In my experience very few people among those who care about and follow public affairs know those numbers.

Of course that was back in the day when there were reasonable and even moderately progressive Republicans in Washington (not to mention ones who saw self-interested reasons to help the Democrats crack up over civil rights, and, a little later under Nixon, a quotas version of affirmative action). Not many elected officials of that sort left at the national level.

Ok, so, you don't like his list? Then what are some things that should be added/subtracted? Where do you yourself draw the line at inclusiveness? Saying you don't need no white supremacists is quite easy to do here and now in 2007. Might not have been so easy back in 1963. History is dandy, but what about the future?

The issue isn't progressive politics in the past. It's progressive politics now. And now... "big tent" does seem to mean bowing to Republicans on issues like the war in Iraq and on domestic issues like same sex marriage and violent video games.

To put it short: in the modern era, Joe Lieberman is the "big tent" and the Washington pundits like David Broder support him. I'll have none of that.

That said, there is room for a broader view on our side. Matt Y says that the congressional majorities of 2001-2003 were forged by people who thought that rich people should get tax cuts. I think he's wrong. You would probably find a lot of people who identify themselves as left of center who think that taxes should be cut across the board. I'd even agree with them that taxes are, in general, too high. But, they would pay for those tax cuts by cutting expenditures, particularly by the Pentagon. Democrats could campaign on tax cuts too. Most people probably agree that we could cut taxes right now if we reigned in our military spending.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

"The creationists," that probably includes a heckuva lot of churchgoing African-Americans who vote Dem regular as rain. You want to yell at them straight out they are not welcome or can this be a little more subtle of a thing?

The self-styled conservative movement has been engaged in a campaign for over four decades to transform the thinking of the American people. They have been quite successful in this effort, which is a big reason for the Republican successes in recent years, and for the contracted influence of the increasingly moribund cluster of mid-to-late 20th century attitudes and interests sometimes awkwardly known as "liberalism".

So while Todd's modest big tent list, which seems rather narrowly tailored to the up-to-the-minute, poll-determined preoccupations of voters in a limited historical "present", might be a reasonable approach to electoral strategy for 2008, or for 2010 or 2012, what I want to know is this: What is the long term strategy for transforming the thinking and sentiments of Americans? And more importantly, exactly what is the core vision or outlook that characterizes the thinking toward which we want to transform them? Finally, how might this long-term effort combine with the broader and more global progressive social movement which is beginning to engage the hopes and energies of people around the world?

If there is no such long term strategy, and if instead we confine ourselves to relatively shallow big tent electoral organizing while the conservatives continue to win hearts and minds through a conversion campaign of moral breadth and historic scope, then all we end up with is a big tent filled with more and more conservatives. And in that case, what's the point?

Some might feel we don’t really have to do anything to counter the conservative movement, that the movement will run itself into walls with more Terry Schiavos and Iraqs. But these are just setbacks for conservatives. A glance at the politics section of any bookstore shows that their movement continues with great zest and vitality. And I fear it will quickly recover from its setbacks, because it faces no weighty intellectual opposition from anything but a banal and diffused technocratic liberalism, and a new form of partisan activism which, while certainly energetic and passionate, possesses no more moral seriousness or integrity than sports team fanaticism.

Most people are not technocrats. Engaging their hearts and sustaining passionate commitment to far-off goals through difficulty and adversity requires more than a few policy suggestions and scattered programs. It requires something more like a religion. Surely people who purport to be interested in substantive long term human progress, progress that goes beyond reforms of the tax code and adjustments to retirement plans, need to put forward a bold vision of life and history that identifies the path on which progress lies, addresses the particular global challenges of the first half of the 21st century, and also speaks to the enduring challenges to human fulfillment and happiness. The true prophets of progress are those who have held out to us the hope that we are not doomed to recreate in every generation the many man-made brutalities and miseries of human existence, and perpetuate man’s inhumanity to man, but have shown us that a better world is possible.

With so many people laboring through unsatisfying and dreary lives; impressed into brutal winners-and-losers competition with all their fellow human beings; lonely and isolated, with the social, communal and even family bonds that give human life meaning eaten away by the dehumanizing acid of commercial society; haunted by the impersonality of their economic interchangeability and the directionless flux of markets; encouraged to mock and turn away from the pursuit of spiritual depth and truly human fulfillment and confine their desires to the flimsy carnal and material consolations of shallow postmodern decadence - is it any wonder such people don't respond enthusiastically to a politics that promises only a more efficient organization of shallowness, or somewhat more equal opportunity in the pursuit of nothingness? Is it any surprise that they are drawn to superstitious and reactionary doctrines that at least have the merit of connecting them to a human past that makes sense, and a higher plane of aspiration?

We will never successfully call people away from the allures of reactionary traditionalism and ignorance with just more skin-deep liberalism.

