A Reform Primer
So I'm old ... shoot me. What started out as a minor offensive over at Burnt Orange Report warrants a bit more elaboration. At issue is the notion that "Howard Dean got us started thinking about reform." By extension, this goes into the inane little DLC vs every left-leaning nutcase with internet access whereby the likes of KOS and Jerome and Sirota seek to claim the "Reform" mantle as their own and even if there's an agreeable idea that the DLC puts forth, they are to be shunned because somehow a group that is only 20 years old is responsible for the 40 year slide the party has been in here in the south. Make sense? I didn't think so.
But the concept of reform is one that demands a bit more elaboration because I think the reformist strain is inherent in progressive politics and instead of asserting with some degree of pride that one is a "Reform Democrat" it is far wiser to ackowledge that one is a Democrat, and therefore we seek to reform the status quo for the better. What Marshall Wittman says recently is something I've been suggesting for a long time. You cannot simply stand in the way of the other side, you must offer a truer path towards reform. Yet all too often, this gets viewed as legislative sausage making ... One side proposes a bill, the other side proposes a bill, and the numerically superior side picks apart just enough goodies from the alternative to win going away with an otherwise bad bill. Need proof? See Medicare Reform. See the Bush tax cuts ... any of em. The bottom line for Democrats, however, is the acceptance of the fact that you can listen to Dems debate reform when we're in the majority, or you can let the other side take over and ramrod their version over your cold, dead body. Guess which one they chose?
For a better example, one need only look as far as City Hall here in Houston. Mayor Bill White knew that the Colorado-style revenue cap likely would have passed if it were the only game in town. So we got Bill White's version as a competing idea. White won and now the right is up in arms because they got beat soundly and at a game they usually win at. Houston area Dems may not be entirely in favor of the caps that White's proposition puts in place, but the alternative would have been the types of caps that are now putting Colorado in an economic bind (although it is worth noting that the situation, combined with Gov. Bill Owens' sagging popularity led to a Democratic revival in the state this past election).
In any event, I thought I'd do my part to aid and assist the younger sorts who think all this reform whatnot was invented by Howard Dean. As stated in my comment to the BOR post, I've been at this game a lot longer. Pick a few books off the shelf here and dig in.
Now, say what one might of my own ideological leanings, but it should be noted that Mark Green is as liberal as they come. He's a barely reconstructed Naderite (having wortked with PIRG, I believe). I don't subscrube to every prescriptive idea that Green offers, but he's pretty thorough on this topic and is worth a handful of good ideas regardless of how proximate one is to him ideologically.
That ought to get one through the bulk of the coursework here ... for extra credit, anything by William Proxmire is worth reading (except maybe his book on excercise and dieting). A few old Gary Hart books are also worthwhile: "The Good Fight" for an overall reformist agenda ... "America Can Win" for a more focused look on the militar reform movement of the 80s. Hart was more of a genius at military reform, but his more rambling takes on other aspects are worth reliving as well.
Joe Trippi's latest may eventually make the list. Too much nonsensical DLC-bashing in it, but he gets a few things right. The transformational vs transactional dichotomy is worth the read, but I maintain that moderates and centrists can be just as transformational as any other partisan. Trippi loses me with his insistence that only the far partisans can manage such a feat.
A NOTE OF IRONY: For those who suggest that the DLC is not nor never has been interested in reform, it should be noted that I got my intern gig based on sending a research paper on campaign finance reform to them. It apparently got the attention of a young policy analyst by the name of Joel Berg who was starting up the PPI wing with Will Marshall and Robert Shapiro. Another policy analyst from the day was Bert Brandenburg, who now devotes himself to reforming judicial politics. So that gang has a good history on reform, as Ed Kilgore continues to this day ....
UPDATE 1.0: Bert emails with some updates, both I ought to be downright embarrassed about.
UPDATE 2.0: My own Amazon hunting turns up one more interesting find that is both a tad obscure and pre-Clintonian, but it seems to be worth adding based on the online preview:
"RETHINKING THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA" by Susan Rose-Ackerman.
Comments
I'd add a few books to the syllabus:
"The Road From Here", by Paul Tsongas
"Common Cents", by Tim Penney
Posted by: RogueDonkey | January 4, 2005 12:08 PM
Outstanding additions both. Another smack to the head for neglecting to think of Paul Tsongas while on this topic.
Posted by: Greg Wythe | January 4, 2005 12:10 PM
I think I agree with your basic premise in that I think of Democrats as a party of reform. From its progressivist roots (shared with Republicans at one time) to today, it has been a party of change (for the better, I think).
The problem is that "reform" is very vague--what's being reformed is an important question? As you note, there have been lots of Democrats from all across the political spectrum leading reform.
I think what reform Dean brings is one that reminds me a bit of Clinton. Clinton was smart, I knew that, but he had a way of speaking, of expressing a value of the voter. Lots of folks in their 20s thought Clinton revitalized politics for them--I and many of my friends felt that way. Dean has done the same for many this past cycle. I never saw Dean as a liberal but something of a pragmatist, taking supposedly conservative positions on some issues. I didn't get caught up in the talk of empowerment, but it made sense--I can see why people are so attracted to it. I don't have to donate thousands of dollars to be heard, some said. Did he really listen to these small money donors? Did he really empower them? It seems like he did, at least to a point. That participation is supposedly one of the reasons he fared poorly in Iowa, even according to Dean participants. He had too many newbies and too few professionals.
