Kevin Phillips, author if one of my favorite books, Arrogant Capital: Washington, Wall Street and the Frustration of American Politics, has a great column in the L.A. Times Opinion section today, on the dilemma faced by the Democrats. He says: “Greed Is Putting Party in Peril” (intrusive registration required, use ‘laexaminer’/’laexaminer’).
If the Democratic Party’s recent midterm election campaign was weak and shallow, the same can be said of its November post-midterm-election debate over whether to move left or right. Bluntly put, the party of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman has been selling its soul to fill its campaign wallet and is now in big trouble, especially among three key longtime constituencies: blacks, Latinos and lower-income Southern whites.
This, in turn, has become a threat to the balance of power in Washington and to the policymaking process. The “opposition” party is verging on incapacity. Its old faces are beyond Botox or relevant speech therapy. Few new ones are in sight.
Not that forthright ideology is the cure — moving leftward under Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, or rightward under the aegis of the Washington-based Democratic Leadership Council. However, there is some basic philosophy involved, and if the Democrats cannot comprehend this, they face considerable peril.
…
The weakening economy and skewed wealth distribution were obvious rallying points, yet Democratic leaders, despite having the freedom that comes from being out of power nationally, abandoned them, save for cliches about protecting Social Security and providing prescription drugs.
While hardly new, this marked an escalation in the national party’s willingness to discard old beliefs and the interests of ordinary citizens in order to woo big-contributor money that has captured the center of U.S. politics — the new “venal center.”
It is a critical and depressing transformation. Fifty years ago, historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. identified a “vital center” in American politics, crediting Democrats with building a new and constructive moderate coalition under Roosevelt and Truman. But they lost their dominance and vitality some 30 years ago. Then, over the last 10 years, especially under Bill Clinton during the money-culture days of the stock market bubble, the Democratic Party joined in making venality bipartisan.
This is a losing politics, because the dominance of venality automatically favors the Republicans. Innately on the side of money, many, if not most, Republicans are philosophically committed to upholding its principles and some of its excesses. By contrast, the worthy history of the Democratic Party, especially during its periods of dominance, has been to question those principles and to indict related excesses. When abuses mount and Democrats remain mute, they lose both constituency appeal and their historical raison d’etre.
Regaining this balance is not turning left, an implausible description for the great Democrats from Jefferson to Truman. What it has involved is correcting the excesses of plutophile conservatives from Alexander Hamilton through the 20th century and down to the present day. Under current circumstances, it would take years for any such correction to be leftish.
…
(A.L.: emphasis mine)
I couldn’t agree more.
Until the Democratic Party can wean itself from the golden teat of large donors (primarily from lawyers, labor, technology, and media), they will be transparently captive to their investors’ interests.
Having given away the social and cultural grounds that tied them to working Americans, they then gave away the economic ones, and wonder why they are left standing at the altar.
Doesn’t surprise me.
[Update: Calpundit disagrees (note that his permalinks are wonky right now, just look for “venality”), and says that “I’m not quite sure what to make of this, but it sure doesn’t seem to provide any concrete suggestions. I mean, the “old Jackson-FDR constituencies”? In the year 2002, just what is that supposed to mean?” Well, from my point of view the ties than bind the Dems to the “political investor” class are pretty clear and well-drawn; those ties put the party firmly on the side of capital, as opposed to labor, and mean that the folks with cash pretty much dominated both sides of the political discussion over the last fifteen years. That needs to be balanced, and no one is doing it right now (with the exception, in a fragmented and relatively unproiductive way, of the Greens).]
Who are some politicians you particularly like, or dislike? What are some policies you particularly like, or dislike?
In a way, these are unfair questions, because you have written a lot, recently and in the past.
But in perusing your post “Towards a fourth generation liberalism”, you said liberalism means 1) creating social capital and 2) preventing poor people from starving. In fleshing out the bones, you wrote about infrastructure, environment, public health, education (“Giant smoking hole right now. I am throwing up my hands”), and development (especially entreprenurial “Teach a man to fish” Grameen Bank-like programs)
All good. But what does this have to do weaning the Democratic party away from the trial lawyers, unions, etc? I don’t see what one has to do with the other. The main obstacle to, for example, universal access to health care, is not the trial lawyers, its that it costs money, which requires relatively higher taxes.
In other words, I don’t see the connection between your solutions (which I think I largely agree with) and your diagnosis of the problem (which I’m not sure I do). I have no brief for trial lawyers or the Hollywood crowd, but better to raise money from a fatuous Hollywood liberal than from a pharmaceutical company seeking to hide a possible link between mercury and autism, no?
To argue the point in another direction, from 1964 to 1980, when the conservatives were transforming themselves from a minority to a majority, they did not seek to purge their movement of all special interests, they did not constantly apologize for the occasional excesses of their base. Quite the contrary, they moved from the honest, principled conservatism of Barry Goldwater to the. . .considerably less principled politics of Ronald Reagan.
You seem to believe that unless the Democrats are perfect, they are not worthy to win. And if they are losing, its because they deserve to lose.
I don’t think I’m being very clear on what the differences (and similarities) between us are, and this is getting much too long for a comment. Let me just close by saying I support and admire, without serious reservation, politicians like Al Gore, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, John Spratt, Dick Durbin, Fritz Hollings & Mondale, Dale Bumpers, etc. I basically like and respect, with a few reservations here and there, politicians like Dianne Feinstein, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, John Edwards, Cruz Bustamante, etc. And you know what? I even can tolerate, and respect to a certain degree, Bob Torricelli and SkyBox Davis.
I’m not sure what your attitude towards these people are. I know you actively hate Gray Davis. But as for the others, I’m not sure whether you dislike them personally, or view the problems of American liberalism and the Democratic party as so deep-seated that it doesn’t really matter which clowns are leading the parade.
dammit roublen, you’re not supposed to put me on the spot like this!! It’s all fun and games until you have to endorse someone…
OK, I’ll start with two:
Kitzhaber (Oregon Gov.)
Angelides (CA Treasurer)
Both are great statewide electeds.
There must be more…from your list:
Al Gore – synthespian
Bill Bradley – brilliant, I should have taken the job working for him, not charismatic (part of the Presidential job), wish he was back in the Senate (although he wasn’t a terribly effective Senator)
Howard Dean – interesting, don’t know him well enough; definitely the press “flavor of the month”
Dick Gephardt – hack
John Kerry – interesting, vague on domestic policy
John Spratt – don’t know, will have to do some homework
Dick Durbin – ditto
Fritz Hollings – please. MPAA shill
Walt Mondale – great VP
Dale Bumpers – good guy, not someone I’d support for Pres.
Nothing on national security and foreign policy issues. Obsessed with the Pentagon Papers and Watergate the Democrats gave away the store on those issues between 1974 and 1980. After that it was clear that over the next 15 or so years the country simply didn’t trust the Democrats with the nation’s security. Then it didn’t matter but now that we have entered into the “every 70-80 year crisis” (as per Strauss and Howe in “Generations”), the Democrats are going to find the way back difficult. Their approach to the Homeland Security legislation (whatever one thinks of it) was sheer stupidity. Thinking that Union job rules were more important than the protecting the nation was no way to convince the country that they ought to be in charge. We are now in a period similar to 1936 to 1946 when the coming war, then the actual war, were serious matters. Then the Republicans, who refused to take the rise of Hitler seriously because FDR did take it seriously, found themselves in the minority for a generation.
So how many TV ads, mailers, posters, and bumperstickers do principles buy?
You can have the best ideas in the world, but without a way to disseminate them to the masses, you might as well have no ideas.
I’m not entirely sold on Phillips’ theory. But even if you are, you’ll be happy to know that “Major industries such as accounting, aerospace, commercial banking, defense, HMOs and pharmaceuticals have abandoned their tradition of bipartisan campaign contributions in favor of a commitment to the GOP….”
That ought to make any good messages we develop that much harder to get out. Hope you’re happy now that you’re getting what you want…
And when, exactly, did Labor become untied from “working Americans?”
Armed Liberal,
You don’t get just how badly the Demonazi Party has burned their bridges with Middle America, do you?
Bluntly, after 60+ years of assault on the Second Amendment, I wouldn’t trust Terry McAuliffe if he showed up on my doorstep, promised the full support of the Democratic party for the Second Amendment, demanded the immediate repeal of the 1934 NFA, the 1968 GCA, the Brady Law, and the “Assault Rifle” ban, and then presented me with an M-249 SAW and 10,000 rounds of ammunition.
Too much trust has been abused. They have offered too many compromises that boil down to surrender a little more now. Well come back for the rest later. I honestly don’t see how the Democrats could convince me to trust them at all this late in the game.
Certainly not without many concrete sinecures (not in the spiritual sense, but in the political; actions by the Democrats that dont create immediate political gain, but serve to eliminate the natural skepticism about the Democrats on matters related to the Second Amendment).
The SAW would be a good start 🙂
Ann:
Well, two things:
a) the economics of media are changing dramatically, and I don’t see my political consultant friends (who often get paid a % of the media buy) nailing that issue yet; and more importantly, b) why the hell aren’t we fighting to change the rules of the game? The voters are disgusted, but no one on “our team” has the moral standing to stand up and fight to change things.
More later…
A.L.
Iron Fist:
Hell, I’d settle for a M-4…
…but it’s not just the regulation that frosts my shooting friends (although that’s a big part of it) it’s the contempt in which people who are used to guns or hunting are held.
A.L.
Charles:
You’re absolutely right. There is a case to be made; combining strong and efective defense with policies to ddrain the swamps of misery that grow our enemies.
There ought to be Dems who can make that case. I’m still looking.
A.L.
Charles,
Re: Homeland Security, I think the Dems were right, but they framed the issue wrong. It wasn’t about saving union jobs, it was about the Reps creating a huge department that is, in essence, accountable only to the White House. That should have been emphasized again and again. The Dems have not yet learned from the Reps about staying on message.
That said, I agree with AL about defense and swamps. Both aspects are vital. We can’t just roll over and talk about defense with out the other part. A case in point, it looks to me that Afghanistan is getting worse and worse.
AL,
The Dem. party of the New Deal era could organize in the densely populated streets of big cities (and in tightly-knit small towns), and could gain support from independent-minded, sympathetic newspapers around the country. Today these ways of organizing have fallen apart; people are spread out and disconnected from their neighbors, and the world comes to them mediated through corporate-controlled TV, which costs $$$$ to access.
People’s interests are not being represented by the dominant political forces, but they don’t have a way of connecting with others like themselves in order to get their problems articulated and addressed.
Drastic overhaul of FCC regulations — mandating gobs of free airtime for candidates, not to mention the return of the equal-time provision — could make the corporate-dominated (and thus “plutophilic”) airwaves accessible to a broader variety of voices. But that won’t happen till we elect a President and Congress with the guts to take on Big Media. And how can we elect such folks if their voices can’t be heard?
Maybe the Web offers a more democratic model (until they figure out a way to fence it totally in). I certainly would like to think that sites like yours and mine can make a difference. But is anyone paying attention, or is Leftist Blogistan just a big echo chamber/mutual admiration society?
Not to keen on Kevin…