What You Need To Know: A Summary For You Lazy Asses
· The Democratic Party has always been the Party claiming to support the ordinary American. In the early days, this meant opposition to government expansion. Since the beginning of the 20th century, that meant supporting government expansion.
· Nowadays, few if any Democrats would talk in straight-forward language about expanding the federal government.
· The Democratic Party needs to find its central ideology (CI) – a one- or two-sentence statement that sums up its view on how government should operate. It has to be a general statement about the federal government from which all stances on issues follow. And it can’t be something that the Republicans would co-opt or claim.
· The CI can’t be just “the Democrats are for ordinary people”. That’s not enough because the Republicans will say they’re for ordinary people too. There needs to be something else – an actual statement on the federal government itself.
· Here’s the CI that I believe in and, I think, most Democrats would believe in: The Democratic Party believes in a strong federal government that actively works for the general welfare of the United States of America and all of its people, particularly those with the greatest need, while respecting individual rights at home and international law and diplomacy abroad.
· Republicans would be against this because they believe that in order for the USA to be great, the federal government has to be weak, inactive, and get out of people’s way.
· The federal government can serve the nation not only by being a source of funds but also by gathering and providing knowledge/information, advice, and assistance on all kinds of areas of interests to anyone and everyone.
· A relative few moderate Democrats comprising the DLC wing of the Party who wield a disproportionate amount of power within the Party would most likely object to my CI, saying that Democrats have to move to the center. This is bullshit because there is no consistent center. The center shifts along with movements on the rest of the spectrum, and because Republicans have been moving right and Democrats have been following them in pursuit of the “center” the center has moved right, and DLC Democrats are now holding positions once held by moderate Republicans.
· Democrats have to solidify behind some CI (hopefully the one I wrote) and then actually say it to anyone and everyone who will listen. People have to know what our CI is.
· People hold a deep-rooted cynicism about the federal government’s ability to do good, but that’s because the federal government has been unable to do much (visible) good since the end of the Great Society. It’s time for Democrats to stand up and not only say but show how the federal government can actively work to make a difference in people’s lives.
· Above all, Democrats have to be unafraid to explicitly call for more federal government, and challenge the conservative mantra that government is bad.
“Specifically, the Federal Government should aid state and local governments in planning their own public works programs, in undertaking projects related to Federal programs of regional development, and in constructing such public works as are necessary to carry out the various policies of the Federal Government.”
– President Harry S. Truman, 1946 State of the Union address
Let me ask you something. How many modern-day Democrats do you think would have the guts to say something like what President Truman said in the quote above? Not many, I would think.
Part VI is the part of the series I’ve been looking most forward to writing because 1.) It’s the last one! So you can all rejoice! 2.) It’s what I’ve been most interested, most passionate about in politics lately: helping the Democratic Party find its ideology and a voice to speak it again. It’s something I’ve complained about over the past year or so to anyone who would listen, and something I’ll complain about every year until the Democrats finally do get their act together.
Recall that the Democratic Party was always a party that claimed to stand up for the little guy, the average working American, rather than the big merchants, the big commercialists, the big industrials, the big corporatists. In the beginning of this country’s history, that meant the Party stood for a smaller, weaker federal government because of the widely-believed perception that the federal government was automatically an enemy of the average American.
Democrats didn’t realize that the federal government could be put to use to help ordinary Americans until it got a little kick in the butt from the Populist Party and a former Democratic Representative from Nebraska named William Jennings Bryan, who through three unsuccessful Presidential runs and being the Party’s de facto leader shaped the Party into a liberal one that argued for greater federal power and role in looking after the interests of the country and all the people, including ordinary Americans – a position the Party has largely held ever since. Democratic Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt helped turn the Party’s new line into reality. They were succeeded by Democratic Presidents Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson – but there the proud liberal tradition of freely espousing greater federal action and power ended. The next – and so far, last – two Democratic Presidents, James E. Carter, Jr. and William J. Clinton, didn’t do all that much for liberalism or to expand the government’s ability to help the ordinary American, though Clinton tried.
Clinton was concerned about his own electability and returning his Party to power in the White House, and rightly so. Unfortunately, that meant sacrificing ideological ground as Clinton co-opted conservative Republican rhetoric about ending “big government” and shifted to the right by adopting certain stances on social welfare and government bureaucracy. While he did this in large part to cloak his truly liberal intentions, the bad side effect was that in doing so he legitimized the Republicans’ long-standing campaign to demonize the federal government and its role in people’s lives. And by doing so, the Democrats sacrificed their ideological standing. Henceforth Republicans could accuse Democrats of being wishy-washy opportunists with no central ideology to bind them together and guide them in leading the country (an especially potent charge in the wake of September 11 2001), and they did.
Well, where do Democrats stand? I’m not going to give a litany of policy positions because that’s not what I’m asking for. What I’m looking for is a central Democratic Party theme or, to use a better word because themes can be transitory, ideology – a central guiding principle of government that unites all Democrats from the most liberal enclaves on the coasts to the most conservative ones in the Deep South. A platform of stances on issues doesn’t count, because issues come and go. The central ideology is a statement on how the Party views government – specifically the federal government – itself. It has to be just one or two sentences that acts as a central guideline for defining the federal government, from which stances on all issues follow. And it has to be uniquely distinct from anything the Republicans can say or claim.
What is that ideology? A common one thrown out a lot is “big government.” But this one’s been debunked. It’s not necessarily size per se that counts, if by size of government we mean how many agencies it has and how many people it employs. It’s about what government does. As proud liberal Democrat Robert B. Reich puts it in Reason (an excellent book that I’ll reference often in this column) on page 15 (paperback): “The government’s size or reach isn’t the issue. It’s what government does and whose interests it represents… Being a liberal isn’t at all the same as being in favor of big government, despite what Radcons [radical conservatives] claim. Most liberals would prefer a small government that supported and protected the little guy over a big government that did the bidding of the rich and powerful.”
So can we say that the Democratic Party wants to use the federal government to help the little guy, the ordinary American? Well, it seems tempting, as the populist theme is a defining one for the Democratic Party. But it doesn’t work for two reasons: 1.) There can be many different ways to help the ordinary American. 2.) The Republicans will say they’re for ordinary Americans too. In fact, there’s such a thing as conservative populism. Bill O’Reilly exemplifies it. He’s always talking about how he’s “looking out for you” (unless you’re from San Francisco, it seems). But O’Reilly aside, I do believe that, misguided or not, the vast majority of Republicans sincerely believe that they’re working for the interests of ordinary Americans. So while working for ordinary Americans is part of a consistent Democratic ideology, it can’t be all that Democrats have in their central ideology. There needs to be a statement on the federal government itself.
Democrats by and large still believe in the same role and power needed in the federal government that Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson believed in. Over the course of my political columns I’ve thrown out the word “active” a lot when describing how I think the federal government should be. So what I stand for is an active federal government – or “big”, if you will, but not big as in terms of size, but rather big as in terms of role. What we Democrats need and support is an active federal government, but not active in terms of say, clamping down on sex or spying on citizens or doling out billions to already profitable and near-monopolistic corporations. We need an active federal government in the sense of regulating big business and working to improve the country while respecting the private lives of people – a direct contrast to the Republicans’ oft-stated vision of a federal government that does nothing except run the military (and use it aggressively) and enforces religious moral scruples.
Here’s the formal definition of what I believe to be the Democratic Party’s Central Ideology (CI):
The Democratic Party believes in a strong federal government that actively works for the general welfare of the United States of America and all of its people, particularly those with the greatest need, while respecting individual rights at home and international law and diplomacy abroad.
Not bad huh? I’ve had a bit of practice. I especially like the “general welfare” part – it harkens back to the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The “strong” adjective attached to the federal government alludes to the powers we (by “we” I mean Democrats) think it should have, while the “actively works…” part tells of what we think the federal government should do with that power. And the rest should be self-explanatory. Republicans would never get on board with the CI because they believe in smaller, weaker government that gets out of people’s way, rather than an active government that backs people up.
And I imagine diverse ways in which federal government can get involved. Most of the time the federal government is treated as a mere slush fund from which different interests and causes and states can get money. But I see it as much more than that. For example, Truman wanted to “give cities techincal help in urban planning and renewal”. I like that vision of the federal government as not only a source of funds but a repository of knowledge – all kinds of knowledge. I see the federal government as a one-stop source providing not just money but also knowledge, advice, and technical/strategic assistance, in all areas of interest, to anyone and everyone.
So how do we put the CI concisely, as it’s awfully long for a quickie description of what Democrats stand for? I’m all for using the misused term “big government” as a shorthand reference to all that. “Active government” works too, though people might get confused as to what exactly “active” means. How about “active/big government in public, small government in private”? That accounts for the distinction Reich makes between public and private morality.
The problem is that not all Democrats would get on board with this. Most would, which is why I believe that this ideology is not always only what Democrats should stand for but also what Democrats have already been standing for in the past 100+ years. But there are still some old conservative holdovers that, for one goddamn reason or another, haven’t switched parties yet. And there are annoying moderates like Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) that would recoil from the CI. Well, he’s a dumbass and here’s hoping that the real liberal Lowell Weicker gives him the boot in 2006.
Guys like Lieberman and the entire Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) would object to the CI because of their belief in centrism, which is either an ideology that says “let’s have a little more government than the Republicans want, but not by much”, or the complete absence of any ideology. The latter is also associated with the Third Way that originated with Clinton and has found a place in the heart of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his New Labour Party. Basically, the idea is that rather than engage in a seemingly endless and futile debate between Left and Right, we ought to make decisions in a rational, pragmatic manner.
There are many problems with this approach. First, like I said earlier, it opens up a line of attack that we stand for nothing. Second, it makes decision-making harder, because some issues can be incredibly complex and the “pragmatic” solution is not always apparent. Third, it says nothing of values and what the Party believes in, and where it wants to take the country. The most pragmatic solution is not always the most desirable one. As E.J. Dionne, Jr. points out in his excellent book Stand Up Fight Back, even if child labor was found to be the most efficient way to boost the economy, it may not be most desirable.
Still, the DLC wing of the Party clings to centrism, saying it’s not only the right way but, as an added bonus, what will win elections. BULLSHIT. I’ll leave the explaining to Reich, who does a very nice job on pages 197-198 of the paperback edition of Reason:
Many Democrats claim they have to move to the “center” to be elected, and that polls show that Americans have become cynical about government. Well, yes, Americans have grown cynical. But the cynicism is largely because government has been so ineffective in responding to the crisis faced by a large portion of working Americans. And that cynicism is fed by a steadily growing cacophony of radical conservative pundits and talk-show hosts.
It takes no conviction and less courage to move to the political “center,” as defined by prevailing polls of likely voters. If you want to be a malleable politician, you campaign from the center. But if you want to be a leader, you define the center. You don’t rely on polls to tell you where to go. At best, polls tell you where people are, and it’s pointless to lead people to where they already are. The essence of political leadership is focusing the public’s attention on the hard issues that most would rather avoid or dismiss. We know the problems that need fixing.
Centrism is bogus. There’s no well-defined, consistent political center in America. The rush by many Democrats in recent years to the so-called center is a pathetic substitute for clear thinking and candid talking about what the nation needs to do, and why. And then, once in office, doing it. Meanwhile, the “center” keeps shifting further right because Radcons stay put while Democrats keep meeting them halfway.
This is what I’ve been talking about for a long time now (or so it feels like it). I absolutely hate it when people talk about how Democrats have to “move to the center” because THERE IS NO FUCKING CENTER. The “center” is just the average of the greatest concentrations of positions on the Left and Right (in this case, the Democrats and Republicans) so it’s always subject to motion if either or both sides shift. Republicans have been shifting right for a long time now. If Democrats want to move to the “center”, they’re not going to any fixed location on the political spectrum, they’re moving right to keep up with the Republicans. The end result is that the DLC, which was created to get Democrats back in the game by occupying the pragmatic common-sense center or whatever, is now holding positions once held by their (supposed) enemies, the Republicans. And it’s making the DLC a tired old group that’s increasingly being shunned by the liberal Democratic base. Since 2004 there’s a sign that they’re starting to see the error of their ways; back in spring I even endorsed and posted a column written by the DLC attacking the GOP’s proposed repeal of the estate tax. But let there be no mistake: there’s no such thing as a fixed center, so “moving to the center” for Democrats means nothing more than chasing Republicans as they move to the right. And so it very much means that centrist Democrats are “Republican Lite”. Is that what the DLC wants? Is that what ordinary Democrats want? I think not.
What we need to do is to agree on a central ideology. It would probably (at least I hope) be the CI that I wrote out above. Here it is again, just in case you’ve forgotten.
The Democratic Party believes in a strong federal government that actively works for the general welfare of the United States of America and all of its people, particularly those with the greatest need, while respecting individual rights at home and international law and diplomacy abroad.
Then we have to actually start espousing it. Talk about it. SCREAM about it. Let people know about it. Actually say the word “government” in a positive way in our speeches. One of the greatest tragedies in modern American politics is that few Democrats dare to explicitly stand up for the federal government the way Truman did half a century ago. It’s time to capture the same pro-government essence that animated our Democratic forbears. Yes, people don’t trust government as much anymore. But as Reich said, that’s because the federal government, under Republican control, hasn’t done anything, not because the people are conservatives who think the federal government is evil. It’s time for bold Democrats to stand up and demonstrate to the American people just how much good the federal government can do. We had a chance to do that prior to and after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast. The reigning Republicans failed – probably intentionally. After all, Katrina was decimating a major Democratic power base in Louisiana – why get in its way? Furthermore, if Republicans actually used the federal government in a good way, the people would actually appreciate it, and god forbid the people actually like the government and not hate it. (Paul Krugman elucidated this anti-government governing philosophy in his December 3 2002 column “Hey, Lucky Duckies!”) They’ve mostly succeeded – FEMA’s reputation, for example, has probably never been worse. Another missed opportunity is President Clinton’s failure to pass a comprehensive health care program in the early 1990’s. Republicans, motivated by the influential William Kristol, set out to destroy Clinton’s plan because they knew that enacting such a program and actually taking care of a major problem in many Americans’ lives would restore public confidence in the federal government, and they couldn’t stand the thought of that. So they derailed the plan, and every day 45 million Americans and counting are paying the price.
But I’m sure if we explain what we can and intend to do with federal government to help people’s lives, we’ll win. We have to reverse a quarter century’s worth of anti-government Republican rhetoric and explain to the American people about what good the federal government has done in the past and how we’ll use it to do good in the future. Above all, we Democrats HAVE to be willing and eager to flat-out say we believe in big, strong, active government. We can’t run away from it like Senator John Kerry did in the 2004 Presidential debates because in doing so we run away from everything we believe in. We can’t be mealy-mouthed and beat around the bush because that loses respect from voters. As President Clinton said and President Bush has proven, it’s better to be strong and wrong than weak and right. Let’s be strong and right and win.
January 13 2006 addendum: The sentence “I see the federal government as a one-stop source providing not just money but also knowledge, advice, and technical/strategic assistance, in all areas of interest, to anyone and everyone.” originally appeared as “I see the federal government as a one-stop source providing not just money but also knowledge, advice, and technical/strategic assistance, in all areas of interest, and anything else, to anyone and everyone.” I took out the clause “and anything else” because I realized that it sounded too much like I wanted to give carte blanche powers to the federal government. I don’t; what I meant by that sentence is that I wanted the federal government to act as a positive service for Americans rather than a stern parent telling Americans what they can and cannot do. (I fully support government regulation of businesses and the economy, however, because those are basically selfish powers whose power must be checked for the betterment of society.) I added the clause “and anything else” to cover any kinds of positive services that I could see the federal government having a legitimate claim to but just couldn’t think of at the moment. So, for now I’ll leave it the sentence without the clause, but I reserve the right to support positive actions for the federal government that I haven’t thought of yet.