Democrats and Nothingness
With his astute and often hilarious new book, Matt Bai has waved some much-needed smelling salts under the noses of delusional Democrats. What Bai has done is put the intellectual emptiness at the heart of the Democratic Party on public display — and set the Party's vacuity in historical terms.
From the Great Depression until the mid-1970s, Democrats and liberals achieved amazing things. Rights-based liberalism ended school segregation, dramatically reduced employment discrimination, and gave women the right to abortions. And environmental laws cleaned up our air and water and protected wilderness lands. But as the economy and society changed, and attitudes toward government evolved, liberal interest groups, grassroots activists, and Democratic insiders clung for dear life to old government programs, regulations, and court victories. Indeed, they still do.
In defining themselves and their interests so narrowly, it is the issues groups and their political allies—not bogeymen like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the Heritage Foundation—who have created the widespread impression that liberalism is little more than an aggregation of the aggrieved. Environmentalists continue to define their interest as limiting human intrusions upon nature — even though global warming can't be solved by the pollution limits of old. Health care reformers define their interest around insuring the uninsured — even though most Americans have insurance and often fear that proposals for universal coverage will jeopardize what they already have. Reproductive rights and women’s groups define theirs around access to contraception and abortion — even though hopelessness and insecurity are far bigger causes of teen pregnancy than lack of access to condoms and abortion. Civil rights groups define their mandate around ending racial prejudice and disparities — even though concentrated poverty can't be solved by affirmative action.
Why don't the liberal interest groups evolve? Why can't the Democratic Party change?
Bai finds a potent explanatory metaphor in the decline of industrial-era behemoths like General Motors. Why did GM continue to make and sell vastly inferior vehicles, Bai asks, year after year, decade after decade, even as Japanese companies like Toyota and Honda were eating its lunch? The answer is that GM's internal culture couldn't catch up to the changing times.
Real, fundamental change seemed too painful to consider. And so, rather than drastically overhaul its operation, GM tried, again and again, to market its way out of the problem — to find the Thing that would make Pontiacs cool among the younger set.
Fast forward to the Democratic Party.
Just as GM couldn't begin to consider a world without Pontiacs, neither could Washington Democrats and their interest groups envision a world where every single liberal provision of the last seventy years didn't exist intact. This made real innovation — the kind of innovation that had launched the modern Democratic Party in the first place — all but impossible.
Sure, Bai acknowledges, every year hundreds of policy papers written by liberal think tanks get sent around Capital Hill. But that's not the same thing as a Big Idea that includes a vision for the country, a theory of human nature, and a capital-A Argument for what government should be doing in our globalized, post-industrial, and affluent society.
Faced with ever-greater complexity, progressives and Democrats find themselves a new marketing guru every year peddling solutions that don't require confronting the ways in which the world has changed but the Democratic agenda hasn't. Grassroots progressives, for their part, see the newfound clout of the blogosphere as cause for hope, which it may in fact be. And yet, as Bai points out, while the liberal blogosphere is often touted as the new town hall, it more often than not resembles the corner bar: a place to get one's own view of the world reinforced, not challenged.
Where does all of this leave us? Strange as it may sound, it leaves us excited and refreshed. We are today surrounded by an open sea of possibilities — we just have to learn to see it. But before moving on to prescription, we hope to let some feathers fly here about the diagnosis, which we share with Bai, that Democrats must first acknowledge that a new house must be built, starting with a stable intellectual foundation.
Fighting for the little guy is tough sometimes--but you seem to be saying that the Democrats need new METHODS not new IDEAS, at least in the passage above.
September 25, 2007 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Shellenberger and Tod Nordhaus have just written an accurate and incisive description of the Democratic Party -- in 1992.
The sense that liberalism had become an "aggregation of the aggrieved" was indeed what led to a movement for reform inside the Democratic Party. It produced the DLC, and it made it possible for Bill Clinton to essentially scrap welfare, and to make deficit reduction a cornerstone of Democratic policy. Both of these moves also represented an internalization by Democrats of the way that the West's victory in the Cold War represented a verdict on the superiority of the free market. What emerged was a capitalism-friendly Third Way Democratic party, where government social programs were intended to mitigate the market's inequities (health care reform, the EITC) or to lay the groundwork for American success in the market (with worker training, education funding, etc.). Along with this came a foreign policy oriented towards leveraging the Cold War victory towards a more moral world order, based on an international consensus on the value of liberal democracy.
And what did this new Democratic philosophy find, on the other side of the aisle? Black helicopters. Harry and Louise. Whitewater. A disciplined and coordinated infrastructure of ideological warmaking, fully prepared to label common-sense workplace initiatives like the Family and Medical Care Leave Act a first step towards totalitarian socialism; to label the First Lady a "feminazi" or a lesbian Communist; to impeach the President over a sexual infidelity, as a means of tarring Democrats with the brush of sexual immorality in the culture wars; constant wedge issue campaigns over gay marriage, PDAE abortions, etc.; and flat-out illiterate magical thinking on global warming and tax cuts, in the service of oil companies and the ultra-rich.
The seeds of MoveOn.org were planted in the spring of 1997. That was the moment at which it became clear that the GOP was prepared to destroy the Clinton presidency via a death of a thousand cuts, and that on the right side of the aisle, nothing counted but advancement towards total political victory. It's true that the NetRoots have so far been mainly a vehicle for the venting of uncompromising anger. But to ignore the reason for that anger is to completely miss what has been going on for the past decade. NetRoots Democrats are furious because we've been tricked by the neo-cons and Dittoheads. We already reformed the Party. We had our Sister Souljah moment. The result was a decade of being played for chumps. The GOP takes no prisoners and makes no compromises, and to indulge even for a moment in talk of the Democratic Party's "vacuity" is simply fatuous and self-destructive.
There is a single priority in American politics today, and that is the destruction of a Republican Party which has brought our country to the brink of ruin. There are no doubt many new ideas to be introduced in the Democratic Party, and that's a wonderful enterprise to engage in. But echoing these ancient critiques of Democratic indebtedness to "interest groups" (interest groups which somehow seem to include the majority of the population; and how exactly are health reformers an "interest group?") or Democratic fragmentation (when such fragmentation is chiefly the result of the kinds of carping critiques being made here) is a luxury the left can ill afford.
You have an idea for a grand new vision for the Democratic Party? Great. Let's hear it. But enough with the "vacuity". It's an out of date critique, and it's not helping.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 25, 2007 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought something seemed familiar here. The current issue of "The New Republic" is dubbed the "environmental issue" and it features an essay by Shellenberger and Nordhaus that follows the line of argument above.
They say that we can't conserve our way out of global warming and that even if people in the U.S. were willing to make the necessary sacrifices, people elsewhere won't and even if people everywhere would, it wouldn't be enough. So, they argue, the only hope is to get the costs of alternative energy below the costs of fossil fuels. This should be done, they say, by getting alternative costs down, not by propping up oil prices. Okay, I'm with them on all of that.
Then Shellenberger and Nordhaus suggest -- absolutely nothing! Just like they did here! Seems like we have two guys willing to say "you're doing it wrong," but they're unwilling to say what needs to be done.
Come on, guys. You say we can't campaign for healthcare for the uninsured because the insured won't go for it. Now I say we point out to the insured that they're getting screwed by the current system. But how do you all get to universal?
You say affirmative action doesn't end concentrated poverty. Okay. Is it supposed to? I thought it was meant to provide individuals with opportunities that had been irrationally and unfairly withheld.
You say access to abortion and contraception doesn't stop teen pregnancy. Uh, actually access to contraception does stop teen pregnancy. But again, doesn't access to both have more to do with rights than statistics? It doesn't matter if access to either effects teen pregnancy in any way. Fact is, a woman has a right to decide whether or not to have sex and whether or not to be pregnant.
Pony up, guys. I think you're afraid to tell us what you really want to see policy-wise because you know we'll tear you apart.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 25, 2007 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
Calls for new ideas are always rather limited, aren't they? Perhaps the most hidebound idea among Dems (and in the above commentary) is that globalization is inevitable and we, like New Labor in Britain, simply have to accommodate ourselves to it.
.
First of all, globalization is cyclical. It comes, wreaks its havoc until people get fed up, and then it goes. It's neutron-bomb-like in that it builds economies but destroys lives. Economies benefit overall, but most people end up worse off. The big benefits that matter accrue narrowly; the big costs that hurt are borne broadly. And somehow, despite everything pols say, the various efforts to address these ills (job training, anyone?) never amount to spit.
.
I agree with the notion that some past ideas, like affirmative action, achieve little while convincing vast swaths of the population that Dems are decidedly not on their side. And I agree that, on the environmental front, the focus needs to be on the big, planet-threatening problem--global warming (the solution to which, I believe, will require a big-time return to nuclear energy). But other ideas, like Social Security, are worth preserving, building on and improving. New ideas, on the other hand, often amount to little more than novel and ingenious ways to apply lipstick to a pig (globalization being the unloveliest pig on the scene right now).
.
Still, in all, I generally, although not uniformly, distrust big government programs (pension-like plans, like Social Security, and health care--where I would abolish private insurers--are two big exceptions). But we can do a lot by simply changing the rules of the game. So here are two Big (non-lipstick) Ideas to try to restore the antique notion that a rising tide should lift all boats:
1) Through highly generous tax incentives, effectively mandate a no-more-than 10-to-1 ratio between the highest- and lowest-compensated employees in any corporation or company, including subsidiaries and all entities (possibly offshore) that do work for the original company.
2) Through highly generous tax incentives, effectively mandate employee control of all companies. In a corporation, for instance, employees would need to have majority representation on the board. Studies show that employee-controlled companies generally do better than average, so this is a win-win.
.
Mr. Shellenberger and Mr. Nordhaus speak of our affluent society. What they fail to note is that it's also a society in decline, deeply insecure, undemocratic, nontransparent and unjust, with pretty much all the indicators pointed in the wrong direction. I've laid out my two Big Ideas; I'd like to know what they have in mind.
.
September 25, 2007 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reproductive rights and women’s groups define theirs around access to contraception and abortion — even though hopelessness and insecurity are far bigger causes of teen pregnancy than lack of access to condoms and abortion.
Actually, I'm pretty sure not wearing a condom when having sex is the leading cause of pregnancy.
And it's not just lack of access to condoms and abortion, but the mythology of abstinence that's wrapped around the lack of access. A belief that it we all just close our eyes and wish upon a star, teens will stop having sex. All funded by a science-hating government.
That's the real problem.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
September 25, 2007 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why am I reminded of Pete Seegar's:"We all hate poverty war and injustice unlike the rest of you squares" ? Sure , it's gratifying to have your views applauded .What else is new ? I secretely like to receive a 5 even tho I pretend to be indifferent. But the reason we reinforce one another in the liberal blogosphere is that we in fact agree with one another. Should we pretend not to ?
Read the conservative blogosphere -try Just One Minute - and you'll find precisely the same amount of cheer leading and mutual congratulation. We propose what we propose because we think it's right . And OBTW we hope and actually believe that makes us electable .Besides our much scorned (by S&N and co) positions , there are a host of others that we don't advance because we realize that however admirable , they're non-starters electorally . Not being snarky ,but do SN&Co disagree with us because they think our positions are wrong in themselves- bad for society, unethical-or because they are political losers ?
In any event , Michael and Ted , you're more than welcome in this corner bar .As you would have been before you first leaned your elbows on the counter 10 hours ago. What are you drinking ?
September 25, 2007 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What has changed in politics is TV. Once the mass media became the norm as a way to run campaigns the chances of an average person running for office and winning vanished.
Lincoln made one of the most important speeches of his career at Cooper Union in NYC. It got printed all over the country in newspapers. The admission was free. Today you need to buy time (in 30sec chunks, not hour speeches). You need media consultants, fund raising organizations, etc. Where do you get the money to run such a campaign? Either you are wealthy (Bloomberg, Kohl, Romney) or you take it from large corporations and wealthy donors. "He who pays the piper picks the tune."
Those who are elected support the interests of those who funded their campaigns. This means the wealthy run the show. All the advice from people who don't even seem to agree with the goals of the traditional left is worthless if they aren't going to address this fundamental defect in our present democratic system.
Tell me how you are going to get big money out of politics and then we can talk about changing policy.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
September 25, 2007 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, flavor flavius, I fear they may be drinking the Kool-Aid.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 25, 2007 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the line about contraception and abortion is simply wrong. The evidence shows that access to contraception has played a major part in the decline of teen pregnancy over the last 15 years. It's one thing to call for old, tired ideas to be dropped, but not when the old ideas are absolutely correct. And:
hopelessness and insecurity are far bigger causes of teen pregnancy
So you're proposing we switch to combatting hopelessness? This is supposed to be your new, more realistic Democratic Party? Very weird.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 25, 2007 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We all hate poverty war and injustice unlike the rest of you squares" was a lyric of Tom Lehrer's "The Folk Song Army" which made fun of Pete Seeger's acolytes in the 1960s.
September 25, 2007 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would that the problem had been that the Democratic Party remained the same as it was prior to the 70's! The view the authors are putting forward seems to me to be precisely what led the Democrats off into the wilderness in the first place.
All of the great and successful programs Democrats launched from 1933 onward were part of an ongoing, consistent policy of expanding programs, the bottom lines of which were the elimination of poverty. These programs eliminated poverty, created middle class families and supported them so they could stay in the middle class and out of poverty. Most of the people in our country who are not in poverty are the direct beneificiaries of these programs. Of course, few people think of most of these programs as anti-poverty programs. The Democratic program from 1933 onward was to expand and strengthen these program and to create new programs in an expanding array of areas. That's right folks the primary purpose of social security, the GI Bill, the school lunch program, food stamps, Medicare, student loans and lots of other Democratic programs were actually anti-poverty programs and they worked superbly and still do!
The troubles for the Democratic Party came when Democrats began to retreat from their committment to expanding such programs and creating new means of doing the same sort of thing. When Democrats started falling into the trap of apologizing for strengthening the nation and our people in new and innovative ways they started losing instead of winning. Instead of doing what they had always done best which is to fight for the working people of the nation (which BTW includes most of the poor because they work too) they started acting as though all the work they had done was nothing but charity for the indolent poor. Yet, all of these tremendous programs helped to lift millions out of poverty and to this day keep millions out of poverty. All of these programs also meant that millions of businesses had customers they wouldn't have otherwise had because they couldn't have afforded to buy what was being sold. These programs not only lifted the poor but made our entire economy more stable and strong.
But, once the party forgot the mission they lost their way and began whimpering and acting out of fear instead of vision. Thus, we got solutions from DINO's like the DLC whose recipe of turning Democrats into Republican Lite made everything our party worked for, for decades more--notless vulnerable. The DLC and other, similarly oh-so-shrewd and self interested factions led the Democrats to defeat after defeat, did much of the dirty work for the reactionary Republicans and even now still insist on jumping over ever new cliff by blurring the distinctions between the parties by becoming more and more beholden to the same interests as the Republicans.
What made the Democratic Party strong is what remains the strength of Democrats today and will also be our strength in the future and that is to do what we need to do to help the average person improve their lives. That means expanding our anti-poverty programs with more, not less student aid, national health care for all citizens with no questions asked, more civilized family leave policies that support family life and stability which is vital for our children's future, unswerving support for labor unions and new laws that will help workers defend themselves, their jobs and their families instead of allowing rapacious corporate interests eliminate the strongest and most progressive voice for average people (union and non-union alike) the nation has ever known.
All this should be done with an eye toward what is most effective in terms of getting the job done. That was FDR's test for whether a program was worthwhile or not and he insisted upon it. That is not a trap that keeps Democrats in the position of merely clinging to and preserving existing programs, nor is it a recipe for a stand pat sort of position. Had we remained the Democratic Party we had been prior to the 70's we would have had a very different journey since.
Remaining strongly and unashamedly liberal has never been the problem for Democrats. What has been the problem is the centrists who have abandoned our committment to the poor and working people of the nation in favor of currying favor with the wealthy and powerful.
The nation has never needed two Republican Parties. Getting the Democratic Party back to being the party of the people will take a lot of fighting and struggling, but that is the only way we can take the country back. The Democrats who fought for and established social security and all the other Democratic programs knew this well. This is not a call for "more of the same" but instead it is a call for Democrats to remember what their mission is and to use whatever means works best for our people to achieve that mission. Forgetting about and walking away from our mission was the mistake and nothing else. The mission was what held the interest groups together and forced them to think in larger and less parochial terms. Returning to the mission can help to restore that broader sense to them all.
We can do our party a favor by no longer listening to DLC types or to other DINO's such as the BushDog Democrats. As long as we have them holding us back and holding us down we will never get out of the position they have put us into.
September 25, 2007 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. As an acolyte of both I confused the two .
However , as I recall it was the idealistic enthusiasims of the 50s Lehrer was mocking. By the 60s it was hard to make fun of Seeger's "And the big fool said 'keep on'".
September 25, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Environmentalists continue to define their interest as limiting human intrusions upon nature — even though global warming can't be solved by the pollution limits of old.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean habitat destruction and old-fashioned toxic pollution are no longer serious problems that we can handily ignore.
Re: Health care reformers define their interest around insuring the uninsured
Because that is principally where the main problem and the major injustice is at. Granted, there are other issues in the mix too, but universalizing healthcare is the first and very necessary step to addressing those other issues.
Re: Reproductive rights and women’s groups define theirs around access to contraception and abortion — even though hopelessness and insecurity are far bigger causes of teen pregnancy
Maybe the above is true, but no political effort is going to get rid of teenage angst. And it isn't just teenagers who require reproductive rights, for crying out loud!
Re: Civil rights groups define their mandate around ending racial prejudice and disparities — even though concentrated poverty can't be solved by affirmative action.
Very true-- so what do you recommend for an anti-poverty effort? Sounds like you pretty much disparage government efforts so do you have an alternate suggestion (and please, not tax cuts for the wealthy!)
Also:
Re: Lincoln made one of the most important speeches of his career at Cooper Union in NYC. It got printed all over the country in newspapers. The admission was free. Today you need to buy time
Admission may have been free, but the effort was not free on Lincoln's side of the ledger. He had to rent the space, travel there by train, pay for his meals and lodging, for a certain amount of security, for refreshments for the crowd, salaries for his secretaries and other employees, banners, signs etc. Maybe not the millions that gets spent today, but also well beyond the means of the average citizen in 1860. Politics in the 19th century was certainly not cheap nor free of the influence of Big Money; indeed the amount of profiteering on war contracts in the Civil War, and the scandals of the Grant administration reveal a level of corruption that is at least as great as our own.
September 25, 2007 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like thinking of "the aggrieved" as some kind of insidious set of blocks with a hold on liberalism, which presumably should instead be moving away from such problems. Blacks, to name just one minority, have every reason to feel aggrieved, and enunciating their grievance is fully in line with a broader vision of opportunity and participation in a democratic society.
But beyond that, if those concerned for the environment or for health care are another petty minority, how is it that either one includes the vast majority of Americans? How is it that the big ideas replacing them seem to belong to no one beyond the DLC?
Bai, too, has always run out the GOP line of new ideas as if it meant something and then uses it to look for a party without its principles. The idea that someone like Hillary Clinton is succeeding beyond the netroots by having better ideas is peculiar, given that she goes out of her way not to enunciate ideas, while netroot faves like Edwards run theme-driven campaigns.
I don't wish to deny that Clinton may have a valid strategy for winning, since people do respond to personalities, name recognition, and the successes of the Clinton administration. I don't even wish to deny she might accomplish some of my agenda as president, including ending a way, emptying torture chambers, and pushing for health care. All Democrats are pretty much in agreement there, even if she hasn't been the leader on them that I'd wish. I could even point out that she's likely to consider multinational agreements on global warming, although that'd strike terror in the hearts of Nordhaus and Shellenberger. But their frame for all this is just not adding up.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 25, 2007 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would put it slightly differently. America is best served when there is a creative tension between the forces of progressivism and conservatism. But I mean old-style conservatism. Progressives should be pushing forward, trying to better society while real conservatives should be pushing back, urging caution. That is the healthiest situation.
Thus the real priority is not the destruction of the Republican party. It is the consignment of "movement conservatism" to the ashheap of history and the reestablishment of a conservatism that focuses on conserving. Modern "movement conservatism" is nothing but reactionary politics - always a factor throughout American history - given a new name. It is time to realize that it is a failure and a corrosive factor in our politics. It represents a tiny slice of the American electorate and it is responsible for much of what is wrong with America today. Until movement conservatism, with its nutty economics, vile social views and radical foreign policy vision, accented with anti-science philistinism, is expunged from politics, America will never be the beacon of hope to people from around the world that it once was.
September 25, 2007 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This post reminds me of an SNL satire of a drill instructor--"look at you, with your ... eyes in your face!" Also reminds me of Joe Klein's assertion that a program like Social Security doesn't make sense now that we're in this new information economy with you know, all this newness.
September 25, 2007 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to study a bit of history before you start rewriting it. Don't impose modern campaign tactics on to historical figures. To help you get started here's a good site about the Lincoln campaign and a link to his speech.
The Cooper Union Address
By the way Cooper Union still doesn't charge tuition, so I doubt they charged much to use the hall. As for security, Lincoln used to walk about freely in Washington during the height of the war. The concept of keeping the president in a bubble happened as a result of his assassination. One could make a claim that that the creation of such tight security has been one of the factors in the disconnect between the actions of presidents and the needs of the general public. People who live in bubbles don't know what's going on.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
September 25, 2007 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's particularly weird that with all these calls for a new paradigm, a new big idea, etc., neither Bai nor Norhaus and Shellenberger have even mentioned Edwards's "Two Americas" speech. Which is a fantastic and powerful -- and accurate -- way to think about what's going on in the post-industrial economy, and what government needs to address.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 25, 2007 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, brothers. Keep it up.
As for the comments about whether Democrats need new METHODS or new IDEAS...I think the two go hand in hand. New narrative and new strategy go together: narrative is how we articulate our values and deal with the emotional side of taking action together; strategy is how we conceptualize the playing field and choose the best actions to realize our goals.
If you want to see this applied in more concrete terms, check out my post yesterday on Jena. I make a similar argument as Ted and Michael, and make substantive recommendations for how we move forward on civil rights and criminal justice reform. I advocate both new forms of organizing, and new narratives at the same time.
Why are people so defensive? This is good news--it means we have plenty of missed opportunities, hence if we start taking advantage of them, we can start creating meaningful change!
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/specialguests/2007/sep/24/a_new_civil_rights_movement_born_in_jena
September 25, 2007 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for dropping by guys.
It's always good to hear what The New Republicans have to say.
Those darn Dems can't do anything right, can they?!
If they would just act more like those uber-successful Republicans, with all their great ideas, things would be perfect.
September 25, 2007 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody's being defensive. But these arguments demanded a response. And somebody has to remind people looking for new narratives and methods that principles like universal healthcare, environmental stewardship, equality of opportunity and access to the full range of pregnancy planning options (from birth control to abortion) aren't up for debate. They are what we stand for. How we achieve them is one thing. But let's at least agree on the principles.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 25, 2007 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republican party has been so merged with the movement conservatives that it can no longer be saved. Various parties have risen and fallen in American history. It is time for the Republican party to fall.
But this will not lead to 1 party only, instead another or other ideologies will come to fill the gap. Perhaps a reformed Libertarian Party, or a new Whig party or whatever it will be. But you have to clear the rubble before you can rebuild, and it's time for the Repulican party as an institution to be cleared away and something else to take its place as the opposition.
September 25, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think they're saying that greater economic opportunities leads to less hopelessness which leads to less teen pregnancy, and that's also true of crime.
But you can hardly say that we should replace condoms with better economic policies. The two go hand-in-hand.
September 25, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll tell you this much... when I lost my virginity in high school it wasn't because I felt "hopeless."
Teens have sex because they're horny. We should have better economic policies because that's the right thing to do. And we should make sure that teens have access to contraception because they're horny.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 25, 2007 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well...to be fair, by the time I lost my virginity in college, I was pretty damn hopeless. Of course, the cure for that hopelessness was sex, which I don't think is what S&N are proposing.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 25, 2007 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lehrer was a friend of friends of mine back in the '60s. We had a discussion of the song once at a party. His argument, as I remember it, was that it was a satire against those who only sang..."ready, aim, sing" being the tag line of the song. following the discussion he proceeded to decorate an easter egg by writing the Our Father in one fell swoop, forward and backward, from one end of the egg to the other, no goofs, no glitches, no erratic spacing. I was impressed.
aMike,
September 25, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there's a confusion here about the relationship between principles and strategy.
The things you listed aren't values or narratives--they're policy positions. For the purpose of this conversation, let's say all of us agree on all those policy positions. But what's the story about why we want Americans to support all of these things? We need to tell a story about who we are, what's wrong in America, and why Americans should support us to take some course of action.
Here's the story that too many Democratic activists tell Americans: "We're an embattled band of outsider 'experts' or 'professional activists' who've appointed ourselves to stand up for all the victims of the world--and if you stupid Americans aren't one of our elite few, then you're probably part of the problem. Uh yeah--and also, we have values too. And we represent the mainstream. Vote for us." That's what I see as the dominant narrative of many Democratic activists today, and it plays right into the hands of the right-wing smearjob that we're a bunch of arrogant liberal elitists. We need a new narrative, not this narrative "poor us, usurped Camelot in exile, waiting for those bad Republicans to stop ruining our kingdom." I'll know that Democrats have achieved a new better narrative when I stop hearing Democratic activists talk about "Americans" using the pronouns "they" and "them."
Also, until fairly recently, I didn't hear many Dems talking boldly about "universal healthcare" as an integral part of our vision. (Now I was born in 1980, so when John Edwards announced this big health care push it was the first time in my adult life that Dems have been proactive and not reactive as far as bold social policy moves.) So the fact that we now all talk casually about "health care" as a non-negotiable is itself evidence that we're changing our narrative and setting a new agenda, instead of playing whiny defense against all the dirty tricks of the Right.
These guys aren't making the usual New Democrat argument that we should throw principle to the winds and follow the polls--or else I'd be the first one to throw a hissy fit.
September 25, 2007 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I missed something here but it seems to me that all the "old ideas" of the left; workers rights, abortion rights and access to contraception, environmental and conservation policies, civil rights and civil liberties, education, etc. etc. are not only still good ideas but as we have seen, we still have much work that needs to be done. The vast majority of Americans believe in these ideas. They have forgotten how important these ideas are, though, with all the smoke thats been blown up their collective asses by a political party that is devoid of good ideas of their own and a cowered and self-interested media culture.
Out here is where the real revolution is taking place. I've seen more passion and policy on the blogs in the last four years than I've seen in the last thirty years fron the traditional political culture. Any body who doesn't see that risks being left behind.
September 25, 2007 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess I'll leave the framing and narrative writing to those who are interested in that sort of thing. I'm more concerned with people's rights and opportunities.
You call them policies rather than values. I say that policies are the only values that matter.
I'm also not convinced that these two agree with me on every point and I don't think that has to do with polls. I think they just don't agree. I suspect that they're idealogically to the right of most of the people who post here. We'll see... if they reveal themselves a bit more.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 25, 2007 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But let's at least agree on the principles." Yeah, when I read Bai's courteous replies, I keep thinking there must be something there I still don't get. Today he was kind enough to reply that if I was concerned to advance a liberal agenda or keep from rolling back past liberal agendas (presumably even social security), the worst way to go about it is to insist we're right. And I'm scratching my head and wondering what I'm missing beyond, well, the stereotype that liberals are elite know-it-alls. Except when they're talking like real people, in which case they're rich phonies. I swear I've read his comments four times now.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 25, 2007 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's as if everyone assumes liberal or progressive or whatever you want to call them ideas are somehow unpalatable. We can't just say "These are the things I believe we should be doing." I say that an unwillingness to just do that is why a lot of our candidates get tarred as dissemblers. But again, that doesn't interest me so much. I don't want to be somebody's image consultant and I'm not going to change the way I talk or write based on that either.
I say let's get the ideas out there and debate them. Tell me what you believe, don't tell me how you're going to tell me about it.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 25, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, and you two are the latest in a long line. Enjoy your 15 seconds.
September 25, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Democrats could just get rid of all those women cluttering up the party with their interests...
September 25, 2007 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: You might want to study a bit of history before you start rewriting it.
Are you seriously trying to say that campaigning politicians got everything for free back in the 19th century? Sorry, but that doesn't pass the laugh test. Nor does any assertion that the politics of that era was not deeply corrupted by money. Fact is, even back then an "ordinary" person could no more afford to run for office than one could today. (Recall too that the Founding Fathers were a virtual aristocracy and even early populists like Jackson were fairly well to do). Despite the log cabin iconography, Lincoln was not some penniless plebe. He was a self-made man, but he definitely had made it (until his neurotic wife spent it all). And yes, he had the backing of the big money financiers. Let's not forget that even at its inception the GOP was the party of Big Business.
Re: As for security, Lincoln used to walk about freely in Washington during the height of the war.
Actually, Lincoln had the infamous Pinkertons looking out for him. He was (for obvious reason) the target of any number of potnetial assassins, one of whom ultimately succeeded. It is true that Lincoln, to his vast credit, was a fairly fearless man and refused to let these dangers crimp his style (unlike Chicken George, who flew in aimless panic about the country on 9-11 even long after the attacks were done). And yes, on one occasion Lincoln even stood observant of a small battle on the outskirts of DC (Early's raid) with bullets splattering the pavements just yards away.
Re: The concept of keeping the president in a bubble happened as a result of his assassination.
Not so sure about that. Remember Garfield and McKinley? Their assassins walked right up to them and shot them. The "bubble" is fairly modern, post JFK even.
September 25, 2007 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, psst, from one "girl" to another, this much I've figured out: when you start out a post like this:
that's like a call to arms for fighting keyboardists to start the gang war by yellin' back "Republican lite" and/or "DLC scum." Inevitably there will be mention of spines and backbones. And then maybe something about DC elite and purity tests as well. Then possibly The New Republic. No one knows who really started it all, but it provides more entertainment for them than a video game, so both teams keep playing. It's not really about communication, it's sort of like oh, a pissing contest.
September 25, 2007 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Modern "movement conservatism" is nothing but reactionary politics
I'm not sure even that is an adequete description. Maybe social conservatism is reactionary, seeking to turn the clock back to some (imaginary) era of virtue and piety. But neither foreign policy NeoConism nor today's rightwing economic program are reactionary, in the sense of looking to go backwards. For sure the Amerika Uber Alles policies of the Neocons was never American foreign policy anytime in the past when the nation veered between internationalism and isolationism. No, today's GOP is the radical party pure and simple.
September 25, 2007 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No - we've got a real values divide here. These guys think my number 1 issue, health CARE (not insurance) is trivial because it only impacts 47M Americans today and they think women ought to tend to the stove and not worry their pretty little heads about contraception etc. because it's another of those health issues that don't impact professional guys with fat wallets and who else should a party represent? Who else is going to buy the votes?
September 25, 2007 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, the Democrats would do so much better if they said frell the environment, to hell with choice, bring back segregation and let's win elections, Hoo Hah!
How many times are we going to listen to some over-priced, arrogant jackasses like these telling Democrats they could win if they only betrayed their principles and acted more like Republicans.
If that's the Democrat of tomorrow, I don't want them.
September 25, 2007 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the Great Depression until the mid-1970s, Democrats and liberals achieved amazing things. Rights-based liberalism ended school segregation, dramatically reduced employment discrimination, and gave women the right to abortions. And environmental laws cleaned up our air and water and protected wilderness lands. But as the economy and society changed, and attitudes toward government evolved, liberal interest groups, grassroots activists, and Democratic insiders clung for dear life to old government programs, regulations, and court victories. Indeed, they still do.
I should have stopped right when I got to this passage but I slogged my way through the rest of the piece anywho...
So let me get this right. Because of some alleged "societal change" the Democrats/liberals need to abandon "Rights-based liberalism". So defending the rights the Constitution gives to we the people are now moot in our public dialog? Our freedoms are moot in the face of needing to win elections? Pardon my language, but that is one of the most fucked up things I've read here in a looooooooong time.
So those dinosaur like liberals who believe in Habeus Corpus should keep their mouths shut because if they say so they are the "terrorist coddling wimps" the hate mongers on the right claim and not people who are defending freedom?
Defending the rights of the American people is a bad political strategy for the left to take? If so which is the best way to get to Canada?
September 25, 2007 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and please try not to break anything while you're here.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 25, 2007 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats have been talking about healthcare since before you were born. Just because you haven't noticed, doesn't mean it wasn't happening. What was the 92 election about? Health care and the economy. Yes, the health care plan got derailed, but Clinton ran on health care and the economy.
And you know what, principles without policies are empty words. Supporting women's right to choose in our heart of hearts while running away from NARAL and the abortion word is useless. Worse than useless. Give me an outright enemy over a toothless ally.
September 25, 2007 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not as though these blowhards actually offered a single proactive suggestion - not a principle, not a policy. They offered nothingness. How appropriate then, the title they chose.
September 25, 2007 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, You and John are missing the point, I think. When the ideas are out there being debated, does your part of the debate consist only of "I think universal health care is a good idea and we should do it," period? While I would agree with you, period, there are a whole lot of people out there who were raised on the idea that a hard work ethic and duty to family with a dose of religion added is what you need to survive, not a government 'welfare' plan. And arguing that it's the right thing to do for the 47M that don't have insurance has not convinced them to go with it.
But changing the narrative (argument) to something like (making it up as I go along) universal health care enhances the daily lives of all people because healthy people contribute to their communities through work and volunteer efforts, effectively reduces crimes of desperation, reduces domestic violence when anxieties and worries are reduced or through preventative programs, reduces teen-age pregnancy and lessens infant mortality rates has an appeal for everyone without a 'welfare' stigma or work ethic attachment.
Furthermore, the government can offer this to all the people more effectively and for less money than what the govt spends now on health care per capita through private insurers, as it has been doing quite successfully with Medicare for those over 65.
That is the narrative part and Lydia and S&N are right--in many ways we are still trying to sell our Father's Oldsmobile when we concentrate only on the poor, needy and unfairly treated. Economic and social justice principles benefit everyone in the long run, not just some people. As far as I know, we haven't said that.
What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins
September 25, 2007 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone over at Kos has a thread, and granted who knows if it is true, but claiming that in Kansas City a woman went to the ER with her husband with an unwanted miscarriage and was later denied coverage by BCBS because they claimed it was an elective abortion regardless of what her medical record said.
This is the slippery slope. You intimidate insurers, doctors, hospitals, judges, local governments and pretty soon heartbroken women have to explain to BIG BROTHER why they had a routine and heartbreaking miscarriage. That's what happens when the "opposition" party surrenders to fanatics.
September 25, 2007 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor: "I say let's get the ideas out there and debate them." I think you've got it. My first reaction to Bai is that he's illicitly muddying two separate issues: are the bloggers a useful contribution or just shrill, unbending noise, and is it best to play down liberal programs in favor of new ideas?
Now, there are already a lot of sleazy moves here. As we've discussed, the new ideas may be not so new things, like old conservative preferences for unregulated markets and low tax rates on the rich. As I posted over with Bai, the Clinton campaign sure doesn't seem bubbling with bold new ideas, whatever else her merits. It may run together the Net in the sense of forums like this and the sense of star pundits and their agendas. I've had some qualms about both. After all, I've complained here about being marginalized by many comments, and perhaps the star bloggers are not all that distinct from other shrill pundits, but they're certainly not worse! And finally, as others point out, the actual explicit ideas and agenda from Bai or our "environmental" friends never gets stated, making one wonder what it's an excuse for.
But it now occurs to me that the equivalence has a point: it makes liberals or indeed much of the party, regardless of how their ideas poll, into a special interest group. That's just plain a rhetorical cheat. And Destor's way of phrasing the value of the Net, limited as it may be, as just letting ideas get aired out, is a chastening antidote. All this makes me wonder why Bai is a star and several here are not, but then I wonder that about the MSM all the time! Could that be the real sad lesson about politics?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 25, 2007 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think the real modern day bubble was the result of the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. By chance, I was driving in DC a few weeks beforehand and happened to end up directly behind the presidential motorcade, which at that time consisted of the limo bracketed by station wagons full of secret service men. That was it.
Yesterday at lunchtime I was watching the set up for Bush's arrival at the downtown heliport in Manhattan. The contrast could not have been starker. There were hundreds of uniformed police, snipers, NYPD and Coast Guard boats in the water. What secret service presence was in the area was invisible. When the helicopters arrive harbor traffic is shut down as is traffic on the FDR. There are always two presidential helicopters and two presidential limos, just in case. The motorcade itself has at least 20 vehicles not counting the phalanx of NYPD motorcycles.
“I despise idealogues masquerading as objective journalists.” - Bill O'Reilly, March 30, 2007
September 25, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, maybe we need to take a page from the old Romans and have a servant riding beside the Pres whispering "Remmeber, thou art mortal" in his ear.
September 25, 2007 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. I trust you note I did say Seeger's acolytes, not Seeger himself, who, I think didn't confuse singing in a coffeehouse with actually doing some organizing.
September 25, 2007 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Game , Set , Match !
September 25, 2007 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not persuaded by Bai's narrative. Perhaps I could be, but it seems too old and too trite, the usual cliches with nothing much to add substance to them.
The critique of Liberalism here suggests a yearning for halcyon glory days that never really existed, and an attempt to bury those 'glory days' in favour of 'moving on' to another big vision.
Well, to put it politely: Bullshit.
The Great Generation of the 30's and 40's spent a lot of time tolerating racism and segregation. They actively pushed women out of the economy through the 50's. They embraced a technocratic world vision that failed in its application of realpolitik. They accepted civil rights in the 60's and 70's with only grudging reluctance. They offered contempt to the women's rights movement. Gay rights had to wait for the Stonewall riots and didn't hit their stride until the 90's.
Liberalism was an evolving social compromise, a continual bending of ideals and principles against realities in social compromise.
If Bai doesn't understand history or liberalism...
September 25, 2007 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
My only request is that we're honest about what we think should be done and are willing to have an argument about it. We've had a lot of back and forth in this thread, John. But I think we're both arguing for that.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 25, 2007 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
seashell,
You're a smart cookie. You're absolutely right.
But, I see some danger in this. Allow me to digress just a little, into a topic that S&N brought up -- they said that access to birth control and abortion don't reduce teen pregnancy. Now, I think they're wrong on the facts but let me pretend that they're not. Let's say they're 100% right on both statistics and motivations behind those statistics... Even if they're 100% right, I disagree with them. Because I happen to think that people who decide to have sex should, as an issue related to basic rights, be free to prevent pregnancies from occurring or to stop them if they do. A lot of people might not agree with that. But for me, it's a matter of rights and a person's rights aren't up for debate, they're meant to be protected in the wake of other debates.
I'll bet you're pro-contraception and pro-choice, as I am.
But, when we start arguing those issues in a wishy-washy way, those rights get eroded. Sometimes, you have to take a stand. I admit, the reproductive rights argument I'm making is an extreme one, but it's one that S&N brought up, so I'm playing fair. When we get into dicier issues like healthcare and retirement security, the same rules apply.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 25, 2007 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect everyone's a bit right here. The true, old school definition of conservatism is that we in the U.S. should seek to preserve what's right about our society. We have a lot of personal freedoms and we're not rule by a monarchy. Yay!
But, that definition of conservatism is no longer operable, whether looking back or looking forward. The U.S. as the founders conceieved it, was free from British tyranny (let's preserve that!) but it imposed its own tyrannies (racism, sexism and economic classism) and we need to get beyond those. We can't get beyond those without... change!
And I believe that a lot of thoughtful conservatives would agree with me on that point. Hell, conservatives I don't agree with about anything else, from William Buckley to Jonah Goldberg, would be on my side against racial bigots, should push come to shove.
So, conservatism is no longer about preservation. So what is it about?
Well... seems like the whole movement has become radicalized. It's become about Christianizing the U.S. just because Christianity is a tradition, and democratizing the rest of the world by force because democracy is a tradition too. See, conservatism is no longer about preservation... it's about forcefully exporting what's old about the U.S. to anyone who disagrees.
I have tons of sympathy for libertarians who might argue that our founders would never have envisioned the amount of government influence that American citizens currently endure. But I highly resent and will always fight the modern conservative impulse to force old values on both other cultures and on dissidents within the U.S.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
September 25, 2007 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whew, Destor - thanks for your gracious response. I understand your position on those (and other) rights because I am 100% pro-choice and pro-contraception. Of all the principles you could have picked, access to safe medical abortions makes me the most nervous.
Why contraception and abortion are seen as teen-age issues when there are only approx. 21,324,186 teenagers (14-19) of both sexes compared to 127,991,738 other people between the ages of 20 and 50, shows how off-course that narrative has gone. Do we have the principles applied to a minority (literally) of the potentially affected population?
That's not even my Father's Oldsmobile. It's an Edsel.
What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins
September 26, 2007 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lydia, there really IS a consensus narrative for a new Democratic Party; it's already out there. It is the narrative that has been told by the NetRoots over the past decade, and that has really sharpened and acquired focus since 2003. The narrative starts from liberalism, which is simply the philosophy that government needs to provide the public goods necessary in the modern world to achieve the kinds of rights Americans have always believed in -- hence anti-trust law, the New Deal, Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, the FDA, the EPA, and so on. The next part of the story is about how Movement Conservatism, which basically grew out of the fury of the ultra-rich against the New Deal and Great Society, worked out strategies to undermine liberalism, cloaking its real interests (regressive taxes, racism, freedom to pollute) under false names (supply-side economics, anti-voter-fraud laws, Clear Skies Initiative). Movement Conservatism cynically exploited cultural divisions on religion and sexuality to rile up a conservative base, while never actually doing anything to advance the issues it claimed to be concerned about. It built a vast network for the manipulation of public opinion, ultimately including its own broadcast and cable TV network. And this ideological false-flag operation eventually led to the Bush Administration, which has proven completely incompetent at everything but cutting taxes and gutting business regulation -- since that is actually the sole issue that truly concerns the conservative base. Meanwhile, liberals' earnest efforts to reshape government to cope with 21st-century realities -- universal health care untied from employers, international efforts to preserve the environment, etc. -- have been destroyed by conservatism's cynical, deceptive, faux-populist demagoguery. And it wasn't until the American people saw how Movement Conservatives destroyed Bill Clinton, and then destroyed the country under George Bush, that they began to wake up and understand what was going on. Liberalism today is a back-to-the-future movement; it's about figuring out what government needs to do in the 21st century to guarantee Americans the rights that are in the Constitution.
This is the same kind of back-to-the-future message that Reagan pitched in 1980, so don't tell me it doesn't work. And the thing is, basically every single person in the left blogosphere would tell the story of 20th-century American politics essentially the same way I just did. So I don't understand what these people are talking about when they complain about the lack of a Democratic narrative. It's already there. We've all been saying basically the same thing for 4 years already. The NetRoots ARE the ones who defined the new Democratic narrative. You just have to read it and listen, and stop blathering on about "vacuity" or the "lack of a narrative".
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
September 26, 2007 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Public funding.
Like in England.
No more millionaires running the country. They have run it into the ground.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
September 26, 2007 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
September 26, 2007 5:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
And those minorities with their demands for equal treatment as outlined in the Constitution, and for GAWDS sake, get rid of those embarrassing poor people! This is a political PARTY people and those type folks don't know how to party! I bet they've never even been to the first DC cocktail soiree where only the best little weenies are served and important decisions are made, like "does Tucker's bowtie look enough like George Will's?".
September 26, 2007 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our founding fathers were just full of "old ideas" whose time has obviously come and gone, correct guys?
September 26, 2007 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
A long way back an excellent post said ,in effect , liberals have always stood for providing help to those who most need it. That isn't necessarily an electoral winner in a society with a deeply engrained belief
not only that people should help themselves but that it is actually wrong to help others.
An anecdote. After WW2 in my father's small town they decided not to use the memorial fund for another piece of granite but instead to help returning vets by providing a number of houses. To his surprise no one wanted to be in charge so my father volunteered and did it. But several friends
told him they so disapproved that their friendship was over. And that stayed true till they all died.
Personally , I changed from a committed young Republican to a Democrat at a famous Business School (while most of my class moved in the opposite direction). The course in which we read the opinions of the various justices in landmark legal decisions going back over decades made me realize that my instinctive approval was always with the "liberals" so my politics were misaligned with my beliefs. The relevance of that to this discussion is that there was no need for me to angst over what were the the underlying "principle" . They were whatever caused those judges to take the liberal position in each of those cases.
In my logic course we were told "you can't argue first principles". And it's not necessary , IMHO , to even identify them . Intellectuals do that , and that's fine for them. Joe Lunchpail doesn't but he acts on them . As a shop steward put it :These are physical men and that's how they express themselves. To put it another way they can't articulate why they believe what they believe but plenty of them in my experience come out at the same point in the argument as the great liberal supreme court justicies.
Bottom line: Ignore Mike and Ted and for God's sake ignore Matt Bai .We should stay the course.
September 26, 2007 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know after reading the original post by S&N and the great comments it occurs to me that a new post needs to be written: Consultants and Nothingness.
The educated amatures a way way in front of the consultant class on this, like 15 years in front. The two points that stick out are:
1- a positive coherent winning narrative for liberalism and the Democratic Party is out there right now, it was developed through a process of peer review and violent debate in the Netroots. The consultant class and many elected Dems are reluctant to pick it up because it doesn't come from them and it is a new source. But it is precisely the 'open source' nature of this narrative that gives it its power. It is the very antithesis of 'special interest' that S&N fear. It is principled general interest.
2- The shoe really is on the other foot when it comes to 'who needs to change'. It is not the democratic base that needs to change its marketing strategy, it is the democratic leadership (elected memebers and consultants) that need to start playing up the base as heroes and champions of Americaness. Take a page from the GOP, because although they stink on so many levels, when it comes to marketing they are very good, I mean look how much they achieved with such bad ideas. The Dem top needs to praise the Dem base to the general public. That would change American political culture very rapidly. The MoveOn Patraeus dust up, shows that the Dem leadership is not there yet.
The first major Dem consultant to 'get this' will be a kingmaker.
September 26, 2007 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seashell's rationale for health care is sensible but only a tiny, marginal part of the story. It's true we think healthy people contribute to the community, and it's true that community is a liberal ideal. Still, we also are concerned for unequal distribution of society's goods, for infant mortality and other measures of what bang we're getting for our enormous health care buck, for the money being diverted into costs or profits entirely in denying health care, for the bankruptcy statistics so often traceable to major health costs, for the people who thus fall out of the middle class and the economic inequality that thus brows, for the costs to us all when health care is delivered in emergency rooms, and for the plain old feeling that one shouldn't have to be rich to see a doctor!
Moreover, the whole exercise ends up being, well, boring. Health care is enormously pressing among issues in most polls for most Americans, and those Americans are unlikely to get as excited sorting out the political philosophy of individual and community. Moreover, when they do, they're easily manipulated between slogans like it takes a village and individual responsibility, or anecdotes between Sicko and welfare queens. (Ok, I tried to be fair and balanced!)
What this says to me is that once we start playing Bai's game, we're already going into mental contortions, not gaining politically, and losing sight of the motivating emotions that can make us succeed and make us want to succeed. That's why, however laudable Seashell's comments are, Valdron's right to read Bai and scream bs.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 26, 2007 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
flavius: "Bottom line: Ignore Mike and Ted and for God's sake ignore Matt Bai." You're absolutely right and articulate on first principles. The scary thing, though, is that (a) Bai's whole thesis is "ignore them" and (b) the media sure gives people like him endless attention. Makes me want to despair.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 26, 2007 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the reasons Republicans win with bad ideas is because they are not really running on their ideas -- they are running against demonized, fictionalized "liberals" and "DemoRATS." People who, as Newt would say, aren't "normal."
Once you've made people reluctant to be associated with Democratic voters -- as people -- you've made it unlikely they'll spend time getting acquainted with Democratic ideas and arguments.
Republicans get a lot from demonizing liberals and Democratic constituent groups -- including a lot of helpful, public support for their efforts from big chunks of the Democratic "leadership."
September 26, 2007 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
flavius, On principles: Destor and I were only agreeing that we shared the same ones before moving on to the source of contention. Not to worry.
On stay-the-course: What course do you see me straying from? Basically, I was arguing that liberal principles benefit everyone in the long run, not just certain underdogs. If you see that as misguided based on your beliefs that our society believes it is wrong to help others and everyone should help themselves -- aren't we then screwed either way?
What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins
September 26, 2007 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are not Democrats running against reTHUGlicans who are portrayed as racists, sexists, theocrats, environmental rapists, warmongers, greedy capitalists…?
I'm not sure which side has the advantage on demagoguery
September 26, 2007 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we could begin by requiring politicians to spend some of their contributions in certain ways -- ones that actually inform voters.
An analogy: If you are applying for a job, you submit as polished a resume as possible highlighting your favorables and downplaying the less favorables. But at some point in the hiring process you are going to have to provide information in formats chosen by the potential employer -- their interviews, their application forms, reference checks. Smart employers don't hire based solely on even the most professionally polished resumes and they certainly don't rely on backstabbing between competing applicants to discover negatives.
Why shouldn't we voters (the employers) be able to require that politicians (the applicants) provide us with information about them in certain formats. For example, as a minimum I would like to see 1) a biography of the candidates in documentary format from an objective source; 2) a one-on-one interview with the candidate by an objective, knowledgeable interviewer; 3) a State-of-the-Union style speech from the candidate outlining their vision of where we are and where they want to lead.
