Democratic Philosophy, Out Loud and Proud

How good it is, to see and hear American political leaders, candidates and pundits speak out forcefully on behalf of democratic political philosophy, in opposition to the authoritarian creed which has divided and diminished our nation.

Most recently, our Nobel Laureate economist and columnist Paul Krugman expressed it in a post he titled, "The Social Contract."

In that post he pointed to a video of Senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren, one in which she briefly and beautifully presented democratic political philosophy and its application to the current ideological debate in our country.

President Obama, too, has been using democratic political philosophy to explain to the public the basis for his positions on the issues facing us:

• "But there’s always been another thread running through our history -– a belief that we’re all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.

• "And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire new industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we’re a more prosperous country as a result.

• "Part of this American belief that we’re all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and dignity. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves. And so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, those with disabilities. We’re a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further. We would not be a great country without those commitments."
  

Most Americans prefer not to think of themselves as having an "ideology." But they do, in fact, have worldviews based upon systems of ideas and beliefs. Those systems of ideas and beliefs then inform their political positions. I think it best that we honestly present the philosophical underpinnings for democratic political positions, and let the people judge which is better for them. I believe democratic political philosophy will prevail eventually over all authoritarian creeds.

Political Labels

Conservatives in our country have, for decades, created and parroted pejorative labels for liberals and Democrats. Perhaps because we lack their goose-stepping authoritarianism, liberals and progressives have not replied, in a unified fashion, with similar labels. Some liberals and progressives even dislike the notion of "stooping to the level" of Conservatives. Some argue that it "turns off" unaligned voters in the middle.

I did meet a lady who expressed disgust at the nasty political rhetoric she heard. But she did have, at that point, a bias in favor of Republicans, and it only appeared to disgust her when Democrats replied with nasty political rhetoric. It was okay as long as it was only Republicans saying foul things about Democrats.

To hell with that. Political labels evoke passions. Some people go to the polls from a sense of duty, but more will go to the polls because they have been emotionally moved to participate. It may be for reasons of supporting a particular candidate. Or it may be out of antagonism for another candidate. This is reality. And this is a time when voters must decide which side they are on: the side of corporate Christian feudalism; or the side of egalitarian secular democracy.

On behalf of egalitarian secular democrats in the U.S., here are some labels I believe our fascist Republican brethren have earned:

greedy
irresponsible
egotistical, egocentric, self-centered
prejudiced
childish, juvenile
parochial
primitive
gator-brained
paternalistic
feudal [mind-set, attitudes]
dogmatic
uninformed
naive
unthinking
unenlightened
"cut and spit" [they cut public taxes and spending, and spit on the citizens who need public help]
"cut and hoard" [they cut public taxes and spending, and hoard the nation's wealth]
"Antoinettes", e.g., "Congressional Antoinettes" [Paul Ryan] and "Conservative Antoinettes" [Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter]
blinded by their preconceptions

If I think of more, I'll add to the list....

What’s the Big Idea?

At the end of The Argument [Penguin Press, 2007], Matt Bai summarizes a speech made by Mario Cuomo, the former governor of New York, concerning successful election campaigns. Governor Cuomo reportedly observed that campaign issues are “too myriad and complex for voters to sort through and weigh.” The answer “was not that you build the best voter turnout machine you can afford, or that you bring in a linguist to calibrate your message,” but rather that “You seize the biggest idea that you can, the biggest idea that you can understand,” because “this is what moves elections.” Examples of big campaign ideas given by Governor Cuomo reportedly included “Holiness and Cleanliness in Government” [Carter], “Supply-side Economics” [Reagan], “Cold War Showdown” [Reagan], “The Upheaval in the Economy” [Clinton], and “War on Terror” [Bush II].

Then, says Matt, Governor Cuomo asked what Democrats would offer as the “big idea” for the 2008 election. Governor Cuomo believed that “Iraq” was the “big idea” in 2006, but he didn’t believe it would stick around, and he called issues like minimum wage and prescription drug prices “very timid proposals”. Apparently he came closest to proposing “big ideas” when he lamented that Democrats had not cared to use “healthcare” or “the economy” as their “big idea” in 2004.

I don’t believe that big ideas about “healthcare” or “the economy” would have won the Presidency for John Kerry in 2004, but I think that Governor Cuomo’s observation about the campaign value of a “big idea” is sound. Considering the 2000 Presidential election, I was frankly shocked to hear friends state that they were voting for Bush because Gore was part of the “immoral” Clinton administration. But what was the “big idea” of the Bush campaign? That George W. Bush would restore “Honor and Dignity” to the White House.

That leads me to a corollary observation: the Big Idea of a campaign has to respond to The Big Problem currently on the minds of the voters. What will be the Big Problem on the minds of voters in October 2008? It could be “The Economy”, if we have a recession. It could be “Healthcare”, if substantially more Americans can’t afford it. But I think what voters see as the Big Problem is “The Incompetence” of the faith-based Bush administration. So here’s my “Big Idea” suggestion for Democratic campaigns in 2008: “Competent, Real-World Management”.

The Progressive “Vision”

One of Matt Bai’s observations in his book, The Argument, is the seeming lack of an overall progressive vision that we can hold up as the reason for fellow Americans to support our movement. Here’s the vision I would propose:

A secular, pragmatic government held strictly accountable for the common good of all members of the national community, regardless of their race, color, sex, religious beliefs, national origin, sexual orientation, economic status or political persuasion.