 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
The Greatest Story Never Told
Our political problem, in a nutshell: The party of government is afraid to defend government. Nothing will really change until that changes.
The only contacts most people have with the government are unpleasant. Paying taxes. Waiting in line at the DMV or post office. Cursing and shaking one’s fist when encountering a pothole. Calling a bureaucracy when a problem arises or a loved one dies. (Interestingly, similar commercial contacts—trying to get cable TV installed, say—are no walks in the park, but these don’t color our impression of the entire private sector.) No one—not even the government itself!—attempts to initiate positive contacts. And so, government does things, and people don’t know. It never occurs to your average Joe that the river he couldn’t fish in 20 years ago but now can didn’t just miraculously clean itself. And no one in American political life is bothering to point it out to him. You and I may take for granted that the EPA did that job, but how many people really stop and think about that? They have to be told.
I know this sounds naïve. Or hopeless: Anti-government feeling is so deeply ingrained that you can never change Americans’ minds about it. I’m not sure that’s true. Information can change people’s minds. It takes time. But it’s possible. And remember, we don’t have to change everyone’s minds. Just enough to tip the scales in a divided country back in favor of a more pro-government agenda.
Every election season, liberals sit around and say to one another: Why are things the way they are? Why is the progressive candidate bragging about cutting taxes and reducing the size of the federal budget, as Obama will inevitably do? There are many answers to these questions, but the main one is this: Neither Obama nor any politician can stand before the American people and make a case for investing and spending as long as most Americans think the mechanism of that investing and spending is incompetent or evil or both (a New York Times poll from late October found that only 10 percent of respondents trusted government to do the right thing always or most of the time, the lowest figure since that question was asked starting in the mid-1970s). Until those basic perceptions are changed, the broad left is going to be seen by a majority of the public as little better than a drunkard on a street corner begging for change. Why should we give you more money if you’re just going to waste it? Many elected Democrats think the answer to that question is to cut the budget first: Once we’ve shown voters that we’re capable of tightening the belt where necessary, they’ll be more willing to let us use the government as an instrument of change. That may be part of it. But there remains the central question: Is the money going to good use? In a thousand ways, it is. But it’s a story no one is telling. Democrats are afraid to, and the universe of progressive funders and strategists, for whatever reason, hasn’t really thought to.
Some presidential elections will be rearguard actions, like this one. Others might be more like 2008, when the GOP had screwed up the country and people were willing to give the other side a chance. But it should now be manifestly clear that while the voters were rejecting conservative governance, they weren’t necessarily embracing a progressive agenda. And they won’t until the entity that is at the heart of that agenda—government—has a better reputation. The direction of the country won’t change until it does.
- 1
- 2
The Ds aren't "afraid." They are owned by the same people who own the Rs, much as Starbucks and Seattle's Best are different brands with the same owner.
Want proof? The massive bait and switch operation that Obama ran in 2008 (aided and abetted by career "progressives," I might add, who at a minimum should abandon their claims to be savvy, and stop prognosticating about anything).
There is no need to conjure up explanations that involve mysterious and unverifiable collective psychological states.
The direction of the country won't change until the legacy parties , and their enablers, either adapt or are destroyed.
Dec 13, 2011, 8:25 PMGot to agree with Lambert. Most of the Dems in power frolic in the same bed as Republicans. The Blue Dogs are exhibit A as proof.
As to the point of the article, we don't need any more Obama speeches saying government can work. The best proof would be for government to actually work! Talking shouldn't be confused with doing.
When Obama can get a single piece of legislation through Congress without it being diluted to uselessness by the right then I'll consider have a little more faith. But after watching three years of Obama, after watching OWS get squashed by THE GOVERNMENT, it seems like the only hope is from kooks with firebombs. Luckily I'm too darned old for that crap.
Dec 15, 2011, 4:13 PMIf Democrats "are owned by the same people who own the Rs," and I agree that there are many indications that it is true on some level, then what can be done to change our political culture.
I suggest that we need to begin by separating government power--elected office holders, regulators, etc.--from the power of money. This, of course, is not a new idea. But I think it has to be done at the individual candidate level. In fact, I am running for congress for this reason. www.yaleforcongress.com
I wholeheartedly agree with Tomasky's point. I have been yearning for Obama to forcefully rebut Reagan's "government isn't the solution to our problems; government is the problem" line. We are contesting policy in a hostile ideological environment where we need to make their arguments work for our policies. This needs to be fixed, and will take dedicated and concerted action from the top down.
Dec 20, 2011, 12:49 AMMichael, the political problem is that the party of government refuses to turn loose its claim of control over the part of the citizenry that rejects the concept of an ever-expanding and more invasive federal government. If government did less, there would be less conflict over policy. When levels of government that are more local and that involve fewer participants go astray, it is possible remedy the deficiencies and change policy. Our current federal framework cannot adequately accommodate the multitude of factions that are rarely reconciled. We should part ways now, amicably. I think that is a fair offer. If not accepted soon, you may find that the unlimited power of the federal government is successfully utilized against you... think of the 14th Amdt as the basis for Incorporation of the Second Amdt against states and localities. What if that proves to be a more permanent trend, rather than an anomaly, for the whole array of precious "progressive" goals you toil for?
Dec 20, 2011, 6:25 PMGovernment should do and does things that individuals couldn't possibly do. And these is should promote. It gets into trouble when it tries to do things that by far most individuals are perfectly capable of doing for themselves.
Dec 25, 2011, 5:56 PMThe legislature has never ever had 'someone like me' in it ... and never will (since defining 'someone like me' is one who will not go through the rigamarole of campaigning to become a representative). THUS, the 'government' has been throughout my lifetime illegitimate.
What is needed is a reinstitution of the original Greek process of 'democratic selection'. That is, by sortition.
See www.TheCommonLot.com
Post a Comment
Michael Tomasky is the editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas and a special correspondent for Newsweek/The Daily Beast.
Events
Democracy, Brennan Center Co-Host Money-in-Politics Event
On May 7, the Brennan Center for Justice, a New York City-based public policy institute, hosted a panel discussion co-sponsored by Democracy and Demos on money in politics, the subject of Democracy’s centerpiece symposium in the Winter 2013 issue.
News
Washington Post Interviews Kleiman on Crime Policy
In a March 28 post in The Washington Post’s Wonkblog, Dylan Matthews interviewed UCLA professor Mark Kleiman about his essay, “Smart on Crime,” in the current issue of Democracy.
News
Klein Cites Democracy Essay on Defense Spending
In his Bloomberg View column on February 13, Ezra Klein discussed the politics of military spending and highlighted a number of quotes from former Representative Barney Frank’s feature contribution to Democracy’s Winter 2013 issue.
