Writing in the New Yorker recently, David Denby noted that if Democrats expect to strengthen their recent gains, they will need to come up with a new narrative - a new way of telling the story of life in America. Writing here, Rob in Vermont has offered some insightful constructive criticism of how John Edwards is telling the story of poverty in America. To expand on Rob's suggestions, what might a new narrative of the American story sound like? how might it differ from what we've become used to by now? How would we replace Horatio Alger?
Shifting the point of view cannot rely on demonizing any of the players. Identifying demons (including Mother Nature)has been effective but has led to simplistic, dead-end results. However tempting it is vilify robber barons, slave owners, corporate lords, it is ultimately counterproductive to build a narrative by "negative bonding" against an enemy.
We can instead focus proudly on the strong, strong people whose contributions have far outweighed their compensation. Without simply romanticizing the American story in a different way, we can expand it to include long-ignored substories. There are many models from writers and artists (John Sayles, Katherine Boo, the Weavers, Mississippi John Hurt, Robert Kennedy, Studs Terkel's voices - the list could go on and on) who invigorate public discourse without falling into bitterness or recrimination. (Although there's no guarantee - Bill Clinton's story is compelling, and his storytelling is invigorating, but it seems to have had little impact on him.)
Why does a new narrative matter? Because for many people, fear of people in poverty is largely fear of the unknown. Because the way the story is received determines how it will unfold. And because it's not too early to think about passing the legacy.