Justifying Liberalism

There are two interesting streams of debate going on in the blogosphere that I have mulling over for the last several days. On the one hand, there is Ruy Teixeira's analysis of the Democratic "myths." He argues that many of the articles of faith for winning elections just don't hold water. He critiques inoculation, framing, mobilization, and unity in turn. Instead the challenge is to embrace a reformist message that speaks to the concerns of the working class and is uniting by a common overarching theme. Chris Bowers responds by suggesting that while much of what Ruy says has merit, the latter a) underplays the usefulness of pursuing the "myths", and b) adopting new positions on issues might just confuse the public or make us look indecisive. Instead, Chris thinks that Democrats must "grow liberalism" by addressing our very real handicaps within the institutions of the media, unions, religion and education.

On the other hand, Matt Yglesias wonders why there isn't a more aggressive populist element in the Democratic Party, noting Gephardt's anemic performance as evidence. David Sirota thinks that Clinton won on a populist campaign in 1992, and Edwards ran a very similar sort of campaign last year. So there IS room for populists in the Democratic Party, although we could do a lot better.

So what do these two strains of debate have in common? Well, the one asks a question and the other provides and answer even while identifying the difficulty of actualzing that answer. Teixeira wants to develop an overarching theme, while one is sitting out there waiting to be embraced, i.e. a version of populism. However, there seems to be a lot of suspicion about the viability of a populist campaign in the Democratic Primary.

The first thing to note is that I think populism (or at least an extensively modified version of it) is an integral part of any successful Democratic message. And I think that populism can sell in the party if it is pitched properly. Edwards had it just about right in 2004, and his failure says less about his message than about his liability as a candidate: he was inexperienced in a wartime election. If there had been no 9/11, or Edwards had served another term in the Senate before he ran, I think Edwards would have been the Democratic nominee, and that he would have decisively defeated Bush.

Having said all that, I think that just asserting a "people versus the powerful" or "Two Americas" message is insufficient. A New Populist/New Liberal message has to embrace a number of different themes, including the reformist one. It's not about just bashing corporations. It's about making room for ways of life that Americans hold dear (like small towns and small businesses) as well as real economic opportunities, about never forgetting that we are all in this together (necessitating real tolerance and mutual respect), and that everyone who contributes deserves a share in the rewards.

Now these things are very easy to say, and if you aren't careful they do sound substanceless or canned or just tired. Which is where new policy proposals come in. Once you have established your basic theme, you then use innovative policies that highlight that theme.

What we are really talking about here is a problem of justification. Democrats are in favor of equal opportunity, social tolerance, a strong middle class, etc. What we need is to explain why we are for those things. This is what a political message is: an enunciation of a political ideology cast in explanatory terms, terms that unite one's disparate policy proposals into a coherent vision while distilling their essence down in comprehensible terms. It's a tall order, but I don't think it's as far away as you might believe. Just read Edwards' and Obama's speeches. We're almost there.