corvid's Blog | American health »

What we ask of whom


Let me commence this blog with a simple idea. There has been an extended discussion on TPMCafe of the "common good," with many writers embracing this as an appeal that the Democrats should somehow return to after decades in the wilderness of multicultural and identity politics. I'll go along with this in a general way, but it seems to me that we'll encounter quite a substantial stumbling block very quickly on that path.

.

One of the salient features of Democratic politics, at least since John Kennedy, has been the idea that if you ask people to make sacrifices, they'll respond, often enthusiastically. Contained in the notion of sacrifice is the kernel of the common good. In fact, if you appeal to the common good without asking for sacrifice, it sounds phony or cheap.

.

Since Kennedy, however, liberals have had a rather more selective notion of this, too often asking sacrifice of some but not others. Some examples:

.

1) Busing. South Boston is emblematic here, as someone very near and dear to me with close experience of the situation has noted. When the judge ordered that white children be bused, they weren't the kids from good schools in upper-class neighborhoods. They were from Southie.

.

2) Affirmative action. The students who clear the academic bar but are not admitted to elite schools because of affirmative action are seldom rich or well-connected. Most often they're students from middle-class or working-class families.

.

3) Illegal immigration. If we grant that this has been an overall benefit to our economy, we still have to acknowledge that many Americans at the lower end of the economic scale have been hurt because government has deliberately refused to enforce the law. Thus we see wages in certain industries that used to pay middle-class wages of $20 an hour or more in the 1970s (equivalent to $30 or more now) falling to $8 or $9 an hour, with no benefits. This is like a taking in eminent domain, but with no compensation.

.

4) The "volunteer" military. Keep in mind here that young people who enter the military are sworn to defend their country. But then, most often, if they see any action, it's in some faraway land that has little or, more likely, nothing to do with our security. Think Panama, Grenada, Somalia and Kosovo as well as Vietnam and Iraq. A lot of these interventions would never have happened if kids like the Bush twins and Chelsea Clinton had to serve their time in uniform.

.

Common to all this is the deep notion among the elites that they have ideals, perfectly sound and unassailable ideals, for which OTHER people must make sacrifices. Americans, I believe, have long since caught on to this.

.

I saw Joe Klein on C-SPAN this weekend, and he addressed a related point. I can't remember just how he phrased it, but the essence of it was that Republican candidates have very simple instructions for their campaign consultants: How do I get my message out. Democrats, on the other hand, have to ask their campaign people: How do I get my message out but finesse it in such a way that I don't turn everyone off.

.

This sounds odd when you consider that voters are with the Dems on issue after issue, but it makes more sense in light of the fact even though the Republicans are polling very low, the Democrats are, too. They don't benefit from the rock-bottom esteem for Bush and the GOP.

.

And this goes to what Klein (I think) and I are talking about--the absence of a core belief or narrative. I'm just trying to go a step beyond that and say that the core narrative (the common good) is there, it's just inaccessible to Dems. And that's because there's a big, damned barrier in the way, built brick by brick from the items enumerated above. Dems have too often asked just certain Americans to make sacrifices--usually Americans least well-provisioned in life to give up anything.

.

With the exception of busing, Dems are not about to give up any part of this agenda.


3 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Are Americans really with a Progressive agenda as espoused by Democrats. I know polls suggest this but I wonder. If it was really true why don't Democrats rollover Republicans? Instead since Lincoln there have been more Republican Presidents than Democratic ones. True the Deomcrats controlled Cogress for forty years but that included segregationist Southerners who defected to the Republican Party starting in 1948 and in droves after 1964.

I think your point is well taken about the social issues often associated with race. Elite liberal Democrats in their efforts to integrate schools and neighborhoods saw urban working Americans, the future Reagan Democrats as the biggest barrier to that goal. The political problem has been that with the loss of the South Democrats have had to rely on Black voters, the Afl-Cio and elite liberal voters.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

user-pic

Corvid

Thanks for the response. Klein mentioned the Democrats' civil rights stand in his C-SPAN appearance and noted that these were perfectly honorable and necessary instances in which the party sacrificed, at least by degrees, a measure of popular appeal for a good cause.

.

This was a great example of leadership and it has brought the country a long way. But it has sort of devolved into what you describe, a reliance on identity politics, unions and elites that tends to exclude a broader appeal. The problem may be that this has become an unexamined, default position.

user-pic

Everyone is making the pursuit of the "common good" way too complicated--it does NOT have to involve sacrifice. Simply put, the pursuit of the "common" good can be operationalized as solving our "common" problems.

Note that solving a "common" problem provides a focal point for collective action (e.g., the enemy of my enemy is my friend), and a basis for civil political discourse (i.e., it shouldn't matter whose pet policy initiative "wins" but rather that our common problem "gets solved"). For progressives, "progress" is made when a common societal problems gets solved.

The assumption here is that every reputable political or social policy is proposed solution to a problem (if there is no problem then aren’t we are just wasting time, energy and resources?). Thus for every key provision in a legislative bill, every earmark and line item in the federal budget, and every proposed regulatory rule, we should always ask:

+ To what "problem" is this the solution?

+ What are the "other" ways to solve this problem?

+ And in all intellectual honesty, why is it the "best" way to solve this problem?

As Norm Ornstein said, bad process leads to bad behavior and bad policy, while good process can lead to good behavior. Asking these questions is a "smell test" for whether some self-interest or the common good is being pursued. For example, we should ask:

+ To what "problem" is the 'Bridge to Nowhere' the solution?

+ What are the other ways to solve this problem?

+ And in all intellectual honesty, why is the 'Bridge' the best solution to this problem?

As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." For fiscal conservatives, this problem solving process is how we can achieve limited yet effective government. Echoing Madison's Federalist #51, changing the political rules of the game from "winning" to "problem solving" is how we can oblige government to "control itself." So in one fell swoop, pursuing the "common good" by solving our "common" problems is how we can accomplish lobbying, ethics and campaign finance reform.

As for good policy, we again can ask whether a president is merely being self-interested in making his mark (to paraphrase Stephen Colbert) as a "great" or the "greatest" president in history--or whether he is pursuing the common good. For example, the Congress should have asked:

+ To what "problem" is the 'invasion of Iraq' the solution?

WMD disarmament? Regime change" Democracy in the Middle East?

+ What are the "other" ways to solve this problem?

+ And in all intellectual honesty, why is the 'invasion' the best way to solve this problem.

As Ornstein points out, good process can also lead to good policy.

That’s it! There is no need to talk about sacrifice (or even altruism) if we define the pursuit of the "common good" as solving our "common" problems. What is necessary though is the Democrats' core moral value of "moral empathy": i.e., Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain." That was the genius of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech where he made the plight of the Negro as the plight of all Americans. What this means is that the guiding principle for public policy should be to "minimize avoidable suffering." For Christians who have seen "The Passion of the Christ," this should be easy to understand--after all, the Latin translation for "passion" (passio) is "suffering."

Leave a comment

corvid

user-pic

Following:
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address