Posts Tagged ‘Reviving the Left’

So What Happened On Tuesday?

Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010

The short answer is that lots of people lost their homes, their jobs, and their security for the future. The Democrats promised to give them some relief and they didn’t deliver—the public resents that. Since there is only one other party on offer, they chose Republicans.

People who feel resentful are not inclined to coolly assimilate the fact that Democrats made things less worse or that Republican free market radicalism cost them their well-being in the first place. The attention span of American voters can be measured in minutes. If nothing else, the GOP has proven that if you are going to fail, fail so spectacularly that the other team can’t fix it in the short run.

Here are a few facts that the majority of the voting public apparently don’t know:

We now have a health care system that insures thirty million more Americans than were insured before Obama took office, substantial tax cuts for middle-class Americans, a bailout of Wall St. from which the public will make a profit, a massive economic stimulus that saved millions of jobs, and an economy that has grown for the past four quarters. The calamitous job losses that characterized the end of the Bush Administration have ended and corporate profits are again on the rise.

But a recent poll shows that by a margin of two-to-one, those most likely to vote believe taxes have increased, the economy has shrunk, and the billions of dollars of bailout money will never be recovered.

As usual, Democrats made the mistake of thinking that if they play fair and do a competent job of managing the bureaucracy and the policy apparatus of government, the public will reward them with approval. But the voting public looks at politics as a morality play, not a policy seminar. The optics of bailing out Wall St. and Detroit while ignoring homeowners, small business owners, and construction workers cannot be changed by earnest management. Especially when Democrats themselves have a reputation for being handmaidens of casino capitalism and corporate welfare. Passing much needed health care reform is laudable but its benefits are too long term to affect this burgeoning resentment in the short term.

The GOP are masters at manipulating resentful, myopic, low-information voters; the Democrats wouldn’t know resentment if it bit them in the ass. (Oh. It did. We will see what they have learned)

At the close of the Bush Administration I published a book, Reviving the Left, in which I argued four claims: (1) Voters respond to underlying value systems, not policy proposals; (2) conservatism despite its superficial moral appeal is a form of nihilism, (3) managerial, interest group liberalism, because it refuses to articulate a competing value system, is ineffective as a political ideology; and (4) liberalism can be revived only by adopting a grassroots-fueled ethic of care that emphasizes our moral obligations to each other.

This election season tends to confirm all four propositions. Obama had to bail out the banks to maintain some semblance of a financial system. Had he shown the same care for homeowners and workers I wouldn’t be writing this today.

Although his campaign was vague enough to raise doubts, I had some hope that Obama understood (1), would fight to make (2) clear to the public, recognized the limits of managerial liberalism, and would begin the process of transforming liberalism into a viable political force with a powerful moral appeal. None of this has come to pass. My biggest disappointment is the utter collapse of the grassroots, youth-fueled organization that played such a role in his election. Democratic indifference toward that movement was obvious this election season. According to Ed Kilgore, “As Voters under 30 dropped from 18% of the electorate to 11%; African-Americans from 13% to 10%, and Hispanics from 9% to 8%. Meanwhile, voters over 65, the one age category carried by John McCain, increased from 16% of the electorate to 23%.”

Can we turn this around? I suppose hope springs eternal. Hope is by nature resistant to evidence but susceptible to vanity.

But without hope one has nothing.

Are Blue Dogs Prudent Managers or Corporate Shills?

Sunday, July 26th, 2009

Health care reform has slowed to a crawl in Congress because Democrats from conservative districts (the so-called Blue Dog Democrats) are raising a host of objections to reform proposals. Some are worried about the potential for excessive costs to the government, others worry about raising taxes to pay for it or about the effect of the insurance mandate on small business, and some object to a government subsidized plan that might push private insurers out of the market.

On the surface, some of these complaints seem prudent—we want a health care system that is sustainable over the long run and that means it must be fiscally sound. Taking the time to get a well-written bill that will not result in a funding crisis in the future, or impose excessive costs on small business, is important.

But it is curious that many of the proposals the Blue Dogs are poised to reject are intended to lower the cost of health care both to the government and to small business. Yet the Blue Dogs remain dissatisfied, wracked with conflict like 52 little “Hamlets” pondering whether to be or not to be. As Rick Perlstein writes:

They understand that achieving universal coverage will require subsidies for low-income workers and small businesses, but they insist that none of those changes add to the federal deficit or raise anyone’s taxes.

They want to introduce more competition into the private insurance market, but not if it comes from a government-run insurance plan.

They complain constantly about the need to rein in runaway Medicare costs while at the same time demanding higher Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals in rural areas.

On the other hand, the Center for Public Integrity reports that many of the industries who stand to lose from progressive legislation are contributing heavily to the Blue Dogs:

So far this year, the political action committee attached to the fiscally conservative House Democratic voting bloc is on track to shatter all its fundraising records, raising more in the first six months of 2009 — more than $1.1 million — than it did in the entire 2003-04 fundraising cycle.

Nearly 54 percent of the Blue Dog PAC’s haul this year comes from the energy, financial services and health care industries, up from 45 percent in 2004, according to analysis of CQ MoneyLine data by the Center for Public Integrity.

It is hard to assess the motives of 52 independent legislators.

But one thing that seems not to enter their calculations is that the status quo is unacceptable. Millions of Americans are faced with the threat of losing their homes and life savings if they get sick. And health care costs are already out of control. Without radical changes in health insurance these stubborn facts will remain.

When the debate shifts away from these facts toward more abstract worries about whether the government belongs in the business of providing health insurance or whether it is fair to tax the wealthy to provide better public health, the moral dimension of the debate is diminished and we lose a grip on why we are having this debate in the first place. This of course is precisely what corporate interests would like to happen. We should be very suspicious of the Blue Dog’s motives here—they seem insufficiently worried about the status quo.

In Reviving the Left, I make a distinction between what I call Rootstock Liberalism, grounded in an ethic of care, and managerial liberalism which is focused on managing consensus among competing interest groups. That distinction is relevant here. Liberals must keep the focus on the moral consequences of our sorry health care system. To the extent the debate is reduced to which interest group gets harmed or helped by the policy, health care reform will be hijacked by considerations that are not focused on the problem to be solved and are largely irrelevant to the public.

Yes, the long-term viability of the system is important, but there are moral issues at stake here and sound moral deliberation must give sufficient weight to the real, concrete harms people suffer who lack health insurance.

The fact that Blue Dogs think that moral appeal will not move voters is another reason to be suspicious of their real motives.

Women Are Better at Assessing Risk

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

Feministing discusses a report that includes these data:

A 2005 study from the Center for Financial Research at the University of Cologne documented differences between male and female fund managers: Women managers tended to take less extreme risk and to adopt more measured investment styles (which perform well over time). And according to research published in 2002 in the International Journal of Bank Marketing, women tend to make investment-related decisions with a detailed, comprehensive approach, while men are more likely to simplify data and make decisions based on an overall schema.

This lends support to the idea, which I defend in Reviving the Left, that an ethic of care is a better framework for governing large organizations than the social contract theory on which Western political systems are based.

Of course, an ethic of care is not exclusive to women, but it is a way of thinking that women find particularly accessible.

There is a good deal of independent evidence supporting the claim that women take fewer risks than men.  Men are more likely to be involved in car accidents and engage in criminal behavior, for instance.

Our institutions would be more stable and committed to the common good if they were less committed to risking everything to achieve a short-term benefit.