The last couple of days have seen some thoughtful posts from three of the more thoughtful writers on the right, that is, correct side of reality, Michael Tomasky, Digby, and Billmon. Tomasky started it off by issuing a call to Democrats to reclaim their civic republican roots, Digby replied by pointing out the traditional problems with reliance on civic republican ideals, and Billmon unintentionally (?) threw water on the whole discussion. Most aides refused to speculate whether Democrats might support a military operation in Iran. Several aides acknowledged, however, that some Democrats in Congress could support a military strike . . . Any military action Democrats supported, one aide said, would not include the use of nuclear weapons.
By emphasizing the points and potential of our tradition of emphasizing the "common good," Tomasky highlighted a theme lacking in good part from Democratic thinking (although Clinton did sound the theme). He frequently weakened his argument with dubious references and weak linkages, which Digby, while very sympathetic, nails as he always does. One example of Tomasky's problem was a line that started "Amy Sullivan demonstrates . . . ," which is always a blinking light "superficial, superficial, superficial." The woman makes Kevin Drum look deep, and her examples of Democrats's recent strength--Bush's weakness on Social Security, Katrina aftermath, and Dubai--were not the pillars of newfound Democratic power that she or Tomasky seem to feel they are. Another problem was the casual tossing by Tomasky of the specific periods and contexts in which civic republicanism has been at its most influential in our history. The "common good" is most clear at times when we all face a common threat and, hopefully, have common goals to meet it. When our needs are more individual than collective, the "common good" is a matter of debate, as Digby points out, and appeals to it are often more the problem than the solution. So, yes, exhortation to pursue "common good" is not a bad idea and can accomplish good, particularly now in a time of demented individualism.
There are two major things I'd like to add. One, as I indicated in an earlier post on Stealth Democracy, the evidence does not support well a hope that Americans are just waiting for someone to come and show them how to be more active citizens. Yes, they like appeals to the "common good," especially if left undefined, but nothing Tomasky says shows that they like it if they have to do very much. Two, expecting the Democrats to be able to pull it off calls for more credulity than I'm willing to give, which is where Billmon clomps in:The congressional Dems show us what they're made of. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go scrape the rest of it off my shoes.
As rhetoric builds, Democrats in Congress lie low on Iran
Unless, of course, it tests well with the focus groups.
With few exceptions, Howard Dean's enlightenment and John Edwards' completely misused 2004 "Two Americas" campaign, the Dems just haven't shown the ability to speak to Americans in a way that would make discussion of the "common good" credible. And they are promoting candidates too carefully vetted as "electable" far too early in this campaign, just as they did with Kerry in 2004, as if the key issues in November are clear right now. Still, the idea of "framing" the "common good" is, as Tomasky and Digby show, worth pursuing. The problem is that, like so many things Democrats are glomming onto now, this call has been out there for a couple of decades now.
In 1985 Robert Bellah and colleagues spelled out in detail the importance of the civic republican tradition and the need for its insertion into our public life in Habits of the Heart. In 1992 they followed up with The Good Society, that spelled out in more detail what it would entail. They are each very inspiring books and, combined with Robert Putnam's works, like Bowling Alone, demonstrated years ago everything that Tomasky says in his insightful article. In other words, this is not new, neither the description of the problems and future if unheeded nor the prescription of the solutions and future if pursued. If so, why have the Democrats so assiduously ignored the conspicuous benefits? Because they have been playing the focus group games decried by Billmon and because they haven't been able to pull their various constituencies into a common message.
Look at their current slogan, "Together, We Can Do Better." Superficially, that is, in Amy Sullivan's world, it's civic republican, yet it's met with widespread skepticism among core Democrats. Too "Knowledge Is Good" from "Animal House." The key, though, is really who's going to be saying it. The usual blow-dried, focus grouped DC types (the Sherrod Browns and their short-sighted acolytes like David Sirota)? Or people of clear conviction and courage (the Paul Hacketts and John Murthas)? The messenger is as important as the message. The civic republican perspective has way too much Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street to it to offset the spin and manipulations of Bush the Younger and his posse unless it's delivered by people who can clearly kick some ass. It's not an accident that the historically best received civic republican line, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," was delivered by a president who was both a war hero and alley cat, that is, more man than Bush, Chaney, Rove, and all the Congressional and keyboard commandos combined.
So, as Digby says, it's not that Tomasky's wrong. It's as Billmon says; it depends on who's saying it being believable. Right now the Democrats aren't. They don't really have the message or the messagers, but that doesn't mean they can't. But Tomasky is just the starting point. For the agenda and justifications, they need to turn to Bellah and crew, and then get people who are credible echoing them. They've been waiting a long time now.
|