Ideas? Feh.
Ken, thanks for inviting me here. Do ideas matter? Of course they do, in the sense that it matters a great deal whether people who hold political power are animated by good ideas or bad ones. But I think people tend to take the premise that “ideas matter” much further than that, and much further than makes any sense. The reason I wrote the essay you kindly linked is that our political culture seems to invest massive and unrealistic importance in the power of ideas, and there was a particularly noticeable upsurge in this sentiment after the 2004 election.
The sentiment seems to bundle together a whole collection of interrelated notions: that parties win elections because they have better (or newer, or more) ideas; that newer ideas are inherently better than older ones; that fighting against bad ideas is a sign of intellectual exhaustion rather than political necessity; and so on. If you look closely at any of these component premises, as I did in my piece, they fall apart pretty quickly.
The idea-centric view of American politics is obviously very flattering to intellectuals and writers, as it bestows upon us a central role in history. Unfortunately, I don’t think this idealistic view is correct. Let me make my cynical case.
You write that conservative ideas journals “helped take a marginal movement in American life that was thumped at the polls (Goldwater in 1964), and over four decades turn it into a dominant force.” You cite three examples of ideas nurtured and incubated in those journals: supply-side economics, Social Security privatization, and preemption. Let me take those in reverse order.
First, preemption. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this. The idea of striking your enemy before he strikes you is ancient, and not particularly associated with modern American conservatism. The notion of making it the centerpiece of our foreign policy doctrine merged essentially on the fly after September 11. So I don’t see how policy journals played much of a role here.
Second, privatization. Of course privatization emerged as a tactical measure, a way for conservatives who opposed Social Security to try to phase out the program, or at least eliminate the aspects of it they most detested. But it is a bad idea, in the sense not just of being conceptually misguided but of simply not working. The closer republicans came to drawing up specific plans, the more it became clear that they didn’t have a workable version. Each of them was filled with enormous practical flaws. More to the point, privatization in no way helped conservatives or Republicans gain power. Bush won despite, not because of, his support for it.
Third, my personal bugaboo of supply-side economics. This definitely helped Republicans win elections. It did so because it persuaded them to abandon the once-shared notion that the government had some responsibility to keep its fiscal house in order. Offering voters tax cuts without spending cuts is popular. If Democrats could somehow persuade their governing elite to abandon their scruples about fiscal responsibility, they would win more elections. I should note, though, that supply-side economics has not helped Republicans govern. Government has grown significantly under Bush, and taxes have simply been deferred to the future. Supply-side economics has been bad for the country, and bad for liberals and democrats, but not necessarily good for conservatives in the long run.
Next, you say of the voters, “They are hearing a bunch of notes, but no music. No one knows what Democrats believe in – what their principles are that they would stand up and fight for. They know our issues or issue positions.” This is a longstanding problem. Conservatives are ideologically anti-government in a way that liberals are not ideologically pro-government. (I have more to say about this here). Conservatism thus lends itself to overarching doctrines in a way that liberalism doesn’t.
Clinton’s economic policies, for instance, worked precisely because he didn’t have a firm vision going into office. Or, at least, he was willing to abandon large chunks of that vision and adapt himself pragmatically to the circumstances at hand. This is a substantive blessing and a political curse.
I would suggest that conservatism’s political ascent derives from two factors far more important than ideas. First, the rise of K Street, which reflected the transformation of business from a relatively dormant and moderate force into an aggressively conservative rent-seeking wing of the GOP. And second, the inevitable realignment of the South. Ideas weren’t what propelled Republicans into power. They were just the things they wanted to do after they acquired it.
I'm repeating myself here. A recent study revealed that when people are asked political (and religious) questions the rational, thinking side of the brain shuts down and the emotional, passion side of the brain takes over. Madison Ave. has known this for years - note the ads we're bombarded with constantly. So where do ideas go? Limbo, probably. Slogans, epithets, propaganda go right to that non-rational brain area and work their magic with nary a hitch. Sad commentary but if you want someone to buy something, or somebody, this is the strategy to adopt.
June 21, 2006 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Conservatives are ideologically anti-government in a way that liberals are not ideologically pro-government."
Yeah, right...
BOTH are pro-government. Period. The only difference is in the expression of the lies.
The reasons why one or the other ideology wins over any given period of time are unrelated to the specific lies they use to justify their ideologies. Chait is right about that.
