An Uncommon Vision

By Mimikatz

John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira have published the last installment of their four-part series entitled "The Politics of Definition, and it is very good.  They might have led with this installment, which contains their prescriptions, and then defended it using the poll data in the first two installments, to avoid the impression that they were concoting a poll-tested formula, but no matter.  This installment clearly lays out their vision of a progressive "common good" politics, and how it can be adapted by a candidate to fit the candidate's own priorities and values, and local conditions.

I an earlier post I alluded to their vision of the common good, and my own understanding of that term as the basic Democratic vision of looking out for the underdog and uniting in a larger enterprise that benefits the many and not the few.  In that post, and in the discussion on a post by Emptypockets we also explored the deleterious impact of 25 years of GOP-extolled competitiveness, materialsm and selfishness on our public and private lives.  Halpin and Teixeira invoke these themes as well.

In a nutshell, here is their prescription:

The politics of definition rests on the empirical and social reality that both passion and pragmatism must be employed to string together a coalition out of the fractious political dynamics of America today. We must find ways to harness both forces to build and sustain a progressive coalition out of a disjointed, nonideological political culture where many groups do not share common traits, beliefs or desires.

(snip)

The politics of definition is grounded on five postulates that we believe can serve as the basis for making sound decisions about how best to organize progressive campaigns and present a coherent identity to voters. We then provide an overview of core progressive values and beliefs that can serve as the organizing principles of long-term campaigns and then sketch out how a politics of definition approach would like in terms of economic, social, and national security policy.

The five postulates for the politics of definition -- the guideposts, questions, and “lines in the sand,” so to speak, that need to be drawn out in order to craft better politics -- are as follows:

(1) The starting point for all political organizing and campaigns should be: “What are my core beliefs and principles and how do I best explain them to supporters and skeptics alike?”

(2) Every political battle, both proactive and defensive, should represent a basic statement of progressive character and present a clear, concise contrast with conservatives. Do not blur lines.

(3) All issue campaigns and agenda items are not equal. Progressives should focus their efforts on issues that can simultaneously strengthen the base and appeal to centrist voters. Progressives must be willing to make sacrifices and tradeoffs -- in terms of coalition building and budgetary concerns -- to achieve their most important agenda items.

(4) Escalate battles that expose the extremism of the right or splinter their coalition. [Follow-up: When confronted with the right’s social, cultural, or national security agenda, the absolute worst response is to fail to combat these caricatures or to explain one’s position directly to voters, regardless of the popularity of the position.]

(5) Every political action should highlight three essential progressive attributes: a clear stand on the side of those who lack power, wealth or influence; a deep commitment to the common good; and a strong belief in fairness and opportunity for all.

The third part of their series contrasts "mobilization politics," or the "rally-the-base, no-holds-barred" approach advocated at DailyKos and elsewhere, with the "politics of inoculation," what its detractors call "Republican Lite."  Halpin & Teixeira come down much closer to mobilization.  They take the Inoculators to task for their hostility to Democratic activists except as a source of funds, for the lack of contrast their positions produce and their seeming repudiation of core Democratic values.  But they also admonish the Mobilizers to understand that progressives are only about 20% of the population, and even if their share of the electorate is growing, it is not nearly enough for a majority outside some enclaves (where many of us reside).  Reaction for its own sake is counter-productive; only where it is yoked to both core Democratic values and voters' values, as with the fight over Social Security, can it both succeed and advance the progressive agenda and the common good.

Their specific recommendations, in both policy and strategy, worth reading in their entirety, emphasize opportunity, security and fairness.  Theirs is not a plea for particular groups to submerge their issues in the name of the common good.  It is really directed, I think, at those who are personally in a position to redirect their own energies and resources away from individual material and professional success and toward a larger vision of community. 

The paper defends "common good progressivism" as right, necessary and in tune with where a substantial part of the electorate is going:

After years of conservative dominance defined by rampant individualism, corruption and greed in American life, the public is ready for a higher national purpose and a greater sense of service and duty to something beyond self-interest alone. The common good represents a clear break with the conservative vision of America as an aggregation of individuals pursuing their own needs with little concern for what unites us a people or for the impacts of our actions on the whole of society. It marks the end of a politics that leaves people to rise and fall on their own without considering the consequences of such actions on peoples’ everyday lives. The common good approach recognizes that government is an essential tool for helping people to pursue their dreams while providing a solid safety net for those left behind. A focus on the common good requires citizens and their leaders to pursue policies and programs that benefit everyone, not just a select few with disproportionate access to the levers of power and influence over decision making.

Common-good progressivism has both personal and governmental requirements. People must assume responsibility for their actions, treat others with respect and decency, and serve their families and communities. Businesses need to assume responsibilities beyond securing the bottom line. They need to take into consideration their communities, workers, and surrounding environments as well as their shareholders when making decisions. Government needs to pursue policies that benefit all and require sacrifices from all. Government should not serve as the defender of narrow group or corporate agendas and should instead seek to protect public goods that promote the national interest.

Halpin & Teixeira produce data that the public shares this view.  Somewhat surprisingly, all segments seem to have a nostalgia for the 1950s:

Strikingly, research conducted by Westhill Partners for the Center for American Progress in the fall of 2003 found that Americans view the 1950s as the most idyllic decade in our nation’s history (this was true even among African-Americans). Despite clear problems in addressing the status of racial minorities and women during the 1950s, Americans give three primary reasons for honoring this time period: “(1) a strong belief that community spirit -- ‘we’re all in this together’ -- is fundamentally American; (2) nostalgia for the real or perceived ‘close-knit’ community of the past; and (3) a conviction that decline in community is the primary cause of crime and the erosion of public safety.” [] Americans also believe in this period as a time when neighbors looked out for one another, parents taught their children right and wrong, and kids understood their place in the world and respected their elders. The 1950s represented for these participants a time not only of informal commitment and service to their communities, but also a more formal commitment to uphold their duties as citizens.

Lest anyone (especially those of us who truly suffocated under the conformity of the 1950s and early 1960s) think they are advocating a return to Ward and June Cleaver, that is not the message. Rather, it is a call to see in politics an opportunity to realize something larger than individual self-aggrandizement, to think of and work for the community, the environment, and the future.  In short, a politics than can both inspire and improve the lives of the vast majority of Americans.

Comments

[Mimikatz]

The article is a fairly specific set of policy and strategy prescriptions, despite my concentration on the more philosophical aspects.

On the war they could be sharper, although they say:

"First, progressives must constantly remind Americans of conservatives’ inability to produce a safer world environment . . .

"Second, progressives should repeatedly remind Americans that the Iraq War equals conservative failure and dishonesty.
Progressives must take a strong stand against an open-ended war in Iraq that is depleting our military, draining resources, testing our global authority, and exposing us to greater terrorist dangers across the globe. Progressives should argue for a clear exit strategy, with measurable markers of progress, and a timeframe that brings home all but the most essential troops in Iraq -- those necessary to protect our embassies, conduct critical counterterrorism measures, and continue ongoing military training -- as quickly as possible. This redeployment of troops should allow the U.S. to focus on real terrorist threats and get the targets off the backs of our troops.

"Progressives should state clearly that there will be no long-term military bases in Iraq and that our stay in Iraq will be temporary to help ensure stability during the democratic transition. We should demand full accountability for the misuse of pre-war intelligence and the absence of weapons of mass destruction; the billions of dollars in taxpayer money squandered in Iraq or lost through corruption; torture and abusive treatment of detainees; and failure to provide adequate plans for the war by military and civilian officials alike."

[Meteor Blades]

Excellent, as before, Mimikatz.

There's so much to discuss here, but let me just note that last bit about the 1950s. The wonderfulness of that era IS a myth, of course, inflated in some people's memories (actual or vicarious) because it was sandwiched between the difficulties of the '30s, the horrors of the '40s and the upheaval of the '60s. The truth can be found in our real experiences - as women, gays, people of color, gray-flanneled organization men, atomic veterans - and in books like Stephanie Coontz's fine The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap.

But if Democrats could somehow come up with a means to transform both the myth and reality of now-trampled community spirit into something actual for the still-new century, I think they'd have a message and a mission that would resonate.

[emptywheel]

This is somewhat tautological (and I haven't read the article yet), but the 1950s was the last time we had a national myth that unified most of the country. That is, there was no question of common good--the myth of America was enough.

Then again, it's also significantly before the quality of life began to fall off in the 1970s.

Anywa, just my first impressions. I'll come back and comment again when I've read the article and can be a little more intelligent.

[Mimikatz]

Parts are a myth, and parts aren't. There was a sense of community, but it could all too easily become stultifying conformity that made life difficult for people who were "different" in any way. But it is still true that in those days a CEO was content to make 40 or 50 times what the average worker made and he typically contributed to the community, sitting on the United Way or YMCA board, or perhaps even the local school board.

When the Reaganites began glorifying greed and competition in the 1980s, and seducing the upper middle class away from community service and into consumerism, we also saw the emergence of the celebrity CEO, the cult of winners, a resurgence of conspicuous consumption on a grand scale.

The problem of valuing life in terms of the accumulation of "stuff" is that the Jack Welches and Dennis Kozlowskis and Bernie Ebberses will always take far more than their fair share, leaving only the crumbs for everyone else. Millions of people are left seeing a way of life portrayed on TV as "average" which is, in reality, far beyond the mean, and idealize those with lots more.

I understand that wages may have been "artificially" high in the post-war period because only the US had much industrial capacity, but it is also undeniable that in the last 15-20 years all the gains have gone to those at the top, and there was nothing preordained about that--it was the result of conscious policy choices.

[kaleidescope]

What Tuxiera and Halpin say sounds plausible to me. But the elephant in the room that they don't talk about is the Democratic Party's addiction to corporate (read Republican) money. In this sense Gray Davis (and not Harry Truman) is the paradigm of the current Democratic Party. How can the Party embrace the Common Good and a Progressive agenda IN SUBSTANCE while still being dependent on funding from Viacom and GE?

Here's a California example. People here in Humboldt County were fighting land rape by Houston based (and consumate Republican friend of Bush) Charles Hurwitz and the company he took over, the Pacific Lumber Company, the owner of the largest remaining stands of unprotected ancient Redwood forests on the planet. Line civil service employees in the Department of Fish and Game ("DFG") were opposing Pacific Lumber timber harvest plans because they were destroying watershed salmon depend on. Gray Davis had dinner with Hurwitz. Hurwitz contributed $50,000 to whatever Democratic fund Davis recommended. Shortly thereafter, Susan Kennedy, Davis's hatchetwoman, sat down with DFG employees and invited Jared Carter -- Pacific Lumber's general counsel. Kennedy -- a Democrat -- told these civil service employees their careers would be in the toilet if they opposed any more Pacific Lumber timber harvest plans.

Mouthing the Common Good will not cut it because people are used to seeing all politicians do that. People know bullshit when they hear it. They heard it from Clinton when he was running for office. And they saw what he did after Clinton had an intimate chat with Robert Rubin about the need to placate bond holders.

No one is addressing how the Party can be competitive in the absence of corporate money, nor are they addressing how the Party could survive a purge (and that's what it would be) of its corporate DLC lackeys.

So are we talking marketing slogans or what?

[kaleidescope]

Oh, and I forgot to add that Big Daddy Jesse Unruh said that, "money is the mother's milk of politics."