Whither the Democrats
William Galston, a Clinton Administration policy wonk now finding refuge in academe, has joined the chorus of Democrats trying to lead the party out of the briar patch, penning a thoughtful essay on the progressives' uneasy relationship with 'freedom.'
Galston doesn't hit all the notes, but he gets a good many of them. He warns his co-partisans against excessive reliance on the courts to pull their fat out of the fire, or the shuffle-dance of "reframing the debate" (i.e. changing the topic). But he's less concerned with lashing the party faithful than with showing them a better way.
Beyond merely undermining conservative arguments, he advocates a "new liberal freedom agenda." First is finding the "freedom" element that already lies, latent and unexpressed, in Democratic goals:
The next thing he recommends is to put the brakes on the freedom talk by applying another concept dear to Americans, "choice.
As in this example, he opens the door to Democrats co-opting some Republican ideas -- something the conservatives have managed to do well over the years. Another example he gives is a modified form of the Christian right's pet project, school vouchers.
His third proposed principle for freedom-loving liberals is that "freedom is seldom without cost. It usually requires sacrifice." You can almost here the "Freedom Isn't Free" anthem from "Team America" in the background. But I do agree with him on this point. "In his recent inaugural address, President Bush eloquently invoked the sacrifices made by young Americans fighting for freedom abroad. Unfortunately, he asked nothing of the rest of us." Right. I am ready to make sacrifices alongside those who serve in the military. I do find my own ways to do that. But a guided top-down effort could give Americans a sense of involvement in these causes that would keep the sprit of Sept. 12 alive. Galston asks, "Can freedom be sustained by a handful of troops cheered on by a nation of spectators? In a country worthy of freedom, all citizens would share the risks and burdens of its defense."
Galston's fourth principle is bound to lose any of my Democratic co-workers who managed to stay with him so far. He uses the dreaded "P" word.
But how much hope is there for a political party that has to be given a slide-show lecture on not standing in permanent, institutionalized opposition to the patriotic impulses of the people it wishes to be chosen to lead?
By the way, there's a whithering critique of the progressives' "re-framing the argument" approach in Marc Cooper's review of "Don't Think of an Elephant," which he's titled "Thinking of Jackasses: The grand delusions of the Democratic Party."
This is, let us admit, a powerful and evocative conception of freedom, blending a constellation of ideas with deep resonance in American culture. It serves, moreover, as the basis of a powerful coalition between economic interests seeking less regulation and lower taxes and moral traditionalists disturbed by the cultural changes of the past 40 years. Whether we think of ourselves as progressives, liberals, or New Democrats, we cannot evade the challenge posed by these ideas and by the political currents they have set in motion. If we do not meet them head-on, we will prevail only infrequently and accidentally. And when we lose, which will be most of time, we will deserve it.
Galston doesn't hit all the notes, but he gets a good many of them. He warns his co-partisans against excessive reliance on the courts to pull their fat out of the fire, or the shuffle-dance of "reframing the debate" (i.e. changing the topic). But he's less concerned with lashing the party faithful than with showing them a better way.
Instead of dodging the issue, an effective center-left strategy should begin with a critique of the fundamental conservative conception of freedom because that conception is fatally flawed. Experience gives us no reason to conclude that government is the only, or always the gravest, threat to freedom; clerical institutions and concentrations of unchecked economic power have often vied for that dubious honor. Nor has the ideological synthesis of markets and civil society abolished the very real problem at issue between libertarians and traditionalists: The unchecked market regularly produces social outcomes at odds with the moral conditions of a free society. Thus, it is that a conservative FCC chairman pledged to media deregulation ends up imposing new restraints in the name of decency. Nor is it easy to believe that capitalism reliably produces, or rewards, the good character a free society needs: Perceptive observers from Charles Dickens to Tom Wolfe have given us ample evidence to the contrary. And while it may be that long-term dependence on government saps the spirit of self-reliance that liberty requires, there are other forms of dependence — economic, social, and even familial — that can, and often do, damage character in much the same way.
