Kevin Drum riffs on a conversation we had (along with some other folks) at Brian Linse’s house over the weekend.
The basic question is “why do Democrats keep losing?” Kevin, of course, poses it better than I do:
…if all this stuff is so popular with the middle and working classes, how come we don’t have any of it? Can it really be solely because our positions haven’t been loud enough and forthright enough? Because we haven’t fought hard enough?
The issue is, simply, why it is that a number of American voters either vote against their expressed and actual interests, or don’t come out and vote for them?
The question, which is followed up in great detail over on Kevin’s site by authors and political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, who are pushing their new book “Off Center.”
The arguments seem to break out into three reasonable strands (and a bunch of unreasonable ones, which I’ll ignore):
* The policies aren’t good enough expressions of the principles behind them (the more-think-tank-money theory);
* The people expressing the policies aren’t tough enough advocates of them (the why-don’t-we-have-a-Lee-Atwater-let’s spend-more-think-tank-money-and-grow-some theory);
* The institutional process is stacked against us by (conservative think tanks, corporate media, election finance policy, the fact that we don’t spend enough on think tanks).
Hacker and Pierson vote for Door #3. I’ll guess that they do work with think tanks…
I’ll suggest something different, on a couple of fronts. Let me – to borrow a phrase – reframe the argument.
Instead of arguing from principles, and letting policies emerge, liberals tend to want to argue policy. I think this is partly institutional – liberals tend to come from places where policy is actively studied, argued, or practiced. Ideas are usually expressed in policy – it’s not concrete otherwise.
As soon as Kevin & I started discussing it, his issue was: “What would the winning policies be?” (and my responses, when pinned down like that, were relatively lame – as you can see on his blog).
It’s the wrong question.
The issue in politics ought to be “what are the principles” and “why do I trust you to carry them out?”
Let me get back to that.
The issue with policy is the belief that somehow, someway, if I locked myself in a room and took my meals while reading every book ever written on healthcare, and corresponding with everyone who knows anything about it, and getting my third doctorate in medicine, following the ones in public policy and business administration, that I could somehow sit down in front of my computer and walk out with a policy so perfect, so brilliant, so incontrovertibly right that the voting public would not only pass it, they’d etch it into stone tablets and erect them outside Alabama courthouses.
Wrong answer. Wrong belief.
It’s an answer that matters … good policies work better than bad ones … but the reality is bounded by two immutable limits.
The first is Horst Rittel’s “wickedness.” Sorry, this is a wicked – untestable, unsolvable through analysis – problem. There is no single right answer. All these issues of national policy are wicked problems. There are a series of answers, better and worse, that we evolve as we go. And helping good policies evolve is a cause, a calling, a good thing to do.
The other is to mistake that diligence and hard work and cogitating – working to approximate that unreachable “right” answer are what this is about. That we’ll be rewarded for our good homework by a teacher, who singles us out for praise. I’ll talk about that “good student” theme in liberalism sometime soon.
Look instead in Hannah Arendt’s direction.
The answer is praxis (quotes from “Hannah Arendt: The Recovery of the Public World” by Hill).
“For Arendt, the activities of labor, work, and action collectively constitute praxis. Each is indispensable. Without labor, neither the individual nor the species can survive; without work and the world it builds, man is lost in the cosmos and does not develop a distinctive human identity; without action, his life lacks meaning and he does not develop a sense of personal identity.”
Labor is, to Arendt, simple effort – dumb animal effort. Work layers technique (craft, technology) onto labor to create a ‘made world’.
Action is somewhat more complex. But it is the expression of agency through activity, and ideally, activity in the public sphere.
“…political action is its paradigmatic form, and the organized public space its ideal home. In political life man acts amongst his peers, whose very presence and critical judgement bring out his full potential.”
So I’m looking at two moderately obscure dead Germans and talking about Democratic politics. What exactly am I serving up?
Let me add another layer to the cake.
I manage projects (including software projects) for a living. My involvement with this blog came at a time when I was getting much more interested in “4th Generation warfare” as expressed in project management – agile processes.
There is a group of software developers who have created what is called the “Agile Alliance.” They have a manifesto, which I think has the right flavor:
We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a planThat is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left more.
The ‘other side’ of the debate is the Project Management Institute, which has formalized and institutionalized policies around managing projects into the PMBOK – the Project Management Body of Knowledge – which is as you can imagine, big, and convoluted, and arcane.
A Guide to The Project Management Body of Knowledge – Third Edition (also called the PMBOK® Guide – Third Edition) identifies that subset of the Project Management Body of Knowledge that is generally recognized as good practice. “Identify” means to provide a general overview as opposed to an exhaustive description. “Generally recognized” means that the knowledge and practices described are applicable to most projects most of the time, and that there is widespread consensus about their value and usefulness. “Good practice” means that there is general agreement that the correct application of these skills, tools, and techniques can enhance the chances of success over a wide range of different projects. Good practice does not mean that the knowledge described should always be applied uniformly on all projects; the project management team is responsible for determining what is appropriate for any given project.
