Folks,
An op-ed article entitled “The Dead Center” by Clinton’s Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich in Thursday’s (1/29/04) New York Times -- tries to unravel the philosophical (or strategic) puzzle: How can the Democratic Party be revived?
The author says winning the 2004 presidential election is NOT contingent on the question of whether the moderates or the leftists take control of the Democratic Party.
Rather….
“The real fight is between those who want only to win back the White House and those who also want to build a new political movement -- one that rivals the conservative movement that has given Republicans their dominant position in American politics….a coherent ideology uniting evangelical Christians, blue-collar whites in the South and West, and big business….”
Reich claims Senator Lieberman represents the “centrist” view that only wants to win back the White House; whereas Senators Kerry and Edwards and Governor Dean hold out the promise of being able to inspire a new liberal political movement…IF they listen to Reich.
Well, at least we can see what Reich is getting at --
The Democratic Party USED to represent a movement that was located in what Reich calls the “giant middle and working class” -- the FDR progressive revolution of the 1930’s and 1940’s that lasted to the time of the Great Society. Then the Democratic Party revitalized itself (so to speak) on the wave of the 1960’s New Left and counter-culture movements -- beginning with George McGovern’s candidacy. But this attempt never realized lasting political victory. In fact, it seems this new version of the party ignored the “giant” class altogether. The Carter presidency was a disaster in this matter; Clinton’s moderate holding-action never resurrected the blue-collars for the Democrats, either.
Reich’s solution is to say to the Democratic Party: it must derive “its durability from the clarity of its convictions. And there's no better way to clarify convictions than to hone them in political combat.”
How so? He says:
“Democrats could have responded [to the conservative movement] with bold plans on jobs, schools, health care and retirement security. They could have delivered a strong message about the responsibility of corporations to help their employees in all these respects, and of wealthy elites not to corrupt politics with money. More recently, the party could have used the threat of terrorism to inspire the same sort of sacrifice and social solidarity as Democrats did in World War II -- including higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for what needs doing. In short, they could have turned themselves into a populist movement to take back democracy from increasingly concentrated wealth and power.”
Amazing!
Reich’s words just can’t hide the concept: he wants MORE bureaucratic government social programs -- using money taken from those who’ve been successful in the private sector (that means higher taxes). What’s new about that?
More importantly, Reich is missing a key thought: you can’t create a populist movement from the top down. Politicians clarifying their policies, holding to their convictions, delivering strong messages -- by themselves -- cannot evoke a movement. Magic phrases will not bring the dead to life.
There has to be a LIVING CONNECTION between the desires, hopes, and fears of blue-collar/middle-class voters -- and the policies of the political party in question. The “movement” has to exist FIRST -- and THEN the party has to be able to comprehend and respond. The Ronald Reagan “revolution” was a case in point.
Blue-collar and middle-class workers want job opportunities and education. The individual action of entering the job or business world, becoming an entrepreneur, starting a business, or developing a skill needed in the market -- are obvious ways workers can advance in our society. It’s CONCRETE. Ordinary people can SEE this.
But big government programs -- though they may help people in time of need -- do not thrust blue-collars into a higher class.
Ordinary Americans in the working/middle classes have -- in the last few decades -- resonated to conservative values and politics because they see these views reflected in the realities of their every-day life. The Democratic Party policies of Reich contribute to the warehousing of the poor AND towards the stimulation of the romanticized “consciousness” of the upper cultured classes. But how does that help the workers?
The current Democratic Party has not brought the dead the life.
Another point about those who are so concerned about how tax cuts help the rich and help the poor is that they totally ignore income variation throughout a person's lifetime. Those who earn less money will likely not be earning less money in the future even without government intervention to "improve" their situation. They will earn more money by becoming better educated or better experienced with their job skills. People who argue about how the government should be trying to help the poor completely ignore that income over one's lifetime is not a static value. Indeed, by forcing taxes to be higher on higher incomes, the government is, in effect, contributing to making one's low income to be a static value by punishing them for earning a higher income in the future.
Posted by: Joel Fuhrmann at January 31, 2004 05:14 PM