled to hide a huge part of what makes them themselves from the rest of the world, or to live a life that pushes them into channels that are alien to those that are most natural to them?
Democrats should be dedicated to the enduring ideals of liberty and equality, and to the insight that they are inextricably connected. There is certainly a right-wing commitment to the ideal of liberty as well. But the right's version of this ideal is to defend the practice a form of liberty that results in people having the freedom to dominate and expolit their fellows. What separates the left from the right on this matter is belief that the social and economic are connected. We must lliberalize our social values to promote economic equality; and we must level inequalities to liberate ourselves from the oppressive structures in society.
August 4, 2005 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should encourage those who feel strongly about Abortion rights, Gay Rights, etc. to speak loudly for their causes---not as Democrats---
Fine. As long as you don't need my vote. I have a hunch some of you guys may be stunned to find that reproductive rights is a women's rights issue to many of us. It's stunning how badly you underestimate what a slippery slope that is for the Dem Party.
August 4, 2005 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lind seems to go further than necessary in his point that cultural liberals MUST become the junior partner to socially conservative populists in a new Democratic majority, which intentionally or not, implies the Democratic party
The idea is delusional. The party is more likely to go the way of the AFL-CIO. Cultural liberals are NOT going to be junior partners to socially conservative populists. Heck, we can do that and join the current majority party. The model folks seem to see for the future "majority" Dem party would be less likely to include me than the Republican Party. At least the Republicans didn't sell me out. I can admire their principles if nothing else.
August 4, 2005 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote ... "The biggest mistake Democrats made was thinking that because John Kerry was a veteran with a strong war record, that this would somehow "innoculate" him from being perceived as weak on national security. "
The biggest mistake is to believe what is written above. John Kerry was not considered weak on national security by many because he was John Kerry. He was considered weak on national security because he was a DEMOCRAT.
August 4, 2005 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What seems most difficult about this post is that the dichotomy set up between economic and social liberalism (or conservatism) doesn't make much sense to me. When someone is thrown out of the house they occupied for 20 years with a same-sex partner because they couldn't get their name on the lease or because they have no spousal exemption for estate taxes, is that an economic issue or a social one? When minority enrollment at major universities (and the access to high-end jobs that goes with it) plummets because social conservatives try to kill affirmative action, what you've got is an economic issue. When single mothers have to choose between custody of their children and a college education, ditto. (For that matter, when women have to bear children without support for prenatal care or upbringing...)
On the economic side, you get the same thing -- I guess it's possible (Bismarck did it) to have a welfare state that helps only the socially acceptable, but in economic terms you still end up with an enormous drag on the body politic. And how can you possible talk about reforming America's lopsided tax structure without talking about the class war that republicans have declared on the average citizen? How can you talk about budget priorities and entitlements without a social vision? (And let's not even get into the national-security quagmire, where somehow spreading hundreds of billions of dollars worth of pork, grinding up the serving military and producing endless recruiting posters for Al Qaida is considered being strong and credible.)
Maybe you can hive off a few minor hot-button issues -- justice for gay people, freedom from fundamentalist totalitarianism, full opportunity for racial minorities and women, things like that -- to make your main platform more appealing. But don't divide things up into "social" and "economic" issues. Call a spade a spade.