Beyond merely undermining conservative arguments, he advocates a "new liberal freedom agenda." First is finding the "freedom" element that already lies, latent and unexpressed, in Democratic goals:
Consider universal health care. The left typically stresses the social justice side of this issue: In the most prosperous country on earth, it is an avoidable wrong that 45 million citizens lack health insurance. While this point is both accurate and morally admirable, invoking it has not moved the nation any closer to the goal. A more effective argument would focus on the ways in which our current system of employer-provided health care limits individual freedom. Countless Americans today are stuck in unrewarding jobs which they would like to leave—to start a new business or go back to college to upgrade their skills—but dare not, because doing so would deprive themselves and their families of health insurance. A system of universal health care would allow all Americans to pursue their dreams and take more risks.
The next thing he recommends is to put the brakes on the freedom talk by applying another concept dear to Americans, "choice.
[I]ndividual choice, while not always synonymous with liberty, and sometimes contrary to it, is also highly appealing to most Americans. Liberals should therefore look for opportunities to embrace individual choice in ways that embody their principles and promote their objectives. A good example—one several Democrats have already gotten behind—is individual retirement savings accounts added on to, rather than carved out of, Social Security.
As in this example, he opens the door to Democrats co-opting some Republican ideas -- something the conservatives have managed to do well over the years. Another example he gives is a modified form of the Christian right's pet project, school vouchers.
Such highly-regulated vouchers might, in fact, be anathema to many conservative voucher proponents. But by supporting them, at least for manifestly failing systems such as Washington, D.C.'s, liberals could put themselves on the side of disadvantaged parents eager for better educational choices for their children.
His third proposed principle for freedom-loving liberals is that "freedom is seldom without cost. It usually requires sacrifice." You can almost here the "Freedom Isn't Free" anthem from "Team America" in the background. But I do agree with him on this point. "In his recent inaugural address, President Bush eloquently invoked the sacrifices made by young Americans fighting for freedom abroad. Unfortunately, he asked nothing of the rest of us." Right. I am ready to make sacrifices alongside those who serve in the military. I do find my own ways to do that. But a guided top-down effort could give Americans a sense of involvement in these causes that would keep the sprit of Sept. 12 alive. Galston asks, "Can freedom be sustained by a handful of troops cheered on by a nation of spectators? In a country worthy of freedom, all citizens would share the risks and burdens of its defense."
Galston's fourth principle is bound to lose any of my Democratic co-workers who managed to stay with him so far. He uses the dreaded "P" word.
Above all, a new agenda of freedom calls for a new patriotism. In recent decades, too many liberals have given up mobilizing effective coalitions of their fellow citizens and have resorted to anti-majoritarian strategies. Too often, liberals whose hopes have been thwarted by the historic individualism of our culture have pined for an alternative culture more akin to French statism or Scandinavian social democracy. Too often, liberals whose hopes have been thwarted by the historic individualism of our culture have pined for an alternative culture more akin to French statism or Scandinavian social democracy. [Some of the French, meanwhile, are having second thoughts of their own -ed.] Too often, liberals have reacted to exaggerated claims of American exceptionalism by rejecting the idea outright. These responses are patently self-defeating. We must begin from where we are. We must go with — not against — the American grain. As FDR did three quarters of a century ago, we must mobilize and sustain a popular majority with the freedom agenda our times require. We must love not another country's dream, but our own — the American Dream — and we must work to make it real for every American who reaches for it.
But how much hope is there for a political party that has to be given a slide-show lecture on not standing in permanent, institutionalized opposition to the patriotic impulses of the people it wishes to be chosen to lead?
By the way, there's a whithering critique of the progressives' "re-framing the argument" approach in Marc Cooper's review of "Don't Think of an Elephant," which he's titled "Thinking of Jackasses: The grand delusions of the Democratic Party."
So what's an earnest, honest liberal to do when nobody wants to hear the truth? Why not turn to personal therapy disguised as politics, psychobabble as electoral strategy? Lakoff, revealingly, provides nary a word on reshaping the Democratic Party itself, blunting the influence of corporate cash, eliminating the stranglehold on the party and its candidates by discredited but omni-powerful consultants, reversing its estrangement from the white working class, finding some decent candidates, or just about anything else that might require actual strategic thinking, organizing, and politicking. Never mind. What liberals most need to do, Lakoff says, is "be the change you want."