If I study it long enough and take a test, I can be certified as a serious practitioner of Project Management. The problem, of course, is that the guys running the Big Dig in Boston all passed that test.
The arcane and complex policies we suggest – like the ‘kludge’ that Hillarycare represented – are suspect by the American people, not because they aren’t smart enough to understand them, but because they are smart enough to be suspicious of this kind of effort. The track record for grand policy just isn’t very good. And average people may want more accessible health care, but they also don’t like the idea of Tom DeLay or Hillary walking into the Congressional clinic while they fill out the fiftieth copy of a nine-page form for the third time in order to see a specialist.
And so what I’m suggesting is simple. Shelve policy debate for a while. Simplify things.
Talk first about principles. Create a manifesto. Something vaguely like this:
First and foremost, the American principles of liberty, equality, freedom as have really not been enjoyed as well in any other place or time.
In the context of those principles, and not in lieu of them – there are other principles that defend the weak against the strong, the poor against the rich, the few against the many.
Those principles ought to be foremost. They should be coherent, clear, and compelling. Those are – in my belief – the “liberal manifesto.”
Then talk about how they get devolved into policy, and how – in dialog with supporters and opponents, in the messy, chaotic wonderful process that was created for us by our Founders, and which we intend to keep up and hand down to our children, we intend to create policies that meet those principles.
Let the policies emerge. Let leaders emerge who understand the principles, and can guide the creation of understandable, useful, workable policies.
Let them convince voters that they can uphold the principles because of their personal histories, their accomplishments, the ‘self’ they present in action in the public sphere.
Personally, I’m interested in some “4th Generation” social policies; ones that veer away from command and control, and from heavy-handed intrusion into people’s lives – and still meet the principles I set out; they help the weak, the poor, the few. What would a welfare program run along Special Forces lines look like?
To be honest, I think the GOP is far better at expressing principles over politics. They’re not necessarily better at translating those principles into policy…
…and if nothing else, there’s an opening for the Democratic Party.
There is only one difficulty with this suggestion. The last set of liberals who followed it, who set out liberal principles and looked for policies which would further them, were given the label “neo-conservative” and driven out of the Democratic Party. And those who sent the neocons into exile are no weaker, or less determined, now than they were then …
Translating GOP principles into policy? That would be nice.
But I agree with Michael Brazier. Democrats should be the ones pushing all the City Journal policy ideas. But they’re not and they won’t. Why not?
Perhaps because it’s a party — *the* party — whose constituencies are defined by interests and not principles. (Except for the moonbats, who are an even bigger problem.) That means trouble for your cause.
Uh,
Liberals could start out with ditching the labor theory of value.
Other wise you have pounding sand equivalent to digging a waterway with a D9. Capital in action. And not just any capital. Capital that is full of thought.
All systems ration medical care. You get scarcity and low prices or abundance and high prices.
Why do liberals seem to hanker for the scarcity model?
Second when it comes to labor the value is in the thought. Hard work is not enough. You can create a lot of work doing the wrong thing. Doing the right thing often destroys some jobs while creating others.
So the question is: for general use should machines weave cloth or are hand spinning and looming better? After all machines reduce the labor content.
I mean really. Socialism is dead.
Want to help the poor? What can you do to get business booming?
So then there is the war. A.L. is on the right side on that one so I will leave it alone.
Once you get the economy and the war right that leaves social policy.
Med pot is more popular than either party. Consistiently poling in the 55 – 65% range. So where are the Dems? A chance to out compassion the Rs and they are missing in action.
There is evidence of serious rent seeking (using government to enhance profits) on the part of big pharma. Where are the champions of the little guy?
The drug coverage bill looks like a give away to favored companies. Why were the Dems silent? Why not limit it to the poor instead of insisting that one size fits all?
The FDA interaction with the drug companies is very similar to what we got when the ICC regulated transportation. Where are the Dems? (I forgot – for them regulation is the answer – the problem always is not enough.) Hayek showed where that leads. Dems ought to commit “the Road to Serfdom” to heart.
That leaves civil liberties. About the only one the Dems champion is government out of women’s wombs. Which is good. Now why not extend that thought to a much wider range of liberties? Once the Dems get the war and economics stuff straight.
BTW did you hear about the Brit NHS Hospital that had to go a few days without mops? Rationing through scarcity. I’d rather rationing was done by price. Then at least there would be enough mops.
If the party got back to its Jeffersonian roots and dumped socialism it would be much better off.
What are the odds?
The dot com boom did more to raise the actual minimum wage than any government law.
Did the Dems get a clue?
Lowering taxes has increased government revenue.
Did the Dems get a clue?
etc.
Now what is the chance that the party of anti-capitalists is going to get economics right?
And how will the home of the anti-war folks (sometimes refered to as on the other side) ever come to terms with Islamic fascism?
I don’t see any coherent ideas coming out of that mess. Too many totally incompatible interests.
At least the theocons and libs see smaller government as a good thing and argue the details.