Why not recognize the utility of honest and reasonable marginal Democrats since it would be prudent to stop the runaway bulldozer before trying to erect the big tent.

Fair enough, but how do you distinguish?

On Iraq, on warrantless wiretapping, on the farm bill, on the bankruptcy bill, on budget/spending/tax cuts?

How do you know if they arrive at their positions fairly and honestly rather than because of lobbyist donations or because of fear of giving an opening to a future GOP opponent?

This kind of observation definitely sets the stage for 2008, where by the luck of schedule (lots of GOP Senate seats on defense) and the political reality (everyone hates the GOP). An opportunity to hold the Senate, House, and Presidency with large numbers and unencumbered by a longtime sagging corrupt majority like that of 1992, may be once in a lifetime and I'm surprised this doesn't get talked about more in the campaign coverage.

But how many of those freshman Democrats will be blue dogs looking to hold their seats in 2010?

First, Ellen raised a red herring.  Not only was the Republican vote on the Civil Rights Act before the contemporary conservative movement's charge, but more importantly back when Dixie meant Democrat.

Second, I don't get Destor's claim that the big tent is an excuse for Joe Lieberman's politics, for war in Iraq, and for conceding on gay marriage and violent video games. Iraq withdrawal was on Todd's list, and denunciation of video games wasn't.  True, gay marriage wasn't on his list, and one can debate whether it's as central an issue; I'm actually annoyed that the GOP keeps mobilizing its base by associating Democrats with it, whereas there don't appear to be any leading candidates in the last few elections supporting it, not a matter of Lieberman and the DLC vs others. But anyhow, he doesn't rule it out, and he does have the bullet on abortion, contraception, and keeping government out of bedrooms, which sure sounds on the other side from the Christian right to me. 

Third, I'm not convinced by Dan K's narrative of Republicans winning minds.  Partly, it's the poll numbers that show the GOP can win on labels but not on issues or philosophy. People mostly want a government not unlike that we do. Partly, it's that I'm still not convinced people need to hear about philosophy period, as I commented the other day. Heck, look at the two articles today in the "person on the street" mode for views on candidates of GOP and Democratic voters.  The first group speaks of worries about the war (an issue) and of Giuliani's guts (a personal thing); the other group is even sillier, judging Clinton's brains vs Edwards's time with his wife's illness. And partly, it's that I just can't stand another round of the GOP as the party of new ideas. Can't we just rerun that Chait article once a week? 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

It is an unfortunate historical fact that the war hawks have had a prominent role in the Democratic Party over the past half century at least. I was disappointed but not surprised by the dems inability to stop the Iraq war.

War will be an issue that splits the big tent for some time to come. I have never supported third party efforts, but in 2000 I did not blame Nader for what happened. Many people simply could no longer stomach supporting another prowar democrat -- after all, our assaults against Serbia were led by Clinton/Gore. Indeed to this day we still see Democrats bragging about how great that was.

I had the same reaction to that point in his post (though overall I thought it was as wonderful a comment as I'd seen anywhere in a while). It'd be more accurate to say they'd transformed what people think they think. One of George Will's occasional accurate observations is that the American people are rhetorically conservative and operationally liberal; which just demonstrates the effectiveness of the right's fraudulent propaganda campaign over the decades. Which, perhaps more than anything, is what we have to expose indisputably in order to shake what's left of the catch-phrases out of people's heads.

Overall, I do agree with what I think Matt's point is.

After the Johnson landslide there were 42 new Democrats in the House -- but the "ideological tent" was actually smaller after January 4, 1965 than it had been before that date.  Medicare, blocked in the House in 1964, passed relatively easily.

How big a tent do we need to keep Roberts and Alito off the Court, to close down Guantanamo and the black sites, to protect America without passing the Protect America Act -- in all ways to prevent the shredding of the Constitution? 

The old left-right or progressive-conservative breakdowns no longer reflect how people think. This is why trying to make a party along these lines is so difficult.

What we have is a majority of the population who would like to see more "progressive" social programs. This includes universal health care, more spending on education and the option for workers to join unions if they wish.

On the other hand a majority also think that the US has a special place in the world as "the world's only remaining superpower". They feel that the US should take an activist role in policing the world. It's one of our foundational myths that we are the "chosen nation". There is dissatisfaction with the fact that we are losing the current wars, but this hasn't altered people's general philosophy.

The public is willing toss out the GOP because of corruption and incompetence, not because of ideological differences. Even on the issue of inequality most people still believe in the American dream that one day they might become the next Bill Gates. This is why they are reluctant to impose taxes on the super wealthy or tighten up the estate tax. The fact that they are deluded as to their chances is the effect of decades of right wing propaganda, but that's what they believe.

So, the issue is, can we have a political party that supports progressive domestic policies and a less robust foreign policy? There are no candidates (with the exception of Kucinich) who take that position.

