Note: I've decided to change my screen name to my real name, Jonathan Schwartz. Mainly, because the surname thing just isn't me. I prefer it if people know the real me. Also, I've long since started to feel that a screen that mixed Socrates and Decartes was a little on the presumptious side.
Cross-posted from Moral Questions Weblog.
I picked up the link to this paper by progressive economist, Steve Rose, at Donkey Rising the other day. It's an extensive paper about how much economic self-interest voters actually have in the typical policy prescriptions of old line Liberalism. His basic point is that the safety net in its current form does not take in as many people as is typically thought by most Liberals.
In all [the post-election] discussion, it is tacitly assumed that the majority of people have a natural home in the non-Republican party. The failure of the Democrats to capitalize on this advantage is explained in several ways. First, they are accused of having sold their souls in order to attract campaign contributions. Second, the press is biased and does not report the true effect of Republican policies. Third, the inside-the-Beltway mentality of Democratic campaign consultants has blinded them to obvious appeal of a populist approach.
Perhaps, we need to consider the alternative that the majority of people do not have basic economic interests to vote Democratic. While there have been many presentations on how people vote by education, income, and occupation, few have made careful arguments about what each division means in terms of tying interests to politics. For example, some have defined those without a four-year college degree as being working class and presumably with interests to support Democrats. To date, the discussion about defining economic interests is similar to the one defining pornography--hard to put into words but you know it when you see it. With respect to pornography, the courts have turned to community standards in deciding specific cases. We need to do at least as much in defining interests in order to make good strategic decisions.
It is an occupational hazard of those with big hearts to overestimate the share of the population that is economically distressed. In their desire to generate public attention and support to expand public policies, they argue that the system is "broken" and needs repair (e.g., candidate Edwards' speeches about the two Americas). But, it makes a big difference whether the share of the population in need is 15, 35, or 50 percent. If it is at the high end of the range, then one would expect lots of pressure from below to meet their needs. But if it is at the low end of the range, then poor people will need allies among those who think it is morally right to take care of others in need...
In western European countries, social democratic parties are rooted in 100 years of activism and have a reservoir of support. The positive feelings towards the FDR Democratic Party are much weaker, and this is going to have to change if American liberalism is going to gain strength. It will not be an easy road and will need some very talented politicians to articulate a vision that resonates widely. It will also require some painful compromises that will alienate powerful constituencies. But we will not know how to make these arguments and compromises if we begin thinking the majority is already on our side.
This is the thing I find so disturbing about the current leadership of the Democratic party, from John Kerry to Harry Reid to Nancy Pelosi, and even in Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean, there does not seem to be any truly new approaches to enlarging their base. The policy prescriptions they offer generally tend to be old New Deal warmed over ideas that are based in an era long since past where most Americans were working class and actually had a clear and obvious stake in the future of the Democratic party.
What needs to happen is Democrats need to present the American middle class with a set innovative rationals for how activist government can make their lives better in practical and obvious ways. Some themes I have in mind are "Reform", "Upward Mobility", "Horizantal Mobility", "Family Life", and "The War on Terrorism 2.0".
Under "Reform", I have in mind civic rallying calls like publically financed campaigns and direct and open source democracy. Also, I have in mind ideas like capitalist reform to urge for an economic order that is more aware industry's social responsibilities. Check out William Greider's "The Soul of Capitalism".
Under "Upward Mobility", I have in mind college tuition, education, train programs, and day care.
For "Horizontal Mobility", I have in mind government involvement in typical benefits packages like Health Care and Retirement. Heck, Health Care Systemic Reform, is an issue in itself.
Then, there would be "Family Life" which encourges strong families by helping more people find more leisure time for family by helping provide more economic security.
And, of course, there is "The War on Terror 2.0" which is fairly self-explanatory. Check out "Imperial Hubris" by Anonomous.
These are themes and ideas that, if approached with skill and innovation could dramatically expand the amount of people in America with a stake in the Democratic Party. As long as activist government only works for the powerless elements of society, at the exclusion of the middle class, I wouldn't expect the currently polarized environment to change very much. To seize a governing majority, the Democrats must give the middle class a clear economic reason to vote for them. There only person in leadership right now who I see as in touch with this fact and that is Bill Clinton, which is good news for Hillary, and in that case, by extention, the Democratic Party. Let's hope Bill can get through to Hillary by the time the primary season begins in '07.