The pendulum will always swing back and forth - liberalism in the Fifties and Sixties, and Seventies, conservatism in the Eighties, Nineties and O's.
Who cares? The end result is the same: more state, more disaster - until the specific state itself is destroyed in an revolution or war - and then it starts all over again.
Anybody wanting to talk about the future needs to try to figure out when and how the United States government is going to be destroyed - because that is an historic inevitability.
June 21, 2006 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conservatism thus lends itself to overarching doctrines in a way that liberalism doesn’t.
Clinton’s economic policies, for instance, worked precisely because he didn’t have a firm vision going into office. Or, at least, he was willing to abandon large chunks of that vision and adapt himself pragmatically to the circumstances at hand.
What dumbfounds me about the endless arguments over a Democratic message or theme is that what you've just said is the core difference between Democrats and Republicans -- the defining principle that separates us -- and no one, it appears, can see clearly enough to recognize it.
Under Bush, the Republicans have abandoned all pretense of governing pragmatically. Everything is done according to their Unchanging Principles, whether it works or not. Not surprisingly, it hasn't worked, and vivid examples of their failure are everywhere we look.
In contrast, a theme that every Democrat across the U.S. can run on is that instead of the GOP's empty slogans, knee-jerk actions, and wishful thinking, we're going to look at the facts as they are and make decisions based on what works.
The phrase that has caught on in the blogosphere for this characteristic is being "reality-based." But there's a simpler, more intuitive phrase that even red-state voters will be able to identify with: common sense.
Democrats are running to bring common sense to our Iraq policy, to bring common sense to addressing high gas prices and our dependence on foreign oil ... to bring common sense in general to Washington. That's our narrative.
June 21, 2006 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll say the same thing I said in the Ken's thread, it is not about ideas it is about money. The super wealthy elite have supported a full court press of conservative magazine, "think tanks", media companies and politicians to justify a series of measures designed solely for their benefit. And they have the money to do it.
The left thinks that better ideas will win elections. First the public doesn't hear many of these ideas, the press doesn't report them. Second, the broad ideas (like health and retirement benefits) are already supported by the majority of the people. The latest round of "what are we doing wrong" is misdirected. It's not ideas that are needed it access to the public. That's what George Soros understands. That's why he gave money to groups like MoveOn which could try and bypass the media choke hold. It is why he supports similar measures in other parts of the globe.
The best ideas in the world don't do any good if no one can hear them. The other factor is the distortion of the electoral process both by gerrymandering and the cost of running for elections. As noted elsewhere, the public is in favor of campaign finance reform, it is the vested interests who are preventing it.
Follow the Money.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
June 21, 2006 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Almost anything that achieves capital letter status ie: Religion, Ideas, Narrative, Justice becomes a dangerous parody of itself. I'm afraid Ideas has become one, too.
Of course we all need ideas. I think it's a great idea if I continue breathing. It's a bad idea if I step in front of traffic. But to elevate those Capital Letter Words into the thing in itself is just stupid. It's not Ideas. It's what's comprises the Idea.
June 21, 2006 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Josh's post on TPM, I thought you guys were gonna be talking about specific "existing ideas" versus competing "new ideas".
But having read this post and Kenneth Baer's, I have to say I'm confused about what exactly you guys are debating. Precisely how important "ideas" are? It's a little too abstract for me, but maybe I'm in the minority here, or just not getting it...
June 21, 2006 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The debate really comes down to this - are liberals losing the political battle in America because they are losing an intellectual battle to conservatives or are they losing for some other reason - lack of political skills, funds, means of communications, etc..
Chait argues that liberals are not losing elections because of a dearth of good ideas, but rather due to a combination of structural and monetary disadvantages, lack of political skill and ineffective communication.
I happen to think that Chait is correct. The policy successes of the Clinton administration were not proven false by GOP electoral victories. Rather, the GOP has been very effective at keeping elections about anything but core conservative principles on domestic policy. The Dems central problems are political organization and framing, not theories of governance. That's not to say that more wonkery won't help if the Dems do get back into power - just that the path back to power does not lead through the ivory tower..
June 21, 2006 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elections are popularity contests. The victor is the one with the most money for ten second TV ads, the most influence over the news media, and the fewest scruples about pandering to the base instincts of the mob.
