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-
12 comments:
Well said. I especially like the "tardy wisdom" comment (about 4 years and several thousand dead bodies tardy!!) and the remark that Americans trumpet freedom as an excuse for rampant consumerism and greed.
I'll always object, though, to attacks on Dems for not having "a plan"! Yes, Dems were spineless in going along with Bush on the war. But it's HIS grand idea. He's the one with the Napoleon complex who called all dissent unpatriotic; he's the architect of this mess we're in, and he and his henchmen are the ones who ought to be responsible for any "plan" to clean it up.
Always good to read your words of wisdom, 'Rick. Your voice and my thoughts are very often nearly identical. Our Dance of Joy was tempered, too, by the knowledge that what we've mostly achieved in these recent elections is a probably obstacle to Bush's programming and agenda. Still, beats not having checks and balances, especially when it comes to judicial appointments. Thanks for setting up your blog, dude!
I'm with you on almost all of this. 'Rick. I'm curious where you place the growing disparity between the richest and poorest in our society on your list of priorities. Do plans to address this veer toward "economic populism?"
Also curious about "Rawlsian" liberalism. Does this involve Lou Rawls? If not, shouldn't it?
vjon,
As to the "two Americas" issue, I think the greatest disparities in our society have to do with economic security and education, rather than income per se. It's a great topic, and one I promise to address soon.
Rick,
I was wondering how long it would take you to start one of these things. I always enjoy reading your stuff in the Village News, and I look forward to seeing what you come up with on the blog.
Welcome to the jungle!
- Conaway
I think lots of people have been wondering throughout the Bush presidency just what we have to work with in the US. How stupid are we, collectively, these days? To what degree do we live in a cloud of images and induced responses from television and radio talk shows, and in what areas are we still capable of connecting the experiences of our own lives to political choices?
It has been very risky to straightforwardly propose that we work and pay for important collective social benefits in this atmosphere. Enormous expenditures could be triggered by fear and desire for vengeance, or hidden away in omnibus spending bills, when the whole apparatus could be cloaked by Republican control of the congress and presidency. But trying to clearly examine the situation, identify some prudent possible courses and seek public support for them has been stymied by the recurring question, "If we, as a people, can't see that this guy is bad news and that this congress is robbing us blind, what are we capable of seeing?"
Now it appears that we have noticed something and responded, and at least the Republican cloaking device has been damaged. We're waking up from a bender with a muddled mind, a splitting headache, and dread of discovering the full consequences of what we've done. No wonder the rejoicing is muted.
I hope we can clear our mind and get to work, and not just groan and head back to the bottle.
'Rick, we haven't talked since high school at Thomas Dale. It's good to have the chance to read your current thinking. Do people usually write your name with the apostrophe these days? Is it pronounced like uhRick, or just a silent acknowledgment of a shared family name?
Good post. And welcome to the blogsphere!
Nice job Rick. Now you can develop cyber fans to add to your paper fans.
Nice start to a blog, Rick. I've always wondered whether 'Rick Gray was a pseudonym, and I still don't know. It's also interesting that you've chosen the same background in Blogger as Glenn Greenwald, one of the great lawyer bloggers around.
As you know, I'm a fellow history major turned lawyer, but you've totally gotten me with "Rawlsian."
On to the substance. With your background, you certainly know that this election stuff is hard. What's amazing is that, despite this, many Democrats got elected with a explicitly stated opposition to the war in Iraq, and economic populism. Our own Webb is one of the best examples, and I'd add Sherrod Brown. I have hopes that, given all these difficulties, that the giant aircraft carrier that is our democracy, with all its institutionalized interests, can start a course correction. My hope is that Congress, at least the House, will pass bills that they know will get vetoed, but will show voters what will get done if they elect a Democratic president.
I'd be particularly interested in reading your notion of the "follies" of economic populism. To my mind, such tendences have led, among others, to antitrust, food and drug regulation, social security, medicare, all not without problems, but all, in general, a good thing.
I also saw environmentalism as a theme in this election, although not as heavily as it might have been. The "Inconvenient Truth" that we cannot go on as we have been did take hold, and I think we'll see something done.
I didn't see anyone railing against "greed," in the notion that I think you meant, that all of us are greedy, rather than just the greed of the upper two percent. With wages for all but a few stagnant during the Bush Administration, is it greed for most Americans to see GDP increase strongly while their own situation stagnates, and they say, "um, wait a minute, how come I'm not getting a piece of this?" I'm personally not concerned about the materialism and greed of the majority of Americans. If it was so high, why did so many Americans vote for Bush in 2004 against their economic interests?
Well, anyway, a nice start to a blog. I'll add you to my Favorites. Now let's see how this comment publishing works.
Paul,
'Rick is short for Frederick. I'm a Junior. My dad, Frederick T. Gray, was Attorney General of VA and served 18 years in the General Assembly. The apostrophe is a brief nod to our common first name.
"Rawlsian" refers to John Rawls, 20th century "social contract" philosopher who developed the idea of the "veil of ignorance". In essense, Rawls asks us to go through this mental exercise: Assume that we could make the rules for a future society by putting all of our personal descriptors (race, age, gender, wealth, abilities, disabilities, etc.) onto a microchip and tossing that chip into a hat. After making the new rules, each of us would reach into the hat and draw out, at random, a new set of descriptors. The rules we would make under those conditions are the fairest rules for all.
As a Rawlsian liberal, I would equally reject rules made to promote the special interests of the many and rules made to promote the special interests of the few. Both deny the commonwealth. That's why I am suspicious of populism, but I would strongly reject the suggestion that programs you list are inherently populist. Laws that promote economic stability and security are usually for the benefit of both the many and the few.
Finally, I absolutely disagree with you about the materialism and greed of our society. When a society measures its economic success, not by its productivity and its savings rate, but by its consumption, that society has a huge problem. When a society measures its success by ANY economic measure, that society has lost sight of the most important values (none of which can be measured numerically).
If, as you say, you are concerned about the environment, you must concede that most of our environmental problems can be traced back to our relentless consumerism. Only when we are prepared to simplify, slow down, and live more humanely can we decrease the pressure we are placing upon the planet.
'Rick
This could be taken too far, but to a certain extent I think that decrying greed and consumerism is a luxury of those who are well off. When people are not making ends meet, it's something of an elitism to say, "well, your real problem is that you want too much." To a certain extent, that *is* their problem, but the solution is not to chide them for wanting what they see other people having.
The Europeans and the Japanese have managed to have a pretty good lifestyle while consuming far less resources than Americans do. The solution is not to simply say we're all too greedy, but to have the government regulate our energy consumption. People and corporations can tolerate many things if they see that everyone else has to play by the same rules. The corporation that pays above-average wages has a disadvantage against its competitors, so there is a race to the bottom, but if the minimum wage is raised by the government, then eveyrone has to play by the same rules. Forcing an increase in CAFE standards for autos, and regulating energy efficiency also mitigates the tragedy of the commons.
Paul,
So if we were standing together by the side of the highway, and a Hummer went by, driven by a suburban soccer parent or commuter -- I would see a wasteful, narcissistic yahoo caught up in a lifestyle of consumerism -- and you'd see a regulatory problem. That, I suppose, is the difference between traditional liberalism and what I like to call "commonwealth liberalism".
Post a Comment