The Dem factions are pulling in opposite directions.
Desi says: “Lucy, you got some ‘splainin to do”
I would say that the Democrats’ problem is that they are perceived by many as wanting to drastically restructure the US and turn it into a European style welfare state like Sweden or Germany. And I really can’t say that this perception is inaccurate. Does it ever cross their minds that the majority of Americans don’t want this?
It might be helpful if the Democrats paid more attention to the notion of democracy and representative government in general. Elected officials should strive to reflect the cultural consensus of the people who elected them, and not set themselves up as philosopher kings who will ram laws down the throats of their constituencies despite the opposition of the people they are supposed to represent. Didn’t the Hillary-Care fiasco teach them anything? People don’t elect people to “rule” them, they elect them to represent them, and this is a distinction that the Democrats apparently can’t grasp.
The reason Democrats can not articulate a coherent policy necessary to win back control of the levels of poswer is not that their ideas are necessarily better of worse than the Republicans. If we harken back to 2001. The President gets very little accomplished till Sept 11, 2001. On that date Jihadists strike the United States in a coordinated attack againist OUR military, political and economic infrastructure. This attack was no different than getting sucker punched. You immediately fight back. Too much of the Democratic party infrastructure did not jump up and say fight back. Even if we lose this battle fight back until we win.
Till the Democratic Party can convince people they will protect their lives first and foremost no amount of better policies, people, competence in government or protest will allow them to regain control of the political levers of power. That means they must begin articulating a coherent foreign and military policy to defeat the Jihadist enemy.
Simple things like al-Queda = KKK, al-Queda = stasi, al-queda = Gestapo, al-Queda = hatred, al-Queda = murders is a good start.
I think AL is onto something. There is not and cannot be a perfect policy. Circumstances and situations change. To base yourself and your party on policies is to build on shifting sands. Instead, you must have a few core principles by which you are guided in the constant readjustment of policies. It’s the difference between a long-term view and a short-term view.
(Of course, it pays to stick to your principles when you get power, something not easily done, as we can all see right now)
someone –
I am not suggesting that the D’s say t hey will implement R principles; just that they point out holw bad the R’s are at it.
A.L.
In a business context, the principles outlined by the Project Management Institute work pretty well. The reason why is that there is accountability. Many people hire consultants to manage their projects, PMI style, comfortable in the fact that the consultants can be fired if they are not performing. Likewise, for internal consultants, they can be fired if their performance is not up to par.
Armed Liberal notes that the folks running the Big Dig were all PMI certified. While that is true, none of them were held accountable. Because Massachusetts, to a first approximation, is a one-party system, there is no way to hold the unions accountable for their missteps, most of which involve not working and charging as though they were working. Furthermore, even if people can be held accountable, election cycles take so long and putting individual decisions to the vote is so complicated that there is no practical way (as yet) to have particular ideas or actions that were taken vetted by the public.
This gets to the real problem associated with Democrats vs. Republicans, which many others have alluded to. Republicans, at least pre-Bush, would like a system that is more emergent. Democrats would prefer a system that is dictated from the top.
If the system is dictated from the top but it is difficult to hold someone accountable for a specific decision, the end result is that, PMI certification or no, some sort of an error will be made. On the other hand, if decisions are made by millions of individual citizens, some will make bad decisions and others will make good ones – but the net result will be better as people learn from each other. In the intermediate cases where some management from government is required (e.g. the Big Dig), superior solutions can be arrived at by holding the folks accountable for their performance, even if they are of the same party.
How will Dems next get into the White House? Republican implosion. If you want to see how the Republican majority will end, look at the Democrat majority circa 1993. The right’s biggest danger right now is overestimating how conservative the majority of America is. Its not 50.1%, probably not even 40%. Moderates have gone Republican lately because of convergent interest, but the growth in power of the religious conservatives is rapidly pushing moderates away. To this day liberal democrats still linger under the dellusion that the majority supports them. It has foundered their movement as much as any other factor. If republicans dont face up to this reality they will go he same way. You can either rule with a coalition in America or gripe with the idealogically pure from the backseat.
Number of good points here. Frankly, the analogy to the classic “ugly American abroad” stereotype who believes that if he only yells louder the natives will understand his English, is amusing.
AL talks about principles. That’s a start, but only a start.
The core of liberalism’s principles and ideological underpinnings failed, spectacularly, in the 1970s. They didn’t work (and by the way, still won’t – vid. Europe). The stuff you’ve covered about California progressives taking power and doing essentially nothing productive with it? Not coincidence – “structural.”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006186.php
In response to these failures, American liberalism was hit by a comprehensive, deconstructive social-science based criticism that has never been answered – and reforms that have worked. Nor have the policies been revised, though we have seen a couple of quiet retreats in some areas.
This is the tie to A.L.’s “4th Generation social policies” points, above, and explains why that’s a necessity not an option. It also explains the necessity of experimentation/ praxis as a component, because that’s what creates the concrete examples that prove new policies will be helpful and effective instead of just the same old stuff in new clothes.
The one politician in the last 30 years who grasped this lesson was Bill Clinton. His “Third Way” was an attempt to begin addressing the criticisms of 1960s liberalism, and begin looking for new approaches that would work. Hence welfare reform in conjunction with a Republican Congressional majority. Which worked, by the way.
The currrent Democratic Party cannot run away from his legacy fast enough, however, and would rather paint such people as Republican traitors and excommunicate them.
In other words, it HAS principles. It has the WRONG principles – on foreign policy, and in general on domestic policy too. The few principles it claims to have that would be helpful (like being the party of the little guy), it can no longer uphold with a straight face. Hence Moran, bankruptcy bill, being in bed with large studios on copyright laws that remove the public commons and fair use, public displays of hatred for the religious, Kerrys hiring accountants to keep their tax percentage below 20%, etc.
The smarmy nannyism and lecturing just execerbate this problem, and can be funny on occasion when the Kerry types lecture us all about conservation while driving SUVs. The boomeritis addiction to reliving the 60s is also getting a bit tiresome, even for those of us who liked the music.
Changing a party’s principles and praxis is hard, but there are modern-day examples and really, if a party is failing it’s the only viable place to start.
Ariel –
With all respect, the principles outlined by the Agile Alliance work as well or often better – in a business context.
A.L.
There is evidence of serious rent seeking (using government to enhance profits) on the part of big pharma.
Yes, they’re called “patents.”
Seriously, principles are good, and the Dems do seem to lack them. But “weak against the strong” is far more difficult than it sounds, and the pharma example is the perfect example of why: profits finance the creation of miracle drugs. How do we balance reasonable prices for the “little guy” against getting new drugs to cure the little guy’s fatal disease?
How to balance low prices and scarcity against high prices and abundance? Which one is on the side of the weak?
What I’d like to see from both parties, but especially the Dems, is the notion that the world is complicated and all actions have unintended consequences. A party that’s willing to publicly air the pros and cons of its policy and claim that the pros outweigh the cons would win my respect and trust rather quickly.
Great discussion. I think the left in general needs a new analysis. The liberal consensus since WW2 became so much the common sense of our politics that conservatives have had a heck of a time dislodging even its most hoary chestnuts. Full disclosure: I’m a mugged liberal and I think we are a long way from seeing a new liberal analysis free of Marxist ideas that haven’t worked out, but there is some movement. I agree Clinton made a start and there has been a reaction to that by the left of the party demanding the status quo ante. I don’t think that will work out for them any better than it has worked on the right for Pat Robertson. Read Blair’s recent address to the Labour party – I think he has moved beyond Clinton in trying to articulate a new left. He says the left has to go back to their values which is a lot like what Armed Liberal is saying. Do that, rethink the ideology, and stop pushing policies that we should all have recognised don’t work – and there is a chance for a revitalised and healthy left. Conservatives wont agree with a lot of what Blair says – which is as it should be – but they will at least have the fun of encountering something new from the left. The whole thing is at: http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php?id=news2005&ux_news%5Bid%5D=ac05tb&cHash=d8353c3d74
Here is a sample:
“The temptation is to use Government to try to protect ourselves against the onslaught of globalisation by shutting it out; to think we protect a workforce by regulation; a company by Government subsidy; an industry by tariffs.
It doesn’t work today.
Because the dam holding back the global economy burst years ago.
The competition can’t be shut out, it can only be beaten.
And the greatest error progressive politics can make, is, to think that somehow this more open and liberal world makes our values redundant, that the choice is either to cling onto the European social model of the past; or be helpless, swept along by the flow.”
The principles you are looking for have already been set down countless times. They are all over our founding documents, all over collateral writings, all over think tank publications, and practically jump out at you in Presidential speeches.
They are:
1. Freedom and Limited Government–this principle is probably the first principle of our nation. We are a people who would rather be free and fail than be ruled and succeed.
From this you get a whole bunch of policy from first principles. Get rid of victimless crimes, for it is not the job of government to determine the good life for its citizens. Get rid of subsidies. Create a market for education. Balance the budget and bring back the idea of opportunity cost and resource scarcity to Congress.
Within this idea of limited government is the notion that certain things exist which only a government can do. Among these are border control, public order and safety, national defense, public infrastructure. Focus on these, leave the rest to the citizens.
2. All men created equal–this does not mean that all men will end up equal. It is simply a statement of worth, of human value and not of economic value. The government should ensure an equal playing field, and should not bother itself when the game doesn’t end up tied.
So another imperative is to end identity politics that are based on trivial characteristics. Read case law if you want to see how far we’ve come in equality. We no longer need a Black Caucus, Women’s Caucus, etc. Be the party that brings this up, and if you are well armed with argument from principle you will win the majority of the American people. We are tired of race-baiting, tired of the industry it has created. Put the focus where it should be, on poverty and culture, on opportunity and choice, and you will succeed as a party.
3. Optimism–we are an optimistic people. Cease the doom and gloom oratory and you will find yourself already with one foot in the door of electoral success. Out-Reagan Reagan in praise for this country, where we’ve come from and where we are going. Al Gore wants us to believe we are hollowed out. Tell the American people the truth: we’ve never been stronger.
4. Responsibility and Honesty–put the responsibility of choice back with the American citizen. Remind the people of consequences. Make it clear that a nation of free people must necessarily be a nation of responsible people. Be honest about cause and effect. Make more choices available for the downtrodden, like classes on financial planning and education, but make it clear that the final step must be taken by the citizen. Focus on parents. Speak out against illegitimacy. Focus on education.
Dismantle teacher unions that do not hold the teachers accountable. If we must keep the public education system, structure pay on performance and competence, using tests and evaluations by students and faculty. Update inner-city classrooms first by bringing in technology and live-feeds from teachers that know what they are talking about. Have the teacher in the classroom function as a disciplinarian until she can pass to the next pay-grade. Use Guliani’s broken windows policy for the poorest schools. Broadcast it loud and often that parents and kids that ignore the education opportunity supplied by the government have no reason to complain when they never leave the projects. Responsibility means having the freedom to fail. Be honest about it. Be forceful, because we want productive citizens, not complacent dependents.
5. Capitalism–a rising tide lifts all boats. Cease class warfare rhetoric, and stop redistributing wealth. Campaign and actually accomplish a flat or fair tax overhaul. Allow the top of society to pull up the rest, by investment and job creation, and trust to the good nature of America to provide money to charities. Instead of taking money away by force, appeal to unity and community.
Reinstate a 50% estate tax. If we want to focus on responsibility, discouraging second and third generation complacency for the top of society would be a good place to start. There is nothing wrong with giving back to a society that supported you throughout your life.
Markets, markets, markets. One reason education functions so poorly is that the innovative dynamism of the American people has yet to be unleashed on the problem. The reason is that public-financed education skews the market and creates an artificial center of gravity for demand and supply. Create incentives and opportunities for innovators in the field of education, and watch how fast improvements are made.
6. A more perfect union–Focus on the American experience. Bring more people together by creating more incentives and more opportunities for service abroad. There is nothing that makes you appreciate this country more than seeing how other people live. Peace Corps, Armed Services, Colonial Affairs, whatever we can come up with to get our young people to experience being American.
Tax free pay for 2 or 4 years in the service of your choice, deposited in a bank account of your choice, would be an excellent incentive for our young people. Free college education on top of that and our services would be busting at the seams. Imagine starting out life at 22 with $100,000 in the bank and four fast years of growing up abroad. We live longer now, there is no reason why this is a bad idea.
Remember that the American experiment is an experiment, that it is something precious and unique. Use the principles we’ve been given, and forget the siren song of Europe, and the Democrats could be great once again.
As to Carville’s comment on narrative, use the Reagan model. Do not argue for something because it is a good idea, though it may be one, argue for it because it is American.
You’ll find this paradigm tends to limit what you can argue for, which is something the Democrats, and the Big Government Republicans for that matter, desperately need to understand.
Government is not here to heal your hurts and eliminate pain. It is here as Atlas.
I question the initial premise. Seems to me the Democrats are all about principle, but what they lack is clearly articulated policy. Bush has pretty clear policy:
National Defense-Fight terrorism in the places that create it, and change those places so they don’t.
Economy-Keep taxes low to stimulate growth.
Public Welfare-Encourage property ownership with Retirment accounts. Relieve the health care burden with a perscription drug benefit.
Education-Establish national standards of performance and hold local school systems accountable with testing and financial incentives.
People debate whether those and other policies are wise, but they are clearly articulated policies. But by contrast, what alternative policies do Democrats offer? Besides ‘that won’t work’ the most clearly articulated policy from the left in the last election was “better a ham sandwich than Bush”…. but people don’t want a ham sandwich. They want a plan.
The problem isn’t articulating principle. Left is great about principle: “we’re for freedom, we’re for peace, we’re for equality, we’re for jobs and fair wages, we’re for affordable housing and health care” all that is easy to say, and the left is really really good at saying it, but when asked the question: “OK… How?” Then you either get a diatribe about how not to do it, an incomprehensable essay which sounds like doubletalk, or something which boils down to ‘the same way those guys want to do it, but trust us, we’ll be better at it’.
Developing clearly stated alternative policies. That’s what Dems need to get out there, and until they do, it doesn’t matter how bad GOP policies are, they’ll still look better than a ham sandwich.
The thing is, this generation of democrats, or at least liberals simply dont believe in any of that. The rising tide lifts all boats, that is undeniable, but neither is it their goal. Ending the tide so that the sea is placid is what they seek. Impossible? Of course. Ultimately self defeating? You bet. But thats the point, liberalism in its current form doesnt seek prosperity, it seeks uniformity. An even ‘equal’ distribution of suffering.
Seth: “Seems to me the Democrats are all about principle, but what they lack is clearly articulated policy.”
Well, principles may evolve over time, but they don’t change every four years, or every time there’s a new CNN/Gallup poll. They aren’t any different under a Republican administration than they are under a Democratic one.
So, what were those principles again?
Actually, the philosophical tradition of American liberalism flows out of Utilitarianism and Pragmatism, which are all about the triumph of expediency over principle. So if Democrats have been historically bereft of principle you can blame John Dewey, not Karl Marx.
Preventing any current “principled” Democratic position is the Kerry Paradox (pointed out by Dick Morris): A Democrat can’t get elected without defining himself somehow, by stating some sort of belief or principle. But the principle must be acceptable both to the Democratic base and to the rest of the voters. Because the Democratic base is so far out of it, this is totally impossible.
As for articulating policies, I’M GETTING REALLY TIRED OF DEMOCRATS CLAIMING THAT THEY CAN’T ARTICULATE THEIR POLICIES. Try using Mister Tongue and Mister Lips. And stop listening to that mumbling clod Al Franken, who is obviously setting a bad example.
“I’M GETTING REALLY TIRED OF DEMOCRATS CLAIMING THAT THEY CAN’T ARTICULATE THEIR POLICIES.”
Amen. You cant very well claim Bush is a mumbling bumbling idiot Texan that has whipped you for 6 years because he is _more articulate_.
Heh, Glen, you start off sounding like you dispute me but end up agreeing with me. Maybe I needed to be more clear what I meant by “all about principle”. I meant they’re very vocal and rhetroically skilled about sending the message they’re pro-good and anti-bad. But push for more substance than that, and they flounder.
The main problem with the Dems is the control of the 1968 Generation pushing lifestyle issues: gay marriage, gays in the military, abortion, civil rights for felons, internationalism, belief in the UN as a magic wand, “negotiation,” etc.
Zell Miller’s Project Hope Scholarship has been around for years (B students or better get a free ride at state institutions). Rahm Emmanuel has suggested this go nationwide … to resounding silence. Instead Dems are focusing on eliminating mortgage deductions from taxes. Protecting the rights of paroled child molesters (overturning various Megan’s Laws). Railing against suburbia and the private auto while not building transportation systems that benefit middle class commuters (because light rail is “racist” according to the LA Bus Riders Union).
Ordinary people vote against Dems because their interests: public safety for themselves and their children; home ownership; college affordability; and the freedom to live where they want are all opposed by Dems.
Dems have constructed a fairly stable and successful alliance of minority leaders such as Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson who turn out poor minority urban voters, with wealthy lifestyle liberals concerned over gay rights, abortion, etc. and also with “morally improving” the middle class by forcing them to live the way the wealthy would prefer them to live. At it’s worst this is akin to Barbara Streisand lecturing folks on line drying clothes from her manicured Malibu estate.
So my dissent is this is not a failure of policy or communication of policy, but focus on lifestyle issues and wealth-transfers of the electoral coalition of Dems. This isn’t likely to change until something catastrophic disrupts this coalition and forces realignment of forces. After 1968 Dems ceased being about the middle class white voter and instead broadly attacked this voter on economic and lifestyle fronts. I don’t see this changing any time soon. PMI stuff I think is irrelevant; Dems ARE very good at delivering PRECISELY what their voters want in the way that they want it. Dems customers are very satisfied. Which is a massive turn-off to middle class voters.
AL, I was joking about adopting GOP principles.
The rest was for real though. Bottom line example: until the Dems can be a party that’s right on school choice, they’re clearly unserious.
On November 4, 2004, I wrote an essay “Why we lost the election”:http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~kuipers/opinions/why-we-lost.html that addresses some specific aspects of this question.
It still seems useful to me.
Armed Liberal,
From what you’ve posted about the Agile Alliance, I would probably agree with you. The important thing is a balance between the two characteristics and where you fall out on each one. Some things can work very well if they’re centrally built such as key infrastructure (highways, telecom) – at least at first, when there are high capital barriers. The important thing is that, if something is centrally managed (PMI style) that there be accountability.
This is less of an issue in the Agile Alliance method – the problem, at least from a corporate perspective, is that Agile Alliance methods cannot be perfectly counted on, since they depend on each player acting appropriately – but issues of timing may not be adequate.
Right now, I am in the process of coordinating a major action for a corporation. We are leaning toward the PMI style in that we have a set of detailed actions associated with each player. But we also have said that we expect things to go wrong and that people should take the initiative – that we would like some emergent behavior as well.
In short, then, it is not really black and white but much more emergent. At least in my experience…
“_confer_”:http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4896
For at least the last three years, the Democrats and their party have just plain been nasty, personally, and I think most American voters don’t want to associate themselves with such small mean people.
— Michael Moore ambushing Charlton Heston (who has Alzheimers)
— Daily Koz cheering when American soldiers are killed.
— Nancy Pelosi — ditto
— Ted Kennedy — a murderer and a rape enabler who has turned into Foghorn Leghorn
— Dan Rather and all his MSM buddies who never met a lie they wouldn’t print
— John Kerry, rat-fink, gigolo, snitch, coward, loves the French more than he loves America
— Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Barbra Streisand, et Hollywood al: *all* ashamed of America and Americans.
*ALL* of these Democratic Party spokespeople have repeatedly told me, an American voter, how ashamed they are of my country. How much they despise the place that I hold dear and how much they want to change what I think needs to be protected.
Now you can *say* all you want to what the different policies and nuances and goals *should* be. But what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears is a bunch of nasty, whining, shallow, greedy elitists who insist on lecturing me about how bad and stupid and ingrateful I am.
What I see, also, is them cheering when brave men and women die honorable deaths, taking cowardly pot-shots at people who can’t fight back like Charlton Heston or our soldiers overseas, and embarrassing my country in front of the world for apologizing for EVERYthing to everyone outside the country while sneering at the people within the country who actually make it work.
And *this* is what you want me to vote for??? I wouldn’t even consider it until the Democrats stop acting like snivelling gangbangers and start acting a little bit more like honorable Eagle Scouts and actually get your intellectually elite hands dirty.
I want to reinforce Jim Rockford’s comment re the 1968 generation. I was in the middle of that. Abby Hoffman stayed at my house in Chicago in ’68. I was asked for a place to crash because I had been part of the NY art world before going to Chicago – my NY art friends evidently knew some NY political types and I got mentioned. I THOUGHT I SHOULD be on Hoffman’s side, but I found that I wanted nothing to do with him and what he was doing. Rioting as I recall. I would acknowledge his presence and avoid conversation taking refuge in my role as family man with a full time job. I didn’t understand this at the time, but my true feelings have emerged and they are just about like the post immediately above this one by NahnCee. Now I know WHY I want NOTHING to do with these people. I don’t know if I am a conservative or a liberal any more, but I know I am NOT like that part of the left in America or, for that matter, here in Australia. I notice my comment re Blair sunk beneath the waves like it was off topic..I don’t think it was. I’m may well be missing something, but I think he is showing the left a way forward that involves acknowledging the obvious and trying to create a new analysis based on core values instead of just wanting to go back to the past.
Igude,
Yes, that is what Blair is trying to do. Bill Clinton was, in part, derivative of that intellectual effort as well as allied to it.
How successful Blair’s effort ultimately proves to be at resolving the left’s key conundrums is another matter, because it still leaves them without an underlying ideology that makes sense post-Marxism. But when opposed by conservatism without a compass, it has swept the field.
Blair’s “Third Way” is certainly an improvement on the Euro-sclerosis prescription (Tom Friedman on Tim Russert the other night was utterly scathing – asked what he thought of Europe, he replied that it was his favourite museum), anyway, which ticks away steadily waiting to implode. When it does implode, the question of which ideas fill the vacuum will be a very consequential one.
_With all respect, the principles outlined by the Agile Alliance work as well or often better – in a business context._
Depends a whole lot on what you’re trying to accomplish. I’ve done it both ways, highly structured project mgmt for mission critical defense applications AND for enterprise-wide integrated application infrastructure, very agile for more tactical systems or for user interface level issues.
The key to the information revolution is that infotech allows raw information and summaries to be spread throughout the organization at little incremental cost. This flattens hierarchies significantly (but doesn’t eliminate the need for some decisionmaking structure). If you are the military or a corporation, dispersed decisionmaking works best when there is a common set of goals, a shared culture and a common vocabulary and tactical operating procedures – i.e. when there is agreement on the effects we wish to create and on some shared mechanisms for coordination. Set those in place, step back and let good people, well trained, take initiative.
Finally, a key factor in military and corporate success with agile systems (of all kinds, not just infotech) is some sort of After Action Review that focuses on what went well or failed, not on fingerpointing.
The problem I have with the last 30+ years of Democratic policies is that they do exactly the opposite. Instead of seeking to *enable individuals* they seek to establish more and more rigid *command structures*.
Wrong direction – they’re swimming against massive technical, social and economic tides. Not a winning approach.
AL, I’d restate your goal in a small but significant way:
_help the weak, the poor, the few *to help themselves*_
As a beneficiary of programs like subsidized loans for college, I know how much we as a society benefit from help to those who start life without certain resources. But I’m also struck by the way in which Democratic policies, judicial rulings and legislation/regulations seem regularly to respect the ability of people to choose, say, crude coarse acts in public or the burning of the flag, but often do not seem to regard the same people as being capable of making good choices in other areas of their lives – or subject to being responsible for their choices and actions.
Bernie
I read your essay and it had a fair prescription, stop denigrating religion. But it contained a fallacy. We do not vote against our economic self interest by voting for Bush, low taxes and economic growth are in my interest. Less governmental regulation, free trade our in my interest. Investing part of social security in Private accts is in my interest. School choice is in my interest. At least republicans pay lip service to some of these. Democrats do not. I guess they feel we are to stupid to actively manage our own lives and make choices. Until democrats figure that out, they will never get my vote.
I meant Benjamin, not bernie
sorry about that
Q: How Do Democrats Get To The White House?
A: First, step back and watch from a safe distance while the Republican house of cards collapses in onto itself.
Then, make sure everyone has as much information on the corruption and greed, cronyism and incompetence, false-idealogy and pandering, corporatism and mendacity that defines modern day Republican “conservatives”.
The Big Principle you seek? Simple. Why would anyone trust Republicans for anything? Democrats don’t have to look GOOD on the issues, only BETTER. And I would say that shouldn’t be too hard to do at this particular moment in history.
“But “weak against the strong” is far more difficult than it sounds, and the pharma example is the perfect example of why: profits finance the creation of miracle drugs. How do we balance reasonable prices for the “little guy” against getting new drugs to cure the little guy’s fatal disease?”
The problem with “weak against the strong” is that it does not involve a moral element. What if the weak are wrong and the strong are right? And vice versa? Putting the “weak against the strong” implies that there is something morally dubious by nature about the strong, but in addition to hurting the weak, then can also protect the weak. Instead of setting opposing groups up in conflict, how about justice for all? Equal treatment before the law for the poor as well as the rich? Easier said than done obviously.
“In the context of those principles, and not in lieu of them – there are other principles that defend the weak against the strong, the poor against the rich, the few against the many.
But what if the strong need to be protected from the weak? Think French Revolution. What if the rich need to be protected from the poor? Think of the insane crime rate in NY in the 70s and 80s. What about protecting the many against the few? Hello, Terrorism. Maybe there’s something wrong with these binary categories. Maybe instead of shoving people into categories, we should look at the situation and determine who is right and who is wrong? What is moral and what is not? And recognize that just because someone may have less money or more money, etc, doesn’t make them more moral or better or automatically right?
“Here’s Your Answer”, I will avoid demonstrating the hypocrisy of your alleged description of Republicans and just say that you are giving exactly the wrong prescription. You are just repeating the “We are not Republicans” mantra that is spectacularly failing Democrats right now.
Rob Lyman,
It is not the patents I object to.
For instance the sale of stimulants for various maladies (according to patietnts they work) is big business. Hence the war on meth. BTW pot also works for some with those problems. Hence the war on pot.
Or take ADD/ADHD and anxiety problems. Anxiety medicines are a $42 bn a year business. Pot is an anti-anxiety medicine. Hence the war on pot.
Addiction or Self Medication?
A well known secret
I’d say that the reason people don’t see this is that people don’t really see the war on drugs as about drugs. They see it as a war on bad people. It really is a war on unpatented drugs.
Who benefits from a war on unpatented drugs? Why the people who make patented drugs of course (and quite a few others).
Thanks for the reply Joe Katzman. I agree Blair hasn’t gotten there because he hasn’t developed an truly post Marxist analysis. But I think he has clearly gotten further than Bill Clinton. I also think Hillary has a fairly good chance of becoming the next President – I hope I’m wrong – and she seems to me to be more of an old fashioned liberal that her husband. I believe that isn’t going to work for most the reasons that have been so well articulated in this thread. But she and Bill are friends with Blair and I don’t see any reason why she wont take a page from Blair’s book and launch her own equivalent of ‘New Labour’. If she really moves to the center she will give the Republican party some real competition, but obviously will have trouble with her base just as Blair does. Unless Republicans self destruct like the Tories she will have a much less room to move to the right than Blair has had. Bottom line, I want to see two healthy parties as America goes through a difficult time in history.
M Simon,
Well, I have my doubts that the average person who smokes pot or does meth is doing so to self-medicate for some treatable medical condition, unless that condition is “going to Pink Floyd concerts” or “going to SF-area gay raves.” I grant you that my experience is purely anecdotal, but it goes rather counter to that claim.
And I don’t think you need to own Merck stock to think that people with genuine mental problems probably should get a prescription rather than buying their treatment on a street corner, or even a liquor store. If one of my friends was “self-medicating” in that way, I’d try to put a stop to it.
None of which is to say that I think the war on drugs is a good idea. Just that I think there’s a reason they call them “recreational” drugs.
I’d like align myself with Mr. Jim Rockford’s comments regarding 68’ers.
Robin/Robert;
Thanks, I’m sure most other Dems will agree that we really should take the advice of a Right Wing Bush enabler/criminal enterprise supporter.
Any other pearls of wisdom you’d like to bestow on us poor, stupid Democrats?
My opinion? You Rethugs are running scared, and are afraid Dems might actually give you all the sound thumping you deserve for being duped into supporting politicians who are trying to bring our Democracy to its knees for their own personal gain.
Wimps. You think you can spend the last 6 years sucker punching every Dem you can get a swing at and then cry “mercy” when it looks like you’re opponents are getting up from their knees?
We hold you and other Bush supporters responsible for the horrible chasm we are quickly falling into. Our love of country dictates that we act to prevent this from ever happening again. And one way to do this is to make sure the people who are responsible for this are punished.
So screw you, you got it coming, so get ready for it.