That Wednesday, I smiled.
Correction: I grinned. Everywhere I went, I caught myself sporting a joyous, slightly feral grin of triumph and delight.
On election day, the American people – in their tardy wisdom – had finally dealt the President and his Congressional allies a savage blow. After six years of the most thoroughly wrong-headed maladministration since George III, at least one House of Congress stood ready to check the rampant caudillismo of the Bush Administration.
When George Allen, in his slightly bizarre attempt at good sportsmanship, finally conceded to Jim Webb, my grin grew wider and more lupine.
But only for a day or two.
After all, the Democrats’ electoral triumph was hardly a mandate for progressive government. On the central issue of the campaign, Democrats had sedulously avoided offering an alternative to the President’s failed policy in Mesopotamia, preferring to let the Republicans to hang themselves with endless variations on the theme of “Stay the course.”
As scandal after scandal brought House Republicans closer to implosion, the Democrats had managed only a vague promise to “clean up” Congress. On issue after vital issue, Democratic candidates had contented themselves with documenting the symptoms of America’s woes, while offering no policy prescriptions.
As for the new crop of Democratic legislators, the best that could be said is that they ran as Democrats. Most of them could scarcely be distinguished from the Republicans they replaced, except, perhaps, by their economic populism – a tendency which has led Democrats into folly since the days of Andrew Jackson’s war on the Second Bank.
That’s why my grin faded so quickly. The midterm elections may have given President Bush a well-deserved “thumpin’”, but they offered scant room for optimism about new directions for America. A mutiny aboard the Titanic – with icebergs looming on every quarter – seemed about the size of it.
The problem, as I see it, is that America still lacks a vibrant, modern Liberalism – yet few Democrats can bring themselves even to pronounce the L-word.
Of course, this is not the view of the poli-sci profs and op-ed pundits, who seem convinced that the problem with American politics is extremism and ideological warfare.
But that’s nonsense.
You can’t have ideological warfare without two competing sets of ideas. Contemporary politics bears less resemblance to warfare than to a period of appeasement – an unequal contest between an extreme and aggressive conservatism and a bland, apologetic centrism.
Good or bad, Republicans offer ideas. Democrats respond with carefully-worded criticisms – but few ideas of their own. Thus, Republicans continue to frame the terms of debate, while Democrats – fearful of the “liberal” label – are endlessly drawn toward a “center” which recedes forever rightward.
In party terms, there is no American Left. What Left there is may be found in the desperate guerilla being fought by young internet idealists, television satirists, and the makers of documentary films. And this will not suffice.
Liberal policies can never prevail while liberals remain on the defensive and focus upon the negative. American liberals have enjoyed success only they embraced a spirit of optimism and a clear vision of a better society.
Which makes sense. Liberalism is, by its nature, founded upon a belief in the ability of rational human beings to make life better through social action. The contemporary Left – with its Bush-bashing, its sophomoric cynicism, and its proclivity for conspiracy theories – is anything but confident.
What America desperately needs is a new Liberalism – a Liberalism capable of governing, not just resistance. What’s needed is a not a return to the dream-world radicalism of the late ‘60's and ‘70's, but a constructive, 21st century Liberalism committed to a new vision of what we, as a nation, can achieve. A Rawlsian Liberalism that can reclaim the honorable lineage of the “commonwealth” ideology which animated Jefferson and Madison, Abraham Lincoln, the mature Teddy Roosevelt, and the bipartisan “vital center” of the mid-20th century.
America needs a Liberalism which challenges the notion that freedom is nothing more than a justification for rampant narcissism, consumerism, and greed; which asserts the interests of individuals, families and communities against the dehumanizing tendencies of unrestricted corporate capitalism; and which proclaims the rights of future generations – in all nations – to a planet preserved from the environmental ravages of those now living.
Most of all, America needs a Liberalism which acknowledges that every child born within our borders is endowed with the right fully to develop his or her gifts, talents and constructive passions, regardless of the advantages of birth or background.
How much of that did we hear from Democrats in 2006?
In 2006, how many Democrats challenged the prevailing materialism, consumerism and narcissism of American society – or the corporate culture which sustains and nurtures those destructive tendencies.
In 2006, many Democrats called for energy independence, but how many had the courage to demand real sacrifice – starting with measures to enforce a serious reduction in energy consumption.
In 2006, many Democrats called for better schools, but how many pledged to do whatever it takes to make America’s schools the best in the world – for all our children – even if some necessary reforms displease the NEA?
In 2006, many Democrats called for reducing the number of Americans without access to quality health care, but how many embraced our country’s affirmative duty to reduce that number to zero – stat.
My post-election grin lasted, at best, two days. As a child of the Greatest Generation, growing up in the optimistic decade of JFK, John Glenn, and Martin Luther King, Jr., I never doubted that Americans could solve any problem they set their minds to. But it has been nearly four decades since Bobby Kennedy – the last great Liberal tribune – gave expression to that confident spirit.
It is precisely that spirit that is lacking among modern Democrats.
In the midterm elections, President Bush and his Republican Congressional allies lost. But, given the campaign waged by the new Democratic majority – nobody really won.
-30-
Correction: I grinned. Everywhere I went, I caught myself sporting a joyous, slightly feral grin of triumph and delight.
On election day, the American people – in their tardy wisdom – had finally dealt the President and his Congressional allies a savage blow. After six years of the most thoroughly wrong-headed maladministration since George III, at least one House of Congress stood ready to check the rampant caudillismo of the Bush Administration.
When George Allen, in his slightly bizarre attempt at good sportsmanship, finally conceded to Jim Webb, my grin grew wider and more lupine.
But only for a day or two.
After all, the Democrats’ electoral triumph was hardly a mandate for progressive government. On the central issue of the campaign, Democrats had sedulously avoided offering an alternative to the President’s failed policy in Mesopotamia, preferring to let the Republicans to hang themselves with endless variations on the theme of “Stay the course.”
As scandal after scandal brought House Republicans closer to implosion, the Democrats had managed only a vague promise to “clean up” Congress. On issue after vital issue, Democratic candidates had contented themselves with documenting the symptoms of America’s woes, while offering no policy prescriptions.
As for the new crop of Democratic legislators, the best that could be said is that they ran as Democrats. Most of them could scarcely be distinguished from the Republicans they replaced, except, perhaps, by their economic populism – a tendency which has led Democrats into folly since the days of Andrew Jackson’s war on the Second Bank.
That’s why my grin faded so quickly. The midterm elections may have given President Bush a well-deserved “thumpin’”, but they offered scant room for optimism about new directions for America. A mutiny aboard the Titanic – with icebergs looming on every quarter – seemed about the size of it.
The problem, as I see it, is that America still lacks a vibrant, modern Liberalism – yet few Democrats can bring themselves even to pronounce the L-word.
Of course, this is not the view of the poli-sci profs and op-ed pundits, who seem convinced that the problem with American politics is extremism and ideological warfare.
But that’s nonsense.
You can’t have ideological warfare without two competing sets of ideas. Contemporary politics bears less resemblance to warfare than to a period of appeasement – an unequal contest between an extreme and aggressive conservatism and a bland, apologetic centrism.
Good or bad, Republicans offer ideas. Democrats respond with carefully-worded criticisms – but few ideas of their own. Thus, Republicans continue to frame the terms of debate, while Democrats – fearful of the “liberal” label – are endlessly drawn toward a “center” which recedes forever rightward.
In party terms, there is no American Left. What Left there is may be found in the desperate guerilla being fought by young internet idealists, television satirists, and the makers of documentary films. And this will not suffice.
Liberal policies can never prevail while liberals remain on the defensive and focus upon the negative. American liberals have enjoyed success only they embraced a spirit of optimism and a clear vision of a better society.
Which makes sense. Liberalism is, by its nature, founded upon a belief in the ability of rational human beings to make life better through social action. The contemporary Left – with its Bush-bashing, its sophomoric cynicism, and its proclivity for conspiracy theories – is anything but confident.
What America desperately needs is a new Liberalism – a Liberalism capable of governing, not just resistance. What’s needed is a not a return to the dream-world radicalism of the late ‘60's and ‘70's, but a constructive, 21st century Liberalism committed to a new vision of what we, as a nation, can achieve. A Rawlsian Liberalism that can reclaim the honorable lineage of the “commonwealth” ideology which animated Jefferson and Madison, Abraham Lincoln, the mature Teddy Roosevelt, and the bipartisan “vital center” of the mid-20th century.
America needs a Liberalism which challenges the notion that freedom is nothing more than a justification for rampant narcissism, consumerism, and greed; which asserts the interests of individuals, families and communities against the dehumanizing tendencies of unrestricted corporate capitalism; and which proclaims the rights of future generations – in all nations – to a planet preserved from the environmental ravages of those now living.
Most of all, America needs a Liberalism which acknowledges that every child born within our borders is endowed with the right fully to develop his or her gifts, talents and constructive passions, regardless of the advantages of birth or background.
How much of that did we hear from Democrats in 2006?
In 2006, how many Democrats challenged the prevailing materialism, consumerism and narcissism of American society – or the corporate culture which sustains and nurtures those destructive tendencies.
In 2006, many Democrats called for energy independence, but how many had the courage to demand real sacrifice – starting with measures to enforce a serious reduction in energy consumption.
In 2006, many Democrats called for better schools, but how many pledged to do whatever it takes to make America’s schools the best in the world – for all our children – even if some necessary reforms displease the NEA?
In 2006, many Democrats called for reducing the number of Americans without access to quality health care, but how many embraced our country’s affirmative duty to reduce that number to zero – stat.
My post-election grin lasted, at best, two days. As a child of the Greatest Generation, growing up in the optimistic decade of JFK, John Glenn, and Martin Luther King, Jr., I never doubted that Americans could solve any problem they set their minds to. But it has been nearly four decades since Bobby Kennedy – the last great Liberal tribune – gave expression to that confident spirit.
It is precisely that spirit that is lacking among modern Democrats.
In the midterm elections, President Bush and his Republican Congressional allies lost. But, given the campaign waged by the new Democratic majority – nobody really won.
-30-