Governing, on the other hand is largely about ideas and their execution. Unfortunately, one can run for office and win without once considering any ideas for what to do later - sorta like "conquering" Iraq.
Hoppy in Sacramento
June 21, 2006 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Absolutely FIRST. I recall after leaving DC for the Left Coast in the late 70's the tales my friends told me during the 1980's about the massive growth of "anti-government" corporate lobbies during the Reagan administration. At first I thought it odd, but it shouldn't have surprised me in the least.
Some friends got r'iffed, some got rich
June 21, 2006 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we should have some committee to establish a consistent vocabulary. "Idea" is about as precise a notion as "stuff".
One possible meaning is that our word is but an imperfect copy of IDEAS and the actions of a statesman should be governed by the IDEAs rather than reality that is both imperfect and imperfectly observed.
To pick the first of the Jonathan's examples. once we have an IDEA of pre-emptive war, and an IDEA of ENEMY, we have to attack, however unthreatening the enemy is (enemy being an imperfect copy of the ENEMY)). SADDAM was a menace on a global scale, Saddam, after years of sanctions, had no recources nor inclination to attack us or any of our allies.
Heaven forfend that we get in grip of such IDEAS.
Another kind is IDEAS like HEALTH, JUSTICE, FAIRNESS etc. that are defined in the terms of an ideal world while we have to work to change the discrepancy between the ideal and real. Our actions have to be guided by keen observations of reality, because in reality we measure their success. (Compare with the success of the preemptive war that eliminated SADDAM, as in "would you rather have SADDAM still in power?")
Example: are we defending the idea of FAMILY, the centerpiece of CIVILISATION, or we want to help families, actual people struggling with various problems? One could argue that a flash of a shapely breast on TV threatens the FAMILY but does nothing wrong to families. Lack of affordable quality care for pre-school children is a problem for families, but not for the FAMILY.
So we need a meta-idea: what kind of ideas do we care about?
June 21, 2006 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Oh I get it. I just got around to reading the Post. It is Idea Week in the Democratic Party
Democratiic Strategerists 'r US
June 21, 2006 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, preemption. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this.
Preemption is when you make shit up about another country and then bomb them.
See: Bush, George W.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
June 21, 2006 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused. Seems to me that your example, "FAMILY," isn't an idea but a notion, and a vague one at that. However there are families without doubt. "Family" is a class of facts; there are families, without a doubt. They may be described in their many varieties, but they can not be idealized, except by way of prejudice of one sort or other.
Your argument is inapt.
June 21, 2006 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you heard the argument wrong. I take it to mean that the idealized family does not exist, as you point out. Therefore, nuance is called for.
Rigid adherence to big ideas is the mistake, and is essentially worship of dogma. It is precisely that conservatives become obsessed with simplistic principles, and run afoul of reality, that is being argued.
Unfortunate that piotr had a typo early on with his Platonic reference. "Our word is but an imperfect copy of IDEAS" should have read "Our world."
June 21, 2006 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
preemption. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this. The idea of striking your enemy before he strikes you is ancient, and not particularly associated with modern American conservatism.
Oh come on. The idea of , say , attacking the Japanes fleet on Dec 6 1941 is ancient. The idea of attacking , say , Andorra because some day it may become an enemy is indeed particularly associated with modern American conservatism
Ideas weren’t what propelled Republicans into power
Right .
Ideas don't win elections. Candidates do. Bush had more appeal for voters than the two stiffs against whom he ran. Repeating myself , assume that in July 04 Bush and Kerry swapped parties : Kerry ran on the Republican platform , delivered all the speeches that were actually delivered by Bush in that campaign and all the remarks he made in the debates.
And vice Versa.
Guess who would have won : George W democratic Bush . In a landslide.
For the same reason Clinton won in 92 and 96.Bush and Clinton at least look like someone who'd chat with you in a bar. ( in Clinton's case , certainly true as I know from friends who've had that experience.)
Gore and Kerry (Dukakis too )looked ke someone who'd move away if you happened to make a chance remark to them.
Ideas are important. It's worth re reading Peter Vierick's "Ideas have Consequences." But ideas don't win elections. Candidates do. We don't need to form the ritual democratic circular firing squad . It's not that that will prevent us from winning , it's that it does't matter .
June 21, 2006 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Marshall stole Tim Roemer's idea but what the hell. Ruy Teixeira's right - "there's no time left for navel gazing" nor idle chatter about ideas. IRAQ's the issue. The election will be a referendum on the war.
