Democrats Already Have Ideas
Unfortunately, I think we may be talking past each other. I was trying to make a normative point, not a descriptive point. I'm not arguing that ideas play no role in how politicians use their power. What I'm arguing is that ideas have played only a very small role in helping them acquire that power.
Your main example is the conservatives over the last few decades. I was trying to argue that ideas are not really at the root of their ascendancy. Or, at least, in those cases where they are, it's not a model that liberals should emulate. (The one good example of an idea that helped the right win elections is supply-side economics, but it succeeded because it was an excuse to abandon norms of responsible behavior that had long prevailed.)
Do we need ideas lest politics devolve into simple horse-trading? Of course. But I think we already have those ideas. You suggest the following as examples of ideas: "a belief about the proper role of government in a society and its economy and the proper organization of that government; views on what the society is trying to achieve, i.e. shared values such as freedom, equality, democracy, and progress."
I think those are essentially settled matters. Liberals believe that government should allow the free market to drive the basic tasks of allocating labor and capital and providing consumer goods. Government should step in when there is a clear market failure, or to provide goods that ought to be universally entitled—education, health care, a secure retirement.
I don't think this basic outlook has changed very much over the last sixty years. What has changed is liberal views of what works. Aid to Families with Dependent Children had unintended consequences. The Earned Income Tax Credit turned out to be an effective way to help low-income workers. There is a strong consensus in the center of the Democratic Party, with some outliers on the left and right, that government should balance economic growth with helping the have-nots. Beyond that, it's mainly a question of specifics, not doctrine.
On foreign policy, the doctrinal cleavage is sharper, but not as sharp as people think. Iraq was a somewhat unique proposition, in that even very hawkish liberals like me don't propose a series of further invasions based on the Iraq model, as neoconservatives do (or, at least, did.) There's a fairly widespread consensus about promoting democracy abroad through non-military means, strengthening alliances, killing terrorists whenever possible, and strengthening homeland security.
The biggest cleavage centers around humanitarian military intervention in places like Darfur. Even there, most of the debate hinges on questions of pragmatism – would intervention work, and what cost, etc. Foreign policy doctrines, in my opinion, tend to be good at describing past behavior and awful at guiding future behavior. What happens in the future is always different enough that you can never devise a doctrine supple enough to give you the answer in advance.
Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with Democracy, even though I don't think future elections hinge on its contents.
Now go visit the web site of the military strategist Thomas Barnett and see how the US is planning for permanent war against what he calls "The Non-Integrating Gap" (that is the undeveloped world). We debate ideas and whether "humanitarian" aid is appropriate while the military is already revamping for its new mission.
The plan is the White man's burden with a vengence. Where is the debate on what is really going on in the permanent government? And if we "win" the debate how does anyone propose to challenge the institutional interests?
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
June 23, 2006 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me like there's a hunger for a progressive foreign policy agenda more substantive than "promoting democracy abroad through non-military means, strengthening alliances, killing terrorists whenever possible, and strengthening homeland security." Okay, sure, but how? You dismiss the notion of developing a foreign policy doctrine that answers that question, but there's already at least one such doctrine that most liberals can agree on, and that's Wilsonian institution-building.
Most discussions on the left about global institutions seem to take the form of defending the UN from Republican attacks, and that's perfectly understandable. But it makes sense to be proactive about it, too: most of the existing institutions were formed decades ago in the framework of the Cold War, and many of them ought to be rethought. What is NATO's purpose? What ought to be done about the UN Security Council? Is there a new type of structure needed to regulate NGOs and multinational corporations? Should NAFTA be expanded to friendly Central and South American nations? Etc, etc.
Journals like Democracy are ideal for hashing out those sorts of questions, and it's important that they do. Our 2008 candidates ought to have meaningful foreign policy ideas in a way that Kerry just didn't; if they do, voters will pay attention.
June 23, 2006 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not thing that Democrats agree that mothers should not be thrown out of a train, but other than that there are wide zones of disagreement. Let me list few:
I. Health care. Agreement: something should be done. Spectrum: single payer universal health care, .... , abolish government support for employer funded insurance, while other reforms may wait. Some some have the idea that the government should do everything (at least pay for almost everything), and some that we should try for a while to support health care much less.
II. Environment. Agreement: global warming is caused by humans, mercury in water is not to be recommended, clearing trees away from National Forest is not to be recommended either. Return to Clintonian thoughtful regulation regim. Spectrum: limit the action on global warming to some innocent boondogles that may benefit some farmers, ... , do something that would truly reverse the problem, like hefty tax on carbon, massive subsidies for carbon-less alternatives, massive global advocacy of such measures.
