Got Books?

I find this a pointless discussion. There are some slanders floating around on the right that Democrats have become a party without any ideas or core principles. This theme is now being advanced by liberals as well (see Michael Tomasky's piece here). Tomasky suggests that Democrats have become far too concerned with tactical rather than intellectual concerns. Pandagon could be read to support this view, but I think he might have something a little different in mind - namely our problem is that we are tactically hesitant to deploy "big ideas," not that we don't have them.

Okay, there a few ways I can respond to this assertion. The first is to note the number of important liberal philosophers versus the number of conservative ones. Here we go...

Liberal: Aristotle (sort of), Locke, Hobbes (sort of), Rousseau, Montesquieu, Mill, Rawls, Nussbaum, etc. I could go on awhile.

Conservatives: Burke (sort of), Plato (sort of), Nozick (sort of), Hobbes (sort of).

Now by "sort of" I mean that the thrust of a thinker's work is liberal, but some the details my not be, or the contemporary movement might reject the writer's work. The crucial point to make for the conservative philosophers is that the modern conservative movement would completely repudiate Burke's gradualism, Plato's feminism and communism, Hobbes' atheism, and they forget that Nozick takes most of his libertarian argument back at the end of his book.

So what we have is a completely lopsided debate between left and right in intellectual circles. Conservative political philosophers are virtually a contradiction in terms, not because the academy is biased, but because conservative ideas are stupid.

A response to this point could be that there is an important distinction between philosophers and public intellectuals. Okay, please give me the name of a serious conservative intellectual who speaks to public affairs. Right, me neither. The fact is that in America we really don't have public intellectuals any more. It's a sad fact, but there we are. I mean, would you really describe the latest CPAC conference as a gathering of intellectuals? Don't make me laugh.

Furthermore, there is plenty of substantive work that goes on on the left. Just take a look at the last TNR issue and its commentators (here and here), all of which are dedicated to discussions of where liberalism should go next.

It is true that lately Democrats have given a lot of thought to message and positioning, but I think that there are two excellent reasons for this. First, the Republicans have built a formidable "message machine" that makes it hard to get any ideas through. The right has successfully tipped the rhetorical playing field, and we need to shift it back. Second, we need to remember that on substance most people agree with liberals. I've said this a million times and it remains true: once you strip issues of partisan labels, the center-left persuasion constitutes a tremendous majority. What the Republicans have done is compensate for that disadvantage, not eliminated it. It's one of the reasons they have to play so rough. If they played fair, they'd lose.

Which brings me to my final point, namely that Pandagon is correct that narrow tactical positioning is a mistake, particularly for a party out of power. Bull Moose's Clinton analogy is dead wrong because Presidents can act tactically, but it is disastrous for an opposition party to do so.

So if Tomasky is saying that Democrats need to focus on broader issues and think strategically rather than tactically, then I absolutely agree. But if he is suggesting that we all become pseudo-intellectual fanatics like the conservatives, I think he's making a serious mistake.