Like it or not, the question is Bush's War - Had Enough?
June 21, 2006 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. My English is clearly an imperfect copy of the ideal.
In any case, my meta-idea is to take some really popular ideas, like FREEDOM, FAMILY, and show that Democrats offer a real thing, and GOP offers bullshit masked by rhetoric.
To GOP, FREEDOM means supporting military coups, narco-warlords etc. because they oppose guys who we deem even worse, and in the same time applying torture, indefinite extra-judicial detention, etc. I would be pleased if Democrats actually paid attention (as most of them do) to freedoms that we like to enjoy -- as well as people from other nations.
I grew up in a "Communist" country, and Communists are pretty good Platonists, if not self-admited. WORKING CLASS is a typical Platonic construct, more important than any imperfect reflection.
June 21, 2006 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conservatism thus lends itself to overarching doctrines in a way that liberalism doesn’t.
Fooey to that.
Marketing and connecting with people on an emotional level are certainly critical campaigning and advertising skills and we have to get better at that. But without some core principles, like the ones the conservatives have built out over a couple decades, I don't think we'll ever get the emotional punch they're able to deliver now.
This conversation is going unfortunately meta but the actual ideas are out there. Mine are here at Speak Out California, and I'm keeping track of a bunch of these conversations here at dkosopedia. The meta stuff is fun, but the potential ideas themselves - and how we propigate them - are more interesting topics!
Jonahtan this is an interesting piece, but if we don't come up with some core principles and start telling stories to people that help them make sense of the world, how are we going to start winning?
June 21, 2006 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
So that's our 2006 slogan? Not "Together American Can Do Better" but... "Democrats, we go with what works."
I kind of like that.
June 21, 2006 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my idea:
Privatize Republicans - Not Social Security
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
June 22, 2006 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem isn't getting people to believe in something - people can believe in anything. The problem is getting them to care.
June 22, 2006 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jonathan Chait. You need to blog here permanantly. Spencer Ackerman too. Please tell him.
June 22, 2006 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
> Bush had more appeal for voters than the two
> stiffs against whom he ran. Repeating myself ,
> assume that in July 04 Bush and Kerry swapped
> parties : Kerry ran on the Republican platform ,
> delivered all the speeches that were actually
> delivered by Bush in that campaign and all the
> remarks he made in the debates.
.
I don't disagree with your point, and I was very disappointed by Kerry as a candidate overall. But the problem is that in the first debate at least Kerry spanked George Bush up and down the stage; by the end of the night Kerry looked like the alpha-alpha male next to whiny little 2-year-old. Yet somehow the Bush campaign and traditional media managed to spin that into a win for the "likable, strong" Bush.
.
If the media narratives are so loaded against any Democratic candidate I don't know exactly what can be done about it - that is an insurmountable handicap.
.
sPh
June 22, 2006 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the media narratives are so loaded against any Democratic candidate I don't know exactly what can be done about it - that is an insurmountable handicap
Yeah , that may well be the case. But a good rule is to fix the things you can fix. Choose a likeable candidate. We all laughed at the fact that Bush had been president of his Yale fraternity .But Ha ,ha , ha, ho. ho, ho. Who's had the last laugh now ?(apologies to some song writer , Gershwin maybe.)
June 22, 2006 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
But we don't know how the world works. (In fact, it pretty much works the way it always has: one damn thing after another. Ask any Israeli.)
What we need to get a handle on is how we work, as a party. We're not working well at all in confronting terrorism, and it's not all Bush's fault. Lies and cover-ups, incompetence - believe it or not, people are accustomed to it, accept it, don't care about it. What they do care about his who has a better idea how to fix it. Not principles; practical ideas and plans, to get us out of the mess we're in. What people don't want most of all is to make a bad situation worse. They will "stay the course" if they think there is no practical alternative.
When we've won back the House, then the Presidency, then we can hash out what our grand ideas are. We need a top-drawer Presidential/Vice President ticket that we'll sell and elect. Ideas will take care of themselves
June 22, 2006 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry had as much charisma as a clothesline. Knowing that I'd vote for a hamster over Bush, it was a relief to skip the TV debates in favor of transcripts. Edwards was supposed to fill in the gap with his famous smile, but it was a big gap and smiles don't equal auras. Gore suffered from the same fatal flaw in 2000, though he's looking better now.
Remember that Rove saw his future when he met George W. Bush at the train station to deliver the family car.
Rove was right. I have had to admit to seeing Bush's aura in townhall meetings and other less formal gatherings. Ack.
Bill Clinton has it, Hillary doesn't. Ralph Reed used to have it. Russ Feingold, imo, is leading the Democratic pack in charisma, but it's supposedly dimmed by his baggage.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
June 22, 2006 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah . And I keep harping on this point because the election defeat which resulted from Kerry's lack of aura is employed as an argument for policy changes which may or may not make sense but for which that defeat is simply irrelevant.
June 23, 2006 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Even if Kerry's policies had been written on two stone tablets dictated from a mountain top, the election outcome most likely would have been about the same.
The West Wing debate between Alan Alda and Jimmy Smits generated more excitement.
Click here for the Users Help Forum.
June 24, 2006 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Defining preemption, and when it is illegal, can be harder than it looks. I list below a series of engagements (and hypothetical engagements) that could be considered preemptive.
Which of these are preemptive? For those that are preemptive, which country preempted against which other one? In some cases, were there preemptive acts that were not part of wars? [some of these arguably involve more than two sides. Some of these involved diplomatic warnings, and in one case, the warning was delivered late. Some involved no warning.]
Which were illegal?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 24, 2006 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not commenting on most examples because I'm not familiar with them. Some circumstances are broadly accepted as so close to war that which side acts first is not important. This is how I would view Israel in 67. A state of almost-war could be argued vis-a-vis 1941 Japan, with an oil embargo in place.
Precisely because attacking in anticipation is a judgement call, the judgement of others is the verdict. The opinions of the attacker and the attacked are discounted.
Similarly, self-defense by individuals is, in most jurisdictions, not merely declared but adjudicated.
It is nonsensical to define preemption as a doctrine because it is either already in place and moral (self-defense) or aggression.
Always a risk of confusion when "prevention" is so similar in meaning to "preemption", and I've probably done so here.
Down to specifics, we should speak softly on North Korea if the stick is uncertain. Worst of all would be threatening to attack, on the ground or in flight, and not follow through.
June 24, 2006 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make good points, especially the confusion among preemption, prevention, and even measures short of war.
Some of my examples are deliberately hard. For exanple, the British did not fire on the German squadron led by SMS Goeben. Some analysts believe that if the British sunk the Goeben (well, it was in company with the Breslau), the act might have prevented WWI. Others say it accelerated it.
Eldorado Canyon appears, in hindsight, to have begun a long behind-the-scenes program that eventually seems to be leading to Libya giving up WMD and rogue nation status. I doubt the Reagan Administration really saw the long-term result, any more than the Doolittle raid under FDR, intended to raise morale at home, had an enormous strategic effect. The US really didn't understand the impact of the Doolittle raid until interviewing Japanese and reading documents after the war was over.
Some of the Asian examples are quite complex. Others depend on whether you interpret the diplomatic situation as just-short-of-war.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 24, 2006 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't seen it done but one could compare 30 seconds over Tokyo to 9/11 in the way it shook up Japan. Of course in Japan's case public unease was less an issue than it would have been here.
That latter fact probably had some effect on planning Pearl Harbor. I imagine the military class in Japan didn't think it would rouse the public as much as it would chasten our military class.
Many things become clear only after time and distance (speciation, results of policies, etc.) and war justifications can be contested forever. Iraq seems likely to escape that fate, and be seen clearly as an embarrassing combination of overreach and ignorance, right up there with French elan and the mobilization planners of WWI
June 24, 2006 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Japan at the time, public opinion really wasn't a factor in decisionmaking. The Army and Navy, bitter bureaucratic enemies, had effective control of the Cabinet, and thus the government.
What we learned, after the war, is that high commanders, especially Yamamoto, felt that the bombing of Tokyo specifically, with the implication of jeopardizing the Emperor personally, was shameful. To prevent further attacks, they pushed their eastern perimeter farther than they really could support it. This push drove the Midway operation.
Of course, the Japanese might have prevailed at Midway had not US intelligence performed superbly, and the Japanese admiral in tactical control had made bad decisions. The intelligence on the Midway operation was as good as intelligence on Iraqis welcoming our troops was bad.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 24, 2006 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink