Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Opinion

Michael Barone

Democratic party philosophy

May 11, 2006 04:00 PM ET | Permanent Link | Print

What should the Democratic Party stand for? It's not an easy question to answer. Forty years ago, it seemed natural for Democrats to stand for continuous expansion of the welfare state.

Now that doesn't seem like such a good idea. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan proved that history doesn't always move left—and shouldn't. Center-left leaders like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair have taken a different approach, with considerable political success; but they didn't seem to build lasting majorities for their parties. Clinton's successors as Democratic nominees won 48 percent of the popular vote—close but no cigar. Blair's Labor Party is now running behind the Conservatives by 37 to 31 percent in the most recent British poll. That's not an indication that Labor can't win the next election, which is expected to be held in 2009. But it is an indication that it isn't carrying all before it, as it seemed to during Blair's first two terms, 1997–2005.

Here are two thoughtful takes on what the Democrats should do. Michael Tomasky of the American Prospect argues that Democrats should stand for "the common good." He looks back at what Democrats stood for from the 1930s to the 1960s:

Liberalism was built around the idea – the philosophical principle – that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest. This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance – not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity. Liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest.

In contrast, he says, Democrats today "demand that American citizens today believe in only two things: diversity and rights." He calls for Democratic leaders to detach their cause from the party's interest groups and to enunciate a vision of "the common good." Here's his concluding paragraph:

The Democrats must grasp this, kick some old habits, and realize that we are on the verge of a turning point. The Democratic left wants it to be 1968 in perpetuity; the Democratic center wishes for 1992 to repeat itself over and over again. History, however, doesn't oblige such wishes – it rewards those who recognize new moments as they arise. It might just be that the Bush years, these years of civic destruction and counterfeit morality, have provided the Democrats the opening to argue on behalf of civic reconstruction and genuine public morality. If they do it the right way, they can build a politics that will do a lot more than squeak by in this fall's (or any) elections based on the usual unsatisfying admixture of compromises. It can smash today's paradigm to pieces. The country needs nothing less. The task before today's Democratic Party isn't just to eke out electoral victories; it's to govern, and to change our course in profound ways. I'd like to think they can do it. But the Democrats must become republicans first.

Brad Carson, former Democratic congressman from Oklahoma who ran a strong but losing race for the Senate against Tom Coburn in 2004, takes another view. Here is Carson's analysis of the center left's problem:

A coherent political philosophy implies a certain understanding of human nature, of the proper ends of human life. Progressive politics across the world – from Britain's Labor to Germany's SDP to America's Democrats – has no vision of a better world because these deeply philosophical foundations of left-wing politics have eroded over the last 30 years. Events like stagflation and the fall of the Soviet Union played a role in this, but, so, too, did a line of brilliant thinkers like Hayek, Friedman, Buchanan, Stigler, Lucas, Kydler, Prescott, Merton, Miller, Becker, Simon, and Coase, all of whom received Nobel Prizes for their now-accepted apostasies from left-wing orthodoxy.

I fear I'm not doing justice to either of these provocative articles; read them yourself and see. In my view, they do a better job of asking questions than of providing answers. But asking the right questions is often the first step on the road to wisdom.

Tools: Share | | Comments (3) | Print

advertisement

U.S. News Weekly

Subscribe Today

Order the new U.S. News Weekly digital magazine at a special low introductory price!

Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S.News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics. He has written for many publications—including the Economist and the New York Times.

advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Sign up today for the latest headlines from U.S. News & World Report delivered to you free.

RSS FEEDS

Personalize your U.S. News with our feeds of blogs and breaking news headlines.

U.S. NEWS MOBILE

U.S. News daily briefings are also available on your mobile device.

People who read this also read ...

Thomas Jefferson St.

Turkey Tax

Uncle Sam is joining in on your Thanksgiving dinner.

Ideological Labels Just Don't Fit

Hard-liners don't understand that some of us don't toe an ideological line.

A Decade in Biased Review

How well does the video sum up the last decade?

GOPers Push European-Style Litmus Tests

Some RNC members want strict party platforms. Why do they hate America?

Can Conservative Carly Fiorina Carry Cali?

Ronald Reagan's state is now one of the most liberal in the nation.

Opinions Clash on Wars in Iran, Afghanistan

Fewer favor the effort in Afghanistan, support rises for hostilities against Iran's nuclear program.

Bennet's Senate Seat Is Already at Risk

His vote on healthcare would be less a case of political martyrdom than it may seem.

Bush Airport Reflects Its Namesake

Could Houston's Bush Intercontinental airport be number one because of its name?

Public Opinion

Should the GOP Have a Litmus Test?

Should the RNC exclude politicians who don't match the party's platform?

Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
Make USNews.com your home page.