These could be distributed in a variety of ways, YouTube, direct mail DVD to registered voters, back-to-back broadcast over local PBS channels in the last couple of weeks before election (it can't be any worse than pledge month).
Beyond producing specific voter-defined information, leave the candidates to spend the remainder of their contributions as they want as long as it is legal and ethical. I believe that eventually their need to raise so much money will diminish as it loses its effectiveness in controlling the political conversation.
Disclaimer: Lots of details would need to be ironed out and most of this is just applicable to presidential elections.
September 26, 2007 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever heard Karl Rove or any other prominent Republican "strategist" or spokesperson agree with those objectionable stereotypes? And use some version of them against their own side?
That's my point.
An "aggregate of the aggrieved?"
Rove or Newt couldn't have said it better.
September 26, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, you never, never, never, never hear Republican "strategists" and spokespeople proclaiming to the world that the constituencies that support their party and look to it for representation are "special interests" (whose concerns should therefore just be dismissed.) Even when its just 3 rich guys in a room twisting arms for a tax break that applies to no one else but them.
Nope, those guys are heroic, enterprising examples of the entrepreneurial spirit of the nation -- and along with all the good-hearted, salt of the earth Republican "values" voters and patriotic "security" moms and dads (collecting hefty federal subsidies in the barely populated states), they make America great. How do we know this for sure? Because Republicans tell us so -- over and over and over again -- and the media repeats it, over and over and over again.
Then there are the "strategists" on the other side, like Mr. Nordhaus and Shellenberger. Pity them, for they are forever thwarted in the noble search for good ideas by their non-stop need to devise -- and publicize as broadly as possible -- insults and demonizing characterizations, like "aggregate of the aggrieved."
Who needs good ideas when we have "strategists" working non-stop, in every public venue they can think of, to convince "real" Americans who don't vote for Democrats that they have absolutely nothing in common with, and no reason to make common cause with, all the millions of hard-working Americans (of the wrong gender, wrong color, wrong class, wrong age, wrong region of the country) who do.
You know, it might be easier to come up with good ideas that serve the best interest of the country as a whole if more Democratic strategists, consultants and would-be leaders, actually respected the person of, the contributions (to the nation) of, and the best "interests" of, the people who do still look to Democrats for representation.
September 26, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like the way you think.
Bush created a fiscal crisis so overwhelming that when asked about his state's looming deficit during the 2000 campaign, he admitted, "I hope I'm not around to deal with it."
Should we surprised that he doesn't intend to 'be around' to deal with the myriads of messes he's created as president? In fact, he's spent a life time making 'messes' and walking away from them scot free - just ask all the people who've had to clean them up.
September 26, 2007 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No criticism intended . My "stay the course" was sort of an spontaneous rallying cry to the troops (us), responding to the implied message of Mike and Ted that Democrats should aim at the government doing even less than is now the case .
My "bleeding heart" inclinations are tempered -altho not much- by businss experience including as ceo of company with many thousand of employees. I know business can get things done . Better than the government.. I also know the business dishonesty far exceeds anything you might imagine and certainly anything we read about . Which wouldn't have surprised Adam Smith in the least . Altho my business school professors would be shocked.
From which I long ago concluded that Capitalism can be a useful tool but one that desperately requires regulation .
My view of the role of government , any government including ours , is inluenced - at lot- by 15 years living abroad in a variety of countries . At a distance it's easy to see and admire many american characteristic such as our optimism while deploring ones such as our strongly held but concealed belief that the poor probably brought their problems on themselves so that "deserving poor" is an oxymoron.
Some years ago a child psychologist coined the phrase the "good enough mother". This
is a "good enough country" . But the ways in which it needs to change to be even better are , I fear , the exact opposite of what Mike and Ted have in mind.
September 26, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is the the republicans use their demagogary for political advantage through the media and the mouths of their elected officials. Elected Democrats are hesitant. We in the blogesphere have concluded, to hesitate on this it to lose, believe in yourself and your cause, and attack the republican opponent accordingly, otherwise the average voter will concluded you are weak and uncertain. Ask John Kerry.
Here's an exercise you can do this week to verify this in the comfort of your own home.
At 6PM every night turn on the national news followed by the local news. Switch to a new broadcaster or cable network everynight. Note the incidents of demagogary. Your uncertainty should clear up pdq.
September 26, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carter beat Ford because Ford had pardoned Nixon. Reagan beat Carter because Carter couldn't get the American hostages held in Iran released - the 'wimp' factor. Bush didn't beat Gore. Bush beat Kerry because Americans don't change presidents when the country is at war - the 'fear' factor.
More complicated than that? Don't think it really is. As Theodore White said years ago, Americans don't elect a president, they elect a King, which is probably why we don't do resumes. Washington is called The Father of Our Country - the truth is Americans look to all their presidents for protection, the Great Father in the White House.
Not to disregard the basic belief system of progressives or how much better off the people are when it's implemented, but I don't think that's what gets people elected, especially presidents.
September 26, 2007 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Bai, "GM's internal culture couldn't catch up to the changing times" thus it kept 'pushing' Pontiacs is bull pucky. GM's behemoths - Cadillac, Olds - were virtual cash cows, the big money-makers. That's why GM resisted going to small car production.
Which may be exactly why the Dem party operatives have side-lined the basic principles of the party. Elections American style have become Big Business, the cash cow of a candidate. Big donors sit in board rooms. Little donors comment on blogs and espouse democratic principles.
September 26, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
John, we've met in this corner bar before on basically the same topic. You must not have gotten the memo about reinforcing instead of challenging me. Personally, I like the 'smart cookie' approach. :-)
Just for the record, I did bring up infant mortality rates and bang for the buck. In speaking of the benefits to the community, though, I was operating more under the assumption that most people, liberal or conservative, prefer to live in stable low crime communities versus chaotic high crime locales, and was not stressing political theories of villages versus individuals.
Also, I almost always agree with Valdron, more than you know. I'm not suggesting playing games or selling fantasy policies that we all know will never work. Like Valdron said, liberalism is an evolving social compromise and all I'm saying is, it's time to bring in society as a whole contrasted with targeting groups with different policies -- women, gays, people of color, labor, etc. The policies we advocate ARE good for everyone. What is wrong with saying that?
What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins
September 26, 2007 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but it was evolving in the direction of a more humane, egalitarian direction. And then came "The Third Way" and Democrats began evolving in reverse.
September 26, 2007 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that Bai seems to have no real grasp of anything except a caricature of Liberalism. His portrait of Liberalism is no more sophisticated than Rush Limbaugh's cartoon portrait of Liberalism. It is ignorant, ahistorical, and catering to right wing mythology.
This is a problem. If Bai's starting point is an unrealistic cartoon, a cliche, a caricature, then is anything that follows worthy of consideration?
Bai may be entertaining, but in the end, it's empty wind, and of no particular use.
September 26, 2007 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely correct. It's one thing for Republicans to denigrate Democratic voters, but when the party's consultants and campaign experts condescend, insult and malign our party membership; it's much worse. They provide reinforcement of the GOP message. And, you know, if they find Democrats so damn distasteful and Democratic ideas so damn stale, why don't they go work for Republicans who won't bother them with petty concerns like civil rights, free speech or freedom of religion. They can spend their time on really new and innovative important stuff like tax cuts for the wealthy.
September 27, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink