I've believe I've seen this on DKos to some extent before, but I thought the subject of this new report from the American Prospect to be sufficiently important to warrant more discussion. (Hey, how many Colbert diaries have there been lately?)
It's called The Politics of Definition: The Real Third Way.
I have a feeling I know why not many people have been talking about it... it's really long!
Well, I've just read the whole damn thing, and I thought I'd offer a condensed version, for those of you who like their reading in smaller portions. (Not everyone has time to read an 18,000 word paper!)
The series was written by John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira, who I will just refer to as JH&RT. A little biography:
John Halpin is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Ruy Teixeira is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation, as well as a Fellow of the New Politics Institute.
I think we all agree that 2006 and 2008 hold a lot of potential for Democrats. But the question is, will we pick up some seats only to lose them again an election or two down the road? Or will we build something sustainible. In this series of four articles the writers map out a potential strategy for building a new Democratic coalition. Creating a re-alignment, if you will, that could potentially last for decades. I'm sure there will be much disagreement as to how on or off target they are, but I'll go ahead and say I'm onboard. I like this strategy a lot. It boils down to a central, defining phrase, that everything else ties in to: The Common Good.
The four articles break down like this:
Part I: gives a general description of the political situation today and describes voting blocs that represent progressive and Democratic strengths.
Part II: examines progressive and Democratic weaknesses.
Part III: discusses the limits of mobilization and of inoculation.
Part IV: describes the way forward.
They begin by stating a key premise: the most important factor dragging down Democrats is a pervasive feeling amongst Americans that Democrats don't stand for anything. JH&RT offer statistics, but for our purposes I think these three quotes from disaffected Bush supporters will suffice to illustrate their point:
* I would like to believe that they [Democrats] represent the interests of working people and the middle class but they don't. Not anymore. I don't think they do. They're just out for their own personal gain, the ones that are there. (Denver, older college woman)
* Their leaders always seem very weak and unprepared. I am never confident in a Democrat that comes up that he can handle the political issues that come up. Especially internationally or anything. I have just not been impressed at all with their capabilities. (Appleton, younger non-college woman)
* I think they're in complete disarray and there's just no forward momentum to the Democratic Party right now. There's a total lack of leadership. (Louisville, older non-college educated man)
JH&RT say that it is this perception, more than anything else, that is responsible for Democrats dismal performances of late.
Having identified this key problem the authors spend the rest of Parts I and II sorting through statistics. I'll just have to admit at this point that I found the first two parts of the article incredibly boring. I mean, if you're the type that enjoys sorting through all those statistics on MyDD, you might enjoy the read. And it's certainly valuable analysis to have. But in terms of a fun read it wasn't for me. If you think you might have a similar reaction, well I've waded through it for you!
Essentially, the authors use extensive and detailed polling data culled from the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections to break down every constituency. In the Part I they look at all the groups that lean to Democrats, and in Part II they take a look at the groups that lean Republican. To speed things along, I'm just going to list the groups that fall in each camp and move along.
In the left corner:
Minority Communities
-African-American voters.
-Hispanic voters.
-Asian voters.
Single, Working and Highly-Educated Women
Professionals
Youth
The Secular, the Less-Observant, and the Non-Christian
Union Household Voters
Cities, Inner Suburbs and "Ideopolises"
"Blue" States and Regions
-California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington plus the District of Columbia
And in the right corner (as detailed in Part II):
The White Working Class
White Catholics
White Married Women
White Evangelicals
Emerging Suburbs, True Exurbs, and Rural Areas
"Red" States and Regions
-Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Montana
JH&RT argue that to reclaim the majority, the Democrats will need a two-pronged approach. Essentially they need to increase their advantages and decrease their disadvantages. That means widening their lead in the first list of groups, while closing the gap in the second list. They are careful to note, however, that the Democrats do not need to win majorities in solid Republican constituencies. Rather they should just aim to shave off enough of their advantage to lessen their impact. Doing so, in combination with fortifying relations with more favorable constituencies, Democrats can put together a winning coalition. I would add that there's no point in trying to please everybody all the time. (Because in doing so, you end up pleasing nobody)
Ok, so those lists may not have exactly got your heart rate up, but now we've made it to Part III. As Tomasky says:
This is where it really starts to get interesting!
Indeed!:
In Part III we look at two popular theories as to how the Democrats might gain back power: the politics of mobilization and the politics of inoculation.
Let's start with the politics of mobilization...
I think you'll agree that, though perhaps not expressed quite this way, the politics of mobilization has quite a few adherents here at Daily Kos. The theory goes like this...
* Rally the progressive troops and maximize base turnout;
* Grow the base by finding nonvoters and drop-off progressives rather than appealing to the center;
* Take a no-holds-barred approach to the opposition that is highly critical and contrastive; and
* Fight for every progressive priority equally.
It's the rally the base strategy. On the positive side, it's a strategy that draws clear distinctions between us and them, lessening the "but what do they stand for" issue. The problem is (no flames please!) the numbers just aren't there for us. Conservatives outnumber Liberals by a 3:2 margin, and that's not taking into account moderates who often recoil from any fierce ideology. It might feel good, but it's hard to see how it will get us where we need to go.
On the other hand, we have...
The second major strategic approach advocated today is one we label the politics of inoculation. The basic parameters of this approach are as follows:
* Appeal primarily to the median voter;
* Downplay or repudiate liberal policies;
* Create distance from the progressive base;
* Anticipate criticism and move to shore up perceived weaknesses, primarily on social, cultural, and national security issues; and
* Push a clear centrist agenda focused on fewer governmental and more market/individual solutions to problems; fiscal discipline; "common sense" cultural positions; and a Truman-like national security posture that puts the war against terrorism at the core of the progressive project.
Let's call it the Lieberman/Klein/Wanker approach. On the positive side you might have some luck neutralizing the Republican Nat'l Security trump card that they play every single hand. (And you get to feel really 'serious,' and above the hippie riff-raff with their naive notions about "world peace," etc.) And, hey, it worked pretty well for Clinton. On the down side, however, you're basically presenting yourself as Republican-lite, thereby reenforcing the stereotype that Democrats are opportunists that don't really stand for anything.
So having assessed the two most common Democratic strategies, and found them both very much lacking, JH&RT put forth their own theory in Part IV.
The writers here submit their own framework for approaching the above issues, which they term "the politics of definition:"
The politics of definition rests on the empirical and social reality that both passion and pragmatism must be employed to string together a coalition out of the fractious political dynamics of America today. We must find ways to harness both forces to build and sustain a progressive coalition out of a disjointed, nonideological political culture where many groups do not share common traits, beliefs or desires.
The authors then make clear that they are not going to try to answer every policy question in this particular article. But they say the framework they are outlining would provide the basic clues as to how one would approach any given issue. To that end, they give us five "postulates" that all subsequent rhetoric and policy should come from:
(1) The starting point for all political organizing and campaigns should be: "What are my core beliefs and principles and how do I best explain them to supporters and skeptics alike?"
(2) Every political battle, both proactive and defensive, should represent a basic statement of progressive character and present a clear, concise contrast with conservatives. Do not blur lines.
(3) All issue campaigns and agenda items are not equal. Progressives should focus their efforts on issues that can simultaneously strengthen the base and appeal to centrist voters. Progressives must be willing to make sacrifices and tradeoffs -- in terms of coalition building and budgetary concerns -- to achieve their most important agenda items.
(4) Escalate battles that expose the extremism of the right or splinter their coalition. [Follow-up: When confronted with the right's social, cultural, or national security agenda, the absolute worst response is to fail to combat these caricatures or to explain one's position directly
to voters, regardless of the popularity of the position.]
(5) Every political action should highlight three essential progressive attributes: a clear stand on the side of those who lack power, wealth or influence; a deep commitment to the common good; and a strong belief in fairness and opportunity for all.
You will notice the first 'postulate' is that everything about a campaign, about politics in general, should spring some basic core-beliefs. So what is the Democratic core-belief? Here is where they suggest the phrase: "the common good:"
Securing the common good means putting the public interest above narrow self-interest and group demands; working to achieve social and economic conditions that benefit everyone; promoting a personal, governmental and corporate ethic of responsibility and service to others; creating a more open and honest governmental structure that relies upon an engaged and participatory citizenry; and doing more to meet our common responsibilities to aid the disadvantaged, protect our natural resources, and provide opportunities rather than burdens for future generations.
After years of conservative dominance defined by rampant individualism, corruption and greed in American life, the public is ready for a higher national purpose and a greater sense of service and duty to something beyond self-interest alone. The common good represents a clear break with the conservative vision of America as an aggregation of individuals pursuing their own needs with little concern for what unites us a people or for the impacts of our actions on the whole of society. It marks the end of a politics that leaves people to rise and fall on their own without considering the consequences of such actions on peoples' everyday lives. The common good approach recognizes that government is an essential tool for helping people to pursue their dreams while providing a solid safety net for those left behind. A focus on the common good requires citizens and their leaders to pursue policies and programs that benefit everyone, not just a select few with disproportionate access to the levers of power and influence over decision making.
When I read this I was immediately reminded of the famous JFK quote: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
The idea of "the common good" is purposefully vague, but the authors expound on what it might mean in three different areas:
-economic common good
-personal and societal common good
-global common good
In terms of the economic common good JH&RT suggest that one way to appeal both to the base as well as more centrist voters, two groups who in many respects have very different values, is to appeal to "class-based issues involving economic opportunity, fairness, and the American Dream."
To that end they suggest the following:
* Promote robust universal programs that expand opportunity and provide a true safety net in times of need. The key to these universal programs is to make crystal clear that everyone gets access to them and everyone helps to pay for them. No handouts or giveaways, but real investments in a decent platform for people to carry out their lives. One obvious example is affordable health care for every American. Another might be universal risk insurance as proposed by Jacob Hacker. Still another would be affordable broadband access and expanded computer training for every American. Incremental reforms will not do the trick. As recent polling on health care has shown, Americans are ready to think seriously about universal health care and part of the politics is connecting to that desire. Americans are also ready for big ideas in education -- from universal pre-K to expanded public school choice to universal access to college. Americans recognize education is central to opportunity in today's society and progressives must speak to this core part of the American Dream.
* Put fairness at the center of the progressive economic agenda. The progressive notion of fairness is essential to a revitalized common-good movement. No one will be guaranteed material success but we certainly make sure that the rules aren't stacked against anyone. Common-good progressives should promote a tax system that rewards work; enhanced labor laws to protect workers and increase their collective bargaining power; and a global trade system that helps those who are economically displaced and protects labor and environmental standards in addition to increasing overall growth.
* Create 21st-century public infrastructure. Americans want their government to provide the critical infrastructure necessary to carry out economic and social life. Beyond government staples like roads and bridges, today's infrastructure must be technologically advanced and sustainable. Progressives should own the transition to alternative and renewable energy and provide strong public support for a faster and more affordable and open source Internet infrastructure that can serve the economy from individual entrepreneurs and small businesses to large industrial companies and multinational corporations.
* Promote a targeted populism that recognizes the ways in which corporate and power elites are unfairly enriching themselves, abusing the system, and undermining the common good. This is solely about creating a level playing field where everyone plays by the rules and not about a frontal assault on capitalist values. Common good progressives should go after specific abuses like predatory credit card debt, excessive fees for services, pension raids, corporate pollution, and lobbying corruption. Talk about the need for corporations and workers alike to take responsibility for their business practices and impact on communities. Progressives should also find ways to reward and support responsible businesses and corporate practices in addition to decrying unethical behavior.
* Promote greater democratic control over globalization. Progressives must take the lead in showing Americans that we can do more to harness the good forces of globalization and stem the bad forces. It starts by simply acknowledging that globalization is not a "natural"
process. It is a process created and managed by decisions of individuals, corporations, and nations and can therefore be transformed by these actors. To start, progressives must insist that all efforts to expand global trade be conditioned upon genuine efforts to improve labor, environmental and political standards abroad and greater economic security, job preparedness, education, and investment at home.
* Show a willingness to adjust fiscal policy to meet our most pressing needs. An agenda that can't be paid for is no agenda at all and voters know that. A renewed focus on the common good requires progressives to make hard choices about what is ultimately most important to overall American competitiveness and opportunity. This means progressives must be willing to cut unnecessary spending, raise new revenue, and keep the deficit under control.
* Go beyond the defense of traditional progressive programs to embrace and expand opportunities for average families to save and build wealth. Progressives must also be willing to go beyond traditional safety net programs like Social Security to promote programs like the universal 401(K) and other types of wealth-creation ideas that can provide all Americans with a reasonable level of retirement security and help middle- and working-class families meet the American Dream.
* Finally, progressives must take seriously the need to expand access to good jobs -- those with reasonably high pay and decent benefits. Americans are willing to work hard to advance themselves, but good jobs are key to their plans for upward mobility and essential to the overall common good of the nation. The health and retirement reforms just mentioned obviously further that goal, but government needs to help even more by providing universal access to skills training, professional education, and good new jobs through future-oriented initiatives grounded in new technology and big initiatives like energy independence.
The next aspect of the common good involves the personal/societal. In this area we can emphasize
the rampant materialism and self-interested personal behavior that threatens our families, companies, governments, and society as a whole. Individual greed and lax social norms have left Americans with a growing sense that things are out of control and in conflict with their own ideas about what a good and decent society should look like.
To this end the authors suggest we:
* Expand and promote national service as part of the common good. Progressives should be willing to tie expanded governmental support and backing (on things like education or job training) to reciprocal notions of public, military or community service of some sort. Nothing should be free in life and progressives should stand proudly for efforts to promote a sense of sacrifice and duty in all Americans. This need not be coercive, but should be encouraged through incentives as a means of personal and national fulfillment.
* Attack the culture of commercialism in American life. Conservatives love to talk about cultural decline, yet do nothing to go challenge the commercial forces that contribute to rampant greed and self-interested behavior in society. Progressives should implore both individuals and corporations to do more for those around them and to consider the needs of society as well as their desire for personal gain and a strong bottom line. This includes taking a stand against the increasing coarseness and hypersexualization of popular culture, which serves the corporate bottom line, but hurts the broader American community.
* Promote the role of faith-based organizations and other community focused groups in ameliorating the cultural tide of greed and materialism in America. This not a call to turn churches and synagogues into political organs, but rather a recognition that faith leaders are uniquely positioned to bring people to a higher sense of self and commitment to others. Faith and other community leaders should be supported given their unique positions and authority in helping people make wiser and more ethical decisions in life.
* Make responsible parenthood the cornerstone of a new common good social agenda. Progressives should take a strong stand in favor of deep personal responsibility as a means to personal, familial, and societal advancement. This could include a renewed focus on responsible fatherhood and the promotion of stable families (of all kinds) as proven ways to improve people's lives at all levels.
Lastly is the topic of the global common good. Here we enter into foreign policy, long the Republicans strong suit. But why is this the case? The authors acknowledge that we cannot simply capitulate to Republican demands in this arena. Afterall,
their own actions prove they are neither strong nor decisive in their understanding of the real threat of terrorism, and progressives should say that repeatedly. The war in Iraq and the larger battle against terrorism provide ample opportunities for progressives to confront conservatives head-on over security issues and present a more comprehensive vision of global security grounded on the common good.
First, progressives must constantly remind Americans of conservatives' inability to produce a safer world environment: 9/11 happened on their watch; they have failed to stop al-Qaeda and capture Osama bin Laden; they created a total debacle in Iraq; global terrorist acts have tripled
under their leadership; the intelligence community remains deeply splintered; they failed to anticipate and address rising problems in Iran, North Korea and on homeland security; they have alienated a huge segment of the world and turned strong allies into skeptics of U.S. motives and actions.
The authors then suggest Democrats come out forcefully for redeployment of American troops in Iraq (a la Murtha), while refocusing efforts on international terrorism. In addition to these steps Democrats should:
* Pursue integrated power as a core national security strategy. Common-good progressives should argue for the use of integrated American power and cooperative global efforts to fight global terrorism and stop the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Neither militarism nor diplomacy alone will solve these problems.
* Promote a new global equity agenda that challenges corruption and encourages institutional reform. A true global common good requires that social and economic conditions across nations adequately provide all people a decent chance to live a dignified and fulfilling life. It also requires transnational institutions and governments that are forthright and effective in their support for others. Progressives should champion a new global equity agenda, much as U.K. Chancellor Gordon Brown has done with Britain's support for education in Africa and Asia, and recognize that improving living and working conditions in other parts of the world is critical to fixing problems at home.
* Transform existing global institutions to better control the downsides of globalization. Similar to the discussion of our domestic economy, a commitment to a global common good requires engagement and commitment to shape globalization in ways that benefit all. Rather than debating the merits of globalization and trade -- a process that has produced both empirical gains and losses for people -- progressives should argue for more oversight of globalization based on a sincere commitment to shared prosperity and effective and fair economic interactions. This will require enhanced democratic authority and new mandates and enforcement mechanisms for major transnational institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.
* Remake America into a guiding force for global democracy and economic opportunity. Progressives should continue to take the lead -- through our vision and policies -- to secure freedom, democracy, human rights, and economic opportunities across the globe. Despite the hollow "freedom" vision of the White House, these are noble and useful goals that progressives have historically supported and should continue to promote today.
* Create the political will and leadership to finally address global warming. The threat posed by global warming to our nation's security and the well-being of people across the world can no longer be denied. Nothing is more critical to establishing a true global common good than addressing the staggering accumulation of pollution from things like power plants and automobiles that contribute to increased global temperatures. The United States must take the lead in transforming its own economy through sustainable energy production and consumption and spearhead global efforts to reduce heat-trapping gases. Conservatives after 9/11 liked to talk of the generational commitment to fighting global terrorism but then asked for nothing in return -- beyond our military commitments, conservatives asked for no physical or financial sacrifices to help uphold American values and protect our nation. They claimed American power alone would secure our nation and bring regional stability. They were wrong on all counts and progressives should aggressively challenge conservatives on their failures and lack of vision. We must seek to expand the discussion of national security beyond the truncated conception of the right. Along with speaking truthfully about our global policy, progressives should in turn strive to generate in Americans and others a higher sense of national and global purpose -- grounded in common action and shared principles -- that can truly fight extremist forces of all stripes and better protect America and the international community.
And that's essentially it! Of course there's all sorts of details left for us to quibble over.
But I do think it's a good overarching framework that's based on principle AND pragmatism.
In a separate article (entitled "Party In Search of a Notion"), also from the American Prospect, Michael Tomasky argues that traditional liberalism, the kind that was born with FDR and the New Deal, ended with the failure of LBJ's Great Society. Then a new kind of liberalism took over, which can best be described as revolving around "diversity" and "rights."
This idea of "the common good" could indicate a return to traditional liberalism. That ideology certainly had its failures (failures we can learn from), but I think it's still valid. Afterall, think of those students on the Berkeley campus shutting down the odious machine... looking back it's all very romantic, but what were they so upset about? That the University treated students like a factory would treat a product. To them, the "common good" had become an odious concept because they felt it squashed individuality. I respect that opinion, but I think it's wrong. And the divisions that formed on our side have allowed a TRULY odious rightwing to take the reigns of power.
In the interest of giving you every side of the issue, I'll also point you to TPMCafe where Max Sawicky isn't buying Tomasky's premise:
There is something disturbing in the idea of African-Americans or women as constituencies or interest groups. It's practically an insult. "Interest" connotes a quest for privilege or advantage or narrow benefit. It discounts claims to fundamental rights. We will always need rights, as long as people are treated as less than human.
Fair enough...
Also over at TPMCafe Mathew Yglesias criticizes the Halpin/Teixeira article for not focusing more on National Security:
I think it's indicative of the sort of problems Democrats face that in part four of the Teixeira/Halpin epic on "The Politics of Definition" ideas about defining progressive national security policy come third on the list behind ideas about defining progressive economic policy and defining progressive culture/values policy.
Also a fair point.
I'll let you guys hash it out in the comments now!