Rick Perlstein: What's Wrong with the Democrats (Interview)Roundup: Historians' Take
Rick Perlsten talks about his new book, The Stock Ticker and the Superjumbo: How the Democrats Can Once Again Become America's Dominant Political Party, with Christopher Hayes; in In These Times (7-21-05):
You have this analogy between Boeing's multi-generational devotion to building the first jumbo jet and the Democratic Party's multi-generational commitment to insuring economic security. How have successive generations of Democrats built on the same project?
Take something like federal aid to education. That was an idea Democrats had ever since the New Deal. It never succeeded for various political reasons, but they just kept at it and by 1965 Lyndon Johnson finally passed the thing. By that time, everyone knew what the Democrats were about: They were the party that supported federal aid for education. Compare that to when the Clintons proposed their health care plan in the early '90s. He ran and won on the idea that he was going to deliver health care to all Americans, and for various complicated reasons he lost that battle. But instead of saying well, this is what the Democrats are about, we're going to stick to it despite the setback, Hillary Clinton very explicitly said: What I learned was that you have to do things in small steps and incrementally. She specifically backed off the marker that the Democrats laid down, that we are the party defined by our pledge to deliver health care to everyone.
I like this term marker. What's it mean?
It's a gambling term. A marker basically is a commitment to pay. In Guys and Dolls, Nathan Detroit would say, "that guy holds my marker." It's something you can't back out of, on pain of getting your knees broken. The marker that Republicans have is that everyone who runs for office has to sign a pledge--it's enforced by their own knee-breaker, Grover Norquist--that on pain of political death they're not going to raise taxes.
My thesis is that a commitment that doesn't waver adds value by the very fact of the commitment. The evidence is that even though the individual initiatives that make up the conservative project poll quite poorly, they've managed to succeed simply because everyone knows what the Republicans stand for. And the most profound exit poll finding in the last election had nothing to do with moral values, it was all the people who said that they disagreed with the Republicans on individual issues, but they voted for George W. Bush anyway because they knew what he stood for.
He'd given them a marker.
Exactly. The world is an uncertain and scary place and there's value just in making credible demonstrations of fortitude. Now the amazing thing about this is that it's a virtuous circle for the Democrats. Not only can we increase the devotion of an electorate that looks at Democrats as piddling and feckless, it just so happens that when you poll the public on what they want, it looks much more like the Democratic agenda than the Republican agenda.
Okay, but if our superjumbo is "Big Government," many Democrats say that plane won't fly anymore. The project is intellectually bankrupt, we need a new one. What do you say to that?
Well, first of all, I'm a historian and the only time Democrats have been able to pull together a new majority and to grow was when they laid down these markers, pledges to ordinary Americans that the government would protect their economic interests.
The other thing is, there's a story about economic history of the recent past that historians will find us strange for not speaking about more often, and that's the stagnation of incomes for ordinary Americans. What could be more contemporary? What could be more timely than programs that address that crying need? Between WWII and the '70s the real incomes of Americans doubled. People who used to have outhouses were able to afford vacation cottages. Well, that's dropped off a cliff. If it makes me an old Democrat to try and restore what the Democrats of the '40s, '50s and '60s accomplished, which was running the country, sue me. I'm an old Democrat.
The most common analysis of why Democrats have strayed from this project--as one New Deal congressman whom you quote says "Freedom Plus Groceries"--points to corporate money. Today's Dems are feeding at the same trough and they can no longer take on the insurance companies, etc. But in the latter half of the book, you provide a fascinating psychological account of why the Democrats strayed from this project, which was sort of born out of the conflict of the '60s.
Yeah. The trauma of the generation of people who are running the Democratic Party was being blindsided by the political failures of left-of-center boldness. If you look at a lot of the most resonant and stalwart centrists and Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) Democrats, for a lot of them, their political coming-of-age was being blindsided by conservatism. For Bill Clinton, it was losing the governorship in 1980. For Joe Lieberman, it was losing a congressional race in 1980. For Evan Bayh, the chair of the DLC, it was seeing his dad lose his Senate seat to Dan Quayle in 1980. But the formative traumas of my generation of Democrats--and I'm 35--have been the failures of left-of-center timidity. So there really is a structural generational battle among Democrats. People of a certain age are terrified that the electorate is going to associate them with the excesses of the '60s, but most voters are too young to remember that stuff. The Republicans keep trying to paint the Democrats as the party of the hippies and punks who burn the flag.
In fact, we just got a new flag-burning amendment.
Yeah, but there's really less juice you can squeeze out of that orange every year....
comments powered by Disqus
Stephen Patrick Johnson - 7/27/2005
Well, that would depend upon a rational understanding of the term "promote the general welfare", wouldn't it?
Is it promoting the "general" welfare to convince one segment of society that their best hopes for the future depend upon employing confiscatory practices against some other segment of society? Doesn't a rational understanding of "general welfare" seem to include all segments of society? Policies "promote the general welfare" in the sense, and only to the extent, that they do not nominate one segment of society as fodder for some other segment of society.
Rick Perlstein - 7/25/2005
Nice. It's the Declaration of Independence that speaks of the pursuit of happiness, not the Constitution. The Constitution, however does require the union to "promote the general Welfare," a premise that few Republicans understand.
Vernon Clayson - 7/25/2005
There's nothing wrong with the Democrats, they are doing what they always have, pandering to those who feel they are somehow being cheated or left behind. These hapless souls want government to improve their lot in circumstances best solved by individual initiative. The constitution speaks of the pursuit of happiness, not a guaranteed happiness. What's happiness? Is it an unearned income, unearned housing or an unearned Cadillac? Is it forty acres and a mule? Is it reparations for some distant ancestor who was a slave? No man appreciates his income, home and car more than one who earns it himself, this is a premise that no Democrat ever has held or understood.
- Josh Hawley Earns F in Early American History
- Does Germany's Holocaust Education Give Cover to Nativism?
- "Car Brain" Has Long Normalized Carnage on the Roads
- Hawley's Use of Fake Patrick Henry Quote a Revealing Error
- Health Researchers Show Segregation 100 Years Ago Harmed Black Health, and Effects Continue Today
- Nelson Lichtenstein on a Half Century of Labor History
- Can America Handle a 250th Anniversary?
- New Research Shows British Industrialization Drew Ironworking Methods from Colonized and Enslaved Jamaicans
- The American Revolution Remains a Hotly Contested Symbolic Field
- Untangling Fact and Fiction in the Story of a Nazi-Era Brothel