I'm pretty sure I'm older than you, Greg, so I know where you're coming from. :) But consider that it's new and invigorating for them. John Stuart Mill once said that even when you discover something that someone else knows, you still discovered something new.
I have problems with some things that some are saying (like Kos's statement about not knowing the process but knowing that it needed to change). But if someone has the ability to make people feel like they have a voice and an active role in government, then bully for them. I think Dean has more than that to offer (and he has some significant flaws), but I don't think we want to chase anyone away from the party. And I say that to many of the Dean supporters who trash the DLC and moderates, too.
I have friends my age who said that Dean made them feel optimistic about participating in politics again. There's something to be said for that, particularly when political persuasion is less about issues and more about identity (something I've been reluctant to admit).
Reform of how people are heard and can participate in the party and in government is good. That's the connection to campaign reform. But folks need to stop being so full of themselves. The problem with the Kos community is that they seem so ready to pounce on anyone--Southerners, moderates, et al. That's when the support for Democrat X is a problem--when it doesn't allow you to support another Democrat who might disagree on a couple of issues.
FWIW, when I waiting at the doctor's office, I read a Peter Beinart article in a November issue of Time that argued that Dean would have done better against Bush than Kerry mainly because Dean had a clearer position on Iraq than Kerry. I couldn't help but think of you, Greg, as I read that. :)
Posted by: Tx bubba | January 4, 2005 07:50 PM
FWIW, Clinton and Gore actually reduced the size of government--both in terms of the budget and employees. Clinton tried to bring several reform ideas to his presidency, some of which he implemented as governor of Arkansas (such as his changes in education). The idea that the DLC doesn't have a reform agenda is ridiculous.
Posted by: Tx Bubba | January 4, 2005 07:57 PM
I chalk Beinart's ability to shock me as a net plus ... despite the occassional deep disagreement with him.
Posted by: Greg Wythe | January 4, 2005 07:59 PM
Texas Bubba -- You were most articulate and eloquent. You are right that it is wonderful how some charismatic politicians have the ability to give people hope, renewed optimism and (I'll say it, even if you don't like the phrase) a sense of empowerment. Dean had that effect on some people. When I was young, John and Robert Kennedy had such an effect, as did Martin Luther King and Hubert Humphrey. So did Gene McCarthy and George McGovern, at least for the upstart rebels of 1968 and 1972. If Nelson Rockefeller had not gotten divorced and had been more systematic and dogged in his White House bids, he conceivably could have emerged as a Republican answer to the Kennedys. Of course, to have done that, he would have had to reenergize the Teddy Roosevelt progressive wing of the Republican Party. Reagan had the effect you describe on Republicans and even many Democrats. Yes, Clinton had an unusual personal magnetism and grabbed peoples attention with his new ideas and ways of doing things.
Having said that, swooning over a charismatic politician is rather like becoming infatuated with a beautiful woman. Just as men can make blithering idiots of themselves when blinded by such an infatuation (Note: One supposes women may have had similar experiences), a star-struck political groupee had best summon the strength to look beyond the charisma at the more mundane personal traits of the politician and the substance of his/her message. In my view, most of the charismatic political figures I mentioned above played postive roles overall, but others such as McCarthy and McGovern did not. These two men did great harm to many of the institutions and legacies of the Democratic Party stretching from Wilson through LBJ, aside from the admittely constructive role that they played in calling attention to the failed Vietnam strategy. Even in that regard, they were merely protest candidates, rather than offering a positive vision. Howard Dean, at least to me, has some of the same traits as McCarthy and McGovern. He has enouraged an unhealthy cult of personality among his followers, he is an extremely self-centered and selfish politician, and his demagogic political posturing and attacks on Clintonism and Centrism seem very unhealthy. In some cases, Dean has reviled even relatively Liberal Democratic politicians as traitors to the Party, snidely ridiculing them as Bush-lite Democrats. Indeed, Dean's bid for the DNC chairmanship shows his selfishness and his placement of a higher priority on his interests over those of the Party. He is an extraordinarily divisive figure. That alone would make him a horrible DNC Chairman.
Aside from the subject of Dean's DNC candidacy, I would venture to say that now is precisely the time for Democrats to be debating the direction of the Democratic Party, its electoral strategy and the soundness of its message. It is inevitable that centrist and pro-Defense Democrats (Beinart, et al) will find themselves locked in debate with Dean supporters and other Liberal Democrats. That is healthy. The ad hominem nature of many of these debates perhaps is not so healthy. However, that is also probably inevitable, given many of the vicious attacks by Liberals and left wing Blogs against the DLC, other centrist groups and even people like Beinart, who is himself a Liberal but believes in a strong defense posture and an aggressive foreign policy and pro-Democratic internationalism.
Finally, if Beinhart said that Dean would have been a more viable general election candidate than was Kerry, I would have say that he was being contradictory and that his assertion was just plain wrong. Despite all of Kerry's equivocations, he took a stronger stance on defense and foreign policy than did Dean. Moreover, if Dean could not even come clost to vanquishing Kerry in the primaries, how would the firebrand former governor from Vermont have done better than