July 14, 2004
IT'LL NEVER FLY:
How Can the Democrats Win?: Start with big ideas and long-term vision (Rick Perlstein , Boston Review)
The New Deal, inaugurated in the 1930s, succeeded in some goals at first and failed in others, but always instilled its vision in the next generation of Democrats. Some parts of the vision—health care for the aged under Social Security—took 30 years to reach fruition. And until the Democrats abandoned universal health care in the 1990s, they’d been trying for almost 60 years. But after their electoral traumas of the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s, jettisoning such dinosaurs seemed to be what the market demanded.We are left with a political party whose fixation on shifts in public opinion can be hawk-like, one that concertedly questions core principles in the interests of flexibility. This may have helped in the short term. And certainly, elections in America being winner-take-all propositions, the short term is of paramount importance. Nothing I’m going to say should be interepreted as deviating from a fundamental commitment to beating George W. Bush at the ballot box in November—this is imperative to the future health of the United States. But beating George W. Bush in November is not the only problem Democrats face. Another, the one that is my focus here, is that Democrats sometimes win their immediate battles in a way that brings them perilously close to making Boeing’s kind of mistake. How, instead, can Democrats begin winning in a way that puts them back on the road to their former position as the dominant party in the United States?
The year 1977 was the Democrats’ most bountiful in terms of a key indicator: party identification. Fifty-one percent of Americans called themselves Democrats. Only 21 percent called themselves Republicans. Now, a just about equal number call themselves Democrats and Republicans. Coincident with this shift was a breathtaking historical reversal: the Republican Party became the party of great dreams, with a long-term project, “conservatism,” that Republicans have stuck with even when it seemed foolhardy, even when its individual tenets were demonstrably unpopular.
Why does this matter, as long as the Democrats are still able to win plenty of elections? It matters for a bedrock political-science reason: party identification is the most reliable predictor of whether someone will vote for a given candidate.3 It is a mighty store of value, party identity, “which we now know is a form of social identity,” notes the Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, “not unlike ethnicity or race, with considerable durability over time.”
The fewer people who identify themselves as Democrats, the harder you have to work—and the greater the cost—to get them to vote Democratic in any particular election. You have to play by stock-ticker rules; you have to cater to their short-term whims.
So when does the Democratic Party end up looking like Boeing—so hollowed out by short-term thinking, so stripped of people proud to identify with it, that it can’t compete in the big leagues at all?
Let me step back briefly. We are in the middle of a presidential election now, and I pray that the Democrats win it. But I’m not offering advice here as to how. Some people say that the Democratic Party needs to start “getting tough”—to fight back as partisans, as the Republicans fight as partisans; that they need to think more in terms of politics, not just policy; that they need bolder leaders, better slogans, bigger ideas; that they have to learn how to mobilize their “base.” And all these things surely are true.4
But my argument is about what the Democrats have to do to win the elections of 2018. Why 2018? It’s an off-year election. Presidential elections are short-term projects. For the Democrats to “win” in 2018, they will need more than a president in the White House: they will need to take back both houses of Congress. They will need to win back the operational control of the government they enjoyed through much of the 20th century. Then they will once again be the dominant party in American politics. They will have won the war. And they will not win the elections of 2018 without winning many elections along the way.
My argument is structural. It is about time horizons, why a long-term time horizon is valuable in itself. This is an argument for the day after the 2004 vote. If the Democrats lose, as is quite possible, it will be time for a very, very long march and a moment-of-truth decision about what kind of party the Democratic Party is going to be: the party of the stock ticker, as it is now, or the party of the superjumbo, as it was then. If the Democrats win, whatever strategy John Kerry happens to have used during these few months will get reified as the answer for the Democrats: no long-term strategizing will seem necessary. We need to think about 2018 in either event. Which means we need to think big.
Mr. Perlstein is a friend and a smart fellow, but his own analogy effectively disproves his entire essay. The Airbus superjumbo looks more and more like a disaster, an archetypal case of folks building something for themselves, irrespective of the needs and desires of the people who are supposed to use it and who will be affected by it. Indeed, it is precisely like the New Deal/Great Society, an intellectual project which by the mid-70s--when the Democrats peaked and liberals had been in control of all three branches of government for 25 uninterrupted years--was auguring into the ground.
The 20th Century, if it served any useful purpose at all, proved one thing decisively: the superiority of flexible free market solutions over top down statism. The more statist the worse--as in the USSR, China, Nazi Germany, etc.--but even where the hand of state centralization and bureaucratization landed most lightly, as in the U.S., it did terrific damage. The New Democrat/Third Way ideas of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sought to incorporate this understanding into what is still a fairly liberal politics, while the Opportunity Society/compassionate conservatism of George Bush is turning the power of privatization and choice upon the Welfare State itself.
There's room here for a broad societal consensus that while we do generally want the ultimate financial security that is afforded by a social safety net, we also understand that the best way to provide one is by privatizing it to the greatest extent possible. The system should rely more on the fluid stock market model and be less like a superjumbojet built by a few to their own specifications.
Such a market-oriented safety skein should include:
* Privatized Social Security accounts--they'd resemble 401ks/IRAs but with "mandatory contributions", fewer options and means testing.
* Universal Health Savings Accounts--again they'd be mandatory, with the Feds funding them for those who can't afford them.
* Universal education vouchers for K-12--which would be redeemable for any form of schooling-0-including religious or home--that parents choose.
* Individual Unemployment Accounts--modeled on Chile's.
* The Faith Based Initiative--so that most remaining social services would be delivered by private and religious groups, though funded at least in part by tax dollars.
Obviously both political extremes have much to lose by such a vision--the Left would lose state control of most facets of life and the dependency of the citizenry on the state; the Right is appalled by the expense and the mandatory nature of such programs. Indeed, the only ones who stand to gain by it are the American people and the party that emerges as the champion of these salutary reforms.
Meanwhile, Mr. Perlstein and company can sit around the drafting table and try redesigning socialism. I just know it'll work next time....
Posted by Orrin Judd at July 14, 2004 11:35 AMThe year 1977 was the Democrats most bountiful in terms of a key indicator: party identification.
That's also the year the leading edge of the Baby Boom turned 30. Coincidence?
Posted by: Chris B at July 14, 2004 12:20 PMThe New Deal was popular as long as America
had a majority white population, but there
is no way the waining white majority will
continual to support a racially alien minority.
Whites have no qualms about supporting social
largesse when it supports their own kind.
OJ for President!
Posted by: John Resnick at July 14, 2004 1:07 PM"OJ for President!"
Please stop - it's hard enough to live with him now...
You know, with some wood glue and all those books, there's a solution to both problems.
Posting here is pretty much a disqualifier for public office. Er, not that I've spend any time thinking about this.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 14, 2004 1:52 PMThe year 1977 was the Democrats most bountiful in terms of a key indicator: party identification.
Also the first year of the Carter administration--one of our history's darkest periods.
Posted by: Mike Morley at July 14, 2004 2:44 PMThe solution may be "big ideas and long-term vision" but the Democrats are the party of micromanagement and quick fixes before the next election, and the dinosaurs (Leahy, Kennedy, Pelosi, Dodd, Byrd, Daschle, etc.) aren't going to permit a change. Just as the Republicans couldn't change until the Get-along-Go-Along Rockefellers and Michaels* left the scene.
(* Wasn't that the name of the guy from Illionois who preceeded Gingrich as GOP leader?)
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 14, 2004 3:39 PMDr. Judd: Please accept my sincere apology. I don't know what came over me.
(Orrin: ixnay on the ampaigncay)
I told the cranky old biddy she could be Surgeon General....
Posted by: oj at July 14, 2004 4:51 PMI heard the frying pan from here. That's gonna leave a mark.
Posted by: John Resnick at July 14, 2004 5:30 PMOJ for P? I say bring it on! If he gets the GOP nod, seeeing his review of Tom Wolfe's A MAN IN FULL out to the public is enough to ensure another Republican isn't elected president for 30 years.
RP
Posted by: Rick Perlstein at July 14, 2004 6:32 PMActually, I'd prefer OJ get the currently-vacant DCIA post. Lots of clean-up work needed there.
Posted by: John at July 14, 2004 6:58 PMOrrin for President? I'd love it, but, c'mon, we conservatives are always fantasizing and suffer from a chronic inability to face reality.
But I hear Kofi Annan is musing about retirement. Orrin?
Posted by: Peter B at July 14, 2004 9:06 PMRP:
The intersection of the sets of people who would
A) Read that entire review
B) Hugely disapprove of it
C) Be a swing voter
may not be enough to swing the election for dogcatcher.
If I am right (red and over), then Mr. Perlstein has a lot farther to come back from than he currently appreciates. However, I think some things are fairly safe.
First, the structure of the electoral system in the US demands a two party system.
Second, because of the complex thicket of election laws it is almost impossible to start a new party and have it succeed unless one of the old parties collapses.
Third, ideas count, but the student of history knows which ones count more than others.
Some ideas just will not produce winning political parties in the United States. Socialism is one of them. It didn't have much appeal when it was a fresher idea than it is now. And it is a dead-bang looser now. Populism is another. Put a stake through William Jennings Bryan's heart. Sexual minorities are a third. They are icky and a sure route to the basement.
What works in the US is the eternal American debate between Jefferson (small government, libertarian) and Hamilton (active pro-commercial government, communitarian). Both sides of the debate have been defined as conservative because both sides have opposed socialism and populism.
If red and over wins, the Republican Party will swell. My guess is that their naive tendency will be towards the Hamiltonian, because that lets them spend money and engage in projects.
This being the case the Jeffersonian side is open for the Democrats. It will be a somewhat difficult transition for them as they will have to abandon the New Deal, but lets face it America is divided between those people who think that Herbert Hoover was the FBI dude and those who think that he invented the vacuum cleaner. OTOH, they will be able to argue civil liberties and states rights with a straight face.
Mr. Perlstein:
Assuming that we can raid the introduction to your excellent book and get your description of a perfect left-wing candidate out to the public (supports abortion-on-demand, fires Greenspan, cuts military in half, speaks reminiscently of adolescent sexual encounters, etc.), could we possibly persuade you to run for president?
I happen to like the thought of the Republicans still running the country when I "check out" some 60 years from now.
:-)
Posted by: Matt Murphy at July 15, 2004 1:57 AM...and I pray that the Democrats win it.
Well that's a start.
Massive Democratic Party prayer sessions together with the ubiquitous demonization of George Bush, a silent presidential candidate, and a charismatic young VP might just do the trick.
FWIW, Boeing recently began hiring people here in the Seattle area, and orders for its latest plane are said to be strong.
Posted by: Jim Miller at July 15, 2004 9:19 AMOJ, so let me see if I got all this...
The government will mandate that I give some of my money to securities firms to manage for retirement and health costs. They will have deposits in turn secured by the Treasury and they can speculate at will in free and deregulated markets.
Schools will be run by corporations, presumably with a board of directors that can mandate an all non-union workforce. Schools may choose then to invest their resources where it does the most good and, let's face it, some kids are more cost effective to educate than others.
If I am unemployed I can use all the funds in my individual account, provided there are any. If employers make a habit of laying off thousands while their accountants with their freshly-minted MBAs tackle tough learning curves, there is no deterance to encumber them.
If I am poor I will get a housing voucher that I may use to apply for a portion of a bloc grant that flucuates according to the political winds. If the grant has run out, the voucher can be used along with others to create paper mache housing.
I can get soap, soup and salvation through the good folks at the local house of worship if I am properly God fearing. If I am not, than I may go to hell.
After spending five years working in the commodity houses shouting and waving hand signals, I do not particularly relish my rights as a citizen being subordinate to the will of the market in most every aspect. The market can be a loony old coot that suffers spells on some days and talks perfect sense on others. Smart money says you always treat him with a certain respect, like you do a slightly batty old uncle. You don't let him drive to church on Sundays, but you let him complain about your driving from the back seat with a certain amount of toleration.
There are certain things that the Corporatists excel in and certain things they do not. It is truly amazing that there is a privately funded and fabricated spaceship that is shooting to the stars. If we would have waited until it was feasible for the private sector to take on the challenge, we would have lost the missile race and the technology race and forfeited our leadership in the new age. In 1910 most paved roads were toll roads built by private consortiums. It was decided that to increase the flow of goods and commerce this could be a public concern. The American Whigs (remember them?) were behind this. Lincoln was a Whig during the time he served in the House. He then became the first elected Republican president.
Everyone who has ever lived in a condominium knows that there are certain common amenities to be shared and it is necessary to have some say as to how they are managed. Many who have served on a condo board cease to ever contemplate running for public office because they have terrible night sweats and sudden screaming fits. Still it is necessary.
The small individual farmer, the small business owner, the one-man-shop, none of these play on an even field with the Corporatists and their powerful lobbies. They are more revered for their mythic status than their status in the economy. They deserve representation on par with large corporate interests who practically have bought seats in the Legislature. Italy in the 30s actually let corporate interests have seats in their parliament. It was called fascism and it begged to be destroyed.
The Third Way is to balance the corporate, the private (as separate from corporate), and public sectors so that the interests of the people are best served. The people, represented not by corporate lobbies or even political parties necessarily but by our direct involvement, have a say in our common assets.
Instead of employers controlling an individuals access to health care and retirement accounts while forbidding access to collective bargaining, we can collectively bargain via our vote with our public servants to exercise the full weight of our authority--unhindered by corporate control that hides behind the mask of the individual while displaying the powers relative to a nation/state. If 80% percent of the public desire a single-payer health care plan, then they should get it.
The Third Way is not the end of private property or a socialist utopia. It seeks to define where capitalism has a predominant interest and where common interest, or stakeholder interest shall carry porportionate weight. There are some things to precious to be left to the will of the market.
Oh, and Mike: 1977 wasn't the darkest days of our history because of Carter. Rather, Debbie Boone was to blame.