The military/industrial/congressional complex is too deeply woven into the fabric of society for any pol to oppose it and stand a chance of getting the needed financial backing to run a successful campaign.

It all boils down to the cost of elections. Only those who do the bidding of big business and the military can get enough money to run. There is no chance for those who come from the working classes to get elected. So there is no representation for these interests in congress.

If you want to see a more representative government the first step is election reform.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Globalization has been a foreign policy that America has led. Where do you think it fits?

=== How big a tent do we need to keep Roberts and Alito off the Court, to close down Guantanamo and the black sites, to protect America without passing the Protect America Act -- in all ways to prevent the shredding of the Constitution? ===

Democrats are basically republican lites with a little more tolerance for notwhite, notrich people. Though far left of the extreme right fascists in the Bush government and the republican reich, - democrats do not actually represent the people, and especially disadvantaged populations, (notwhite, notrich Americans), nor to democratic leaders or the democratic party give voice to the voiceless. Like republicans, they are beholden to the large oligarchs and well funded lobby interests representing those oligarchs, and have very little interest in, or concern about the American people.

Given that sad fact, it is necessary to differentiate the democratic party, and a small element of the GOP, with the far more extreme and exceedingly treacherous, criminal, predatory deceptive, and fascist warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars in the Bush government.

"Deliver us from evil!"

It'd be more accurate to say they'd transformed what people think they think.

Ok, I agree with this statement, and with all the above comments which bemoan the catch-phrases caught in people's heads.

I know what I would like to see happen to countervail such catch-phrasing from the right's fraudulent propagandizing: slowly but surely raise the level of attentiveness on the part of folks who are subjected to such.

Here is one of the wisest sayings I have heard: "Maturity is the ability to make finer and finer distinctions."

Once I had a verbal set to with a Limbaugh fan whose head was full of catch phrases about neer-do-wells not deserving government help. By slowly introducing some finer distinctions with respect to head start and school lunches and how those programs help kids to be healthy enough to do better in school......eventually the Limbaugh fan was able to himself make some finer distinctions which altered, however minorly, the catch-phrase in his head. He ended up realizing that programs for children could and should be separated out of the 'catch-phrase'. That at least was a beginning.

I would like for Democrats to be the 'mature' party in terms of offering finer distinctions in response to catch-phrasing.......and to let that be a tacit theme for the party; small but compelling bite-sized steps in finer distinction making on many fronts and issues. Not the elaborate hundred point stuff that overwhelms.

Too true. I have patience with busy not particularly well informed Americans not bothering to put the 4th amendment into their daily list of things to worry about -- but what excuse does the Democratic Senator in my state have? She has a law degree from Yale.

As you must certain know, the civil-rights-wing of the Republican Party largely left the party. A microscope might detect some of their heirs still in the GOP.

Todd Gitlin

Yes, I guess I wouldn't want a mere political party to tell me what the meaning of life is either, marc. But party politics and elections are only one relatively modest component of social change. They rest on the broad shoulders of the social movements, intellectual and cultural movements, and community aspirations and solidarity that are the engines of change and make the finishing touches of party organizing and electioneering worth doing. If the party organizing and election strategizing are functioning, while all the rest lie in a dormant and decadent state, then you don't end up with anything that is worth very much in the end.

If there is ever going to be anything again that deserves to be called a "progressive movement", it is going to have to have roots that run far deeper than the strategizing of political operatives and partisan pundits.

However, it is precisely consideration of this fact that leads me to sometimes doubt whether we are really, as liberals often say these days, at the dawn of a bold new era of progressive politics. In particular, one should give a cold-eyed look to the question of how big a successful Democratic tent needs to be. [my emphasis].

This formulation always gives me the willies.  I know that "one" is a grammatical device to avoid using the second person pronoun "you"...and I teach the kids in my classes this device;  however, in the political realm I too often get the feeling that "one" is interchangeable with the first person.  So who is this fabled "one"?  I suppose if it devolves on me, I don't mind, and we can use the temperature of my eyeballs as the international standard of how cold a look ought to be.  But do I want the "one" to be James Carville?  Not particularly.  I don't want it to be Matt Yglesias, either, though if I had to choose who should get to be the one, I'd probably opt for him. 

I'm uncomfortable with anyone claiming the right to define what my party stands for, including me.  I don't mind telling people what I stand for, and I certainly encourage myself to explain my views to others (I encourage myself to explain my views to myself, for that matter).  But I've never wanted to play political pope, and either sell indulgences or pronounce excommunications.  And I think I prefer than others don't assume this role, either.  Let the discourse decide dis course, mebbe, just. 

aMike

Re: On the other hand a majority also think that the US has a special place in the world as "the world's only remaining superpower". They feel that the US should take an activist role in policing the world.

How many people though really want the US getting involved in useless wars? And indeed, a lot of people seem to think that the sun rises in the Atlantic and sets in the Pacific and that the US should steer well clear of foreign entanglements altogether. Isolationism is still strong out among the populace, even if it is has no voice in Washington. I see a public that was willing enough to indulge the Iraq War at first as a sort of revenge on the Arab/Muslim world for 9-11, but I don't see a public that bought into Neocon fantasies about bringing democracy to the Middle East, let alone the Cheney dream of an American Middle Eastern hegemony. As I have said elsewhere, if Bush had withdrawn US troops as soon as Baghdad was fallen the public would recall the war fondly no matter what became of Iraq in the aftermath. The public was POed and wanted to kick butt after 9-11. The public did not and does not want an empire.

Re: The public is willing toss out the GOP because of corruption and incompetence, not because of ideological differences

I think you will find that except on tax cuts (see my comment above in the thread) the public is definitely not with the GOP's domestic agenda, which is why that agenda has to be sugar coated and well disguised before it can even mention its name in the public's hearing.

Hello Todd: although we haven't bantered about such political items since we were undergrads together in the 60's I want to start by saying I greatly admire your historical/political science/cultural endeavors on the period and its aftermath. Keep up the good work.
As to present problems: I would like to add that in my opinion the the Republican political strategy and surge to power is all of a piece with the patently false and failing grand political philosophy of the Party and its publicists and think tanks (whether stated with integrity or merely as a rationale for the power grab by the corporations and the wealthy)that government is the problem and the free market must reign supreme in all matters possible. In this context the catastrophic management of the CPA in Iraq, the follow up to Katrina, the politicization of the DOJ, the withdrawal from Kyoto, the starving of government agencies in science and public health are all reflections of the same attitude. In my opinion, understanding this attitude, which provides the power to the bulldozer, depends on the recognition that Bush's generation of the power elite grew up in a period in our history when government agency functioned rather well and successfully mostly silently behind the scenes. The elite got used to it (like the clean air they breath and the oil for the cars) and took it for granted as a state of nature. They paid no heed to the circumstances of undelying polity, laws, order, and service which produced such success. Their "philosophy" goes on to say they can govern well with minimal or malfunctioning institutions. Bull! Democrats have to take back the government and make the investment to get it functioning well to recreate the modicum of domestic personal security and refurbish its good name as a collective social justice political philosphy for the whole country.

My grandfather and my parents were all Reagan Republicans who voted for Bush. They now consider themselves independents.

I'm guessing their experience has been repeated around the country alot.

And if we're smart, we'll get ourselves some Luntzian mileage out of this sad era: Never let'em forget what government was like when it was in the hands of people who hate government (if you're gonna govern, you've actually gotta believe in governing...).

My sense is that if you asked liberals or progressives this question in 1930, you would get a much clearer, more imaginative and more coherent answer than you would get today.

I disagree, the supposed solidarity thing back then, I think it's a myth.

Even though this comes from Hoover, I believe it to be fairly accurate from my lowly cultural studies:
How FDR Saved Capitalism
During the economic crisis of the 1930s, many expected a socialist revolution. The revolution never came. Why? The man in the White House co-opted the left.

He was very good at making all the little competing groups on the left think he was going to give them what they wanted.

Also, expectations among the majority for results were very low, the whole world was suffering, all you had to do was offer a bit of hope and you had them.

Keep in mind, though, that many of the Federalist Society types have disavowed Bush as a big central government guy, not a small Federal government onservative, with stuff like No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, NSA spying, etc. So that counterargument will be made.

I'm uncomfortable with anyone claiming the right to define what my party stands for, including me. I don't mind telling people what I stand for, and I certainly encourage myself to explain my views to others (I encourage myself to explain my views to myself, for that matter). But I've never wanted to play political pope, and either sell indulgences or pronounce excommunications.

I hear selling indulgences was quite rewarding. Excommunication would seem to cut down on the profits.

I don't want to be Republican because Republicans stand for power and privilege.

I want Democrats to be for equality and freedom.

If they aren't, I aren't.

Best, Terry

An effort to more away from wedge issues might not guarantee Democratic victories but eliminating elections dominated by abortion, control, the death penalty as well as God and prayer would make for more meaningful debates about long term policies that the Congress and the President can do somethign about.

I am curious how you define war hawks? Cheney and neo-Cons who seem to hunt the world looking for opportunities to defeat a perceived enemy, or anyone who wants to use military power to protect the nation?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Yes, I plan to read it Todd, and look forward to it. I'll probably pick it tomorrow or Saturday.

The world's most wanted terrorist madman makes a great apologist for liberals.
Most wanted by whom? Obviously not the current administration.

And you, my KoolAid-addled friend, make an excellent spokesman for the Drooling Right.