III. Military. Agreement (sort of): war should be reserved as a foreign policy of the last resort, and really, really last, so a lot of alternatives has to be tried first, goals soberly analyzed (do we have to do it) etc. Small disagreement: do something about Darfur? Actually, almost everybody would agree to supplement a Pan-African force with mandate that would have some teeth and add a modest number of very mobile troops, probably from NATO, including USA. However, spectrum remains: keep the current level of military expenditures or even increase it (e.g. keep all armaments program and add much more generous pay and benefits for the soldiers), .... , drastically reduce the mission statement, get rid of assorted weapon programs and units that are no longer necessary, encourage disarmament trends if any.
IV. Economic populism agenda:
a. Labour: make it easier to organize, ... , do nothing.
b. International trade and outsorcing: similar.
c. Consumers, credit, intelectual property, internet ... spectrum: defend the interests of individuals, ... , defend the interests of companies.
e. restoring progressivity to the tax code
There is a lot of wonkery here, bit there are almost 4 cardinal dilemmas about the direction that would guide electoral promises and the wonkery.
Some of the alternatives that I have listed are within intelectual spectrum, while they are still invisible politically. I could list more, but that would be moving toward ivory tower. However, health care and the economic populist agenda are very important and the dilemmas quite acute.
June 23, 2006 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is quite a bit of "talking past each other" going on here.
It's true that there is a broad consensus about "ideas" within liberalism. In fact, I would argue that this consensus has strengthened over the last few years. Despite the occassional dustup, many of the old ideological conflicts have subsided.
But there's still a lot of worth in "fleshing out" that consensus. As I just heard Ken Baer argue on C-SPAN, there's a lot of interest on our side in slogans and bumper-sticker lines. And there's certainly no lack of multi-point plans. But what we can always use more of is the connective tissue between the two.
I think it's useful for liberals to ask ourselves why we're liberal (or progressive, or whatever it is we're calling ourselves these days.) It's not the slogans -- those would ring hollow without context. And it's not the specific policies. I for one don't read all the latest policy proposals at the end of each month, weigh their merits, and decide what to call myself.
The reason we're liberal is because of the "ideas." And every time those ideas get better articulated and more fully worked-out, they're likely to connect with someone somewhere. And that is pretty important to gaining power.
June 23, 2006 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you are exactly right, and I'm not sure I even understand how, given the past thirty years of American politics, you could still believe that candidates -- and parties -- lose because of the lack of policy "ideas." It just seems to me such a self-serving concept, coming as it does usually from policy specialists who spend all day coming up with "ideas". But the very fact that so many people inside the beltway talk about "ideas" suggests that there is no shortage of them. And, of course, there isn't.
More than anything, I suspect this prescription for what ails the Democrats is a product of having spent too much time on the policy side of government, and too little on the political. If the folks advocating "ideas" had spent a little time, perhaps in their youth, going door to door with average voters, I think they'd realize how silly their contention really is. In fact, average swing voters don't care about government policy one way or the other, not because they're stupid but because they don't think government has much impact on their lives. Nor that elected officials -- whether George Bush or John Kerry -- can really fix problems. So given that, why should they care what either of them propose as "ideas"?
More to the point, why is it so hard for liberals to swallow the mental pill that conservatives absolutely embraced twenty years or more ago: That elections anymore are almost entirely about perceptions of character and identity, and whether the voters can rely on someone to do the job without bothering them too much. There really isn't anything else. And "ideas" are merely part of the flotsam that come and go during campaigns, to no effect.
June 23, 2006 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I may not have been paying close enough attention, but you write as though you are responding to a particular person:
Unfortunately, I think we may be talking past each other. I was trying to make a normative point, not a descriptive point...
Your main example is the conservatives over the last few decades...
If you are responding to a blog or a post, could you at least allude to it? Thanks
Jan Knaus
June 24, 2006 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It may be true that Democrats have ideas but that they don't fight for them. That would seem to be the Democrats biggest problem. If they won't fight for their beliefs who is going to believe they will fight for the country?
However, this debate seem very sterile as if the two sides are not talking about the same thing?
Did conservatives ever lack ideas? Not really. Did they have a coherent set of principles that were in turn integrated with poicy proposals? Was their world view accept by enough of the public to elect actual candidates to office?
It is not that Democrats dont have a series of scattered ideas. However, how are they defended? How is the view of government not created but demonstrated to the public? How is that world view used to explain policy proposals.
That is what is missing from the Democratic side. When a Demcoratic is accused of being a liberal what do they say, what should they say? What do the public hear when they hear someone is a liberal? Democrats don't need more 10 point plans for their candidates. They need to stimulate debate and thought amoung voters so that Republicans have to do more than call a proposal liberal to defeat it.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
June 24, 2006 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to be a pedant, but if we're going to discuss "ideas," it would be nice to define what it is that qualifies as a political or social "idea."
"Ideas" are such things as "social justice" and "civil rights" and on the other side "free trade" and "freedom of contract."
Universal health insurance, the appointment of liberal or conservative judges, NAFTA, etc. are not "ideas." They are policies and practices designed with a view of accomplishing the goals attached to or springing from the "ideas."
Voters may not comprehend or believe themselves competent to judge the policies but there's no reason that voters can't be recruited to the "ideas" and become loyal to them.
June 24, 2006 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I believe you've picked the top four issues that truly do matter to the future of the American people.
You could build a party around the differences (will someone please do that?).
I'm probably least passionate on the environment but a party that can in all seriousness promote lower gas prices in its "New Direction" is a party that has no capacity to deal with global climate change or any major problem of resource shortages.
Ideas are not the problem. The unwillingness to deal with these four issues in a big way, in a way large enough to impact the future is the problem. The Democrats are the party of nuance, message, triangulation, and clever tweaking of last century programs. That's not progressive. Worse. It is not enough to provide for our children's future.
June 24, 2006 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
People may want a government that will do the job without bothering them but enabling childish fantasies is no substitution for government. Why don't we try a really radical idea and talk to Americans like adults? "We have some choices to make here folks and they're going to determine the future of your children...."
June 24, 2006 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's a lack of ideas that kept the Democrats out of power these past 5-6 years. It was the lack of a prevailing narrative. More to the point, it was the lack of a convincing counter-narrative to how the Rove's of the world pre-defined Democrats/Liberals/Progressives - the name doesn't matter so much.
IMO, the word "conservative" has been sold, effectively over the past decades as meaning "lower taxes". Perhaps even "less government interference."
What does the opposing party stand for, overall?
As someone who has been registered Republican all my life, my interest in electing Democrats at this point is to provide some kind of "hold accountable" balance to the nuts that are currently running our government.
And what I see is the greatest strength of the Democratic Party is that - using governmental policy - what it wants most is equality of opportunity.
However, I absolutely agree with the folks who say that how earnestly Democratic politicians are willing to defend their core beliefs is at issue here. Just as the term "conservative" has been glorified and "liberal" has been demonized, Democrats have been on the defensive since the 2000 election.
One of the problems I have noticed, since my foray into Dem politics has been that the right (as it exists today, not as it was when I decided I was a Republican) is willing to set aside their cognitive dissonance and repeat the prevailing talking points of the day. So they sound unified.
Disagreement doesn't have to be a weakness. Disagreement - debate - is a way of sussing out the best solution, not just a solution. As is evident by the current Republican unity on backing the President over Iraq policy. They brook no dissent. If you disagree, you are with the terrorists. Period.
The strength of the Democrats has to be their willingness to point out that the emperor has no clothes, that "stay the course" is a slogan, not a strategy, and point out clearly that calling anyone who questions their lack of a plan or exit strategy "treasonous" is itself the highest form of treason in this country - to shut down debate.
I agree also with whoever it was that said that most Americans vote for someone whose character they admire. Because for most Americans, once they cast their vote, they figure the government will run without their input. I wanted Kerry to be President. The first vote I ever cast for President FOR a candidate as opposed to against a different candidate. But Kerry had "plans". He didn't stress his character. His core value system that would influence his decisions. Had he done so, we might not be in this mess today.
What do we stand for? What is the common thread that connects all of the policy positions? That's what is needed, IMNSHO.
June 24, 2006 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you say, and yet Ross Perot did surprisingly well.
June 24, 2006 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jon:
"Was"?!? The "somewhat unique proposition" is still alive and kicking in an undisclosed location. A proposal, based on an unsupported hypothesis, tested on a pre-selected country, in an uncontrolled, dynamic and unpredictable environment. And, while you say you don't propose continued testing in another country, you seem to overlook that your original proposal is still in testing, with no end in sight and none proposed.
June 24, 2006 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats had a great idea with the National Debt.
I saw them on the CSPAN.
did you know Bush increased the Natl Debt more than ALL the presidents before him ?
THAT is what they neede to focus on in the election.
the charts were very gripping.
Brad
911review
June 24, 2006 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do I think we'll never see those charts during the election? I don't know, but I don't expect to. Hope I'm wrong...
Jan Knaus
June 25, 2006 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I came across this at Salon.com by Tom Grieve:
At a breakfast meeting sponsored by the American Prospect, Grover Norquist was asked today what advice he had for the Democrats. Salon's Michael Scherer tells us that Norquist responded by saying that the Democrats should keep their focus on the Republicans' failings rather than on themselves. "Bush would have lost in 2004," Norquist said, "if he was running against nobody."
Pretty interesting, I think. Kerry spent most of his time either promising he had "a plan if you just check out the web-site"; or defending himself over & over about the Swift Boaters, when one carefully worded (and delivered with outrage) response (ala Jack Murtha) would have been more effective.
There is plenty of grist for this mill, and by the way, it is time for "The Blame Game." When Karl comes out with little ditties like that, the response is, "Yes, actually, it is overdue, and now it is also time for the Accountability Game!"
Jan Knaus
June 25, 2006 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink