Sorry, Charlie

So Chuck Schumer did a long interview over at the American Prospect. Since he's one of the most powerful people in the Democratic Party, it's worth reading if you want to know what's going on.

I didn't like what I read.

Schumer's basic thesis is that technology has profoundly changed the character of politics, homogenizing us. According to him, Democrats need to understand the highly individualized and anxiety-ridden character of contemporary voters. He thinks that Democrats need to come up with "eight words" and ignore coalition (what he describes as "New Deal") politics as well as "common good" politics, but still try to take advantage of the opening left by globalization to rehabilitate government. He also thinks the Reagan Revolution was a good thing, because liberals did get government-crazy in the 1970's.

Now I want to be fair. There's a lot of what Schumer said that I agree with. But I want to pick a nit or two with his basic position.

First, I think that the impact of technology on culture and politics is over-rated, and far different than what Schumer believes. The differentiation of media sources and transportation has not made for a more homogenized society, but a more divided one. The fact that a large segment of the population can literally never interact with those of an alternate political persuasion, and can absorb information entirely from sources with which they agree, stands as a direct contradiction of his position. Fox News, the 700 Club, etc. are part of the problem, but so it is the new political segregation we are experiencing, where people move to places where everyone is just like them. The communications technology and marketing technique have made it easier to work "coalition" politics, as the Republicans have demonstrated. Their eight-word slogans are in fact just empty words (as Schumer describes them), but the Republicans' campaigns are targetted to activating specific constituencies. I mean really, what do the religious right, big business, and nationalists have in common?

As an aside, I think that New Deal politics was somewhat less coalitional than Schumer believes. Yes FDR was offering specific policies to appeal to specific constituency, but it was all wrapped up in the broader idea of mutual obligation and social justice.

I also reject Schumer's contention that that the Reagan Revolution was a good thing. Reagan's effect on American politics was disastrous. His free lunch politics, which was promptly imitated by every other politician, got Americans used to hearing only what they wanted to hear other than inconvenient truths. Also, while I will concede that the Democratic Party is far too reliant on D.C.-based bureaucratic solutions to public problems, I think that gee-whiz market fundamentalism is just as much a dead end. At the end of the day, Great Society liberalism left America in better shape than it found it. Reaganism has put America in the shitter. That's the basic test.

Schumer's rejection of libertarian, common-good, and coalition politics puts him in a awkward position. Where in the world is he going to find a coherent ideological position that doesn't fit into one of these categories? He says that Democrats should work "inductively" from the positions of real people up to public policy. In the sense of being focused on people's actual problems, he's right. But I think what Schumer is really pointing to is a Clintonesque strategy of incremental (and largely symbolic) solutions using market mechanisms to achieve public purposes - in other words, towards no broader aim at all. This might make sense for a politician trying to get elected, but it will do nothing for a party seeking a persuasive public agenda.

Schumer criticizes conservatives for starting from theoretical positions and working down towards public policy. If this approach is totally disconnected from the aspirations that people have, then he is right to criticize this approach. But I think a philosophical politics inspired by people's problems, and then moves to policy, is the right approach.

Schumer's preferred strategy seems to leave us with no liberal public philosophy at all. This is no accident, given his resistance to the politics of the common good (or its more aggressive variant, class politics). His love of individualized politics fundamentally misunderstands that politics is about public life, and characterized at its essence by social cooperation. A love of individual liberty is an important component of democratic politics, because it draws boundaries between the public and private. But to let private concerns crowd out public considerations is just a grave an error of letting public values steamroll over individual rights.

We live in a very strange age, in which we are making both mistakes at the same time. In economic and social matters, we are committing the first error of fostering apathy and self-regard. In cultural and security matters, we are trampling on personal freedoms. Schumer doesn't seem to really recognize either of these problems, and his pragmatic unphilosophy would leave us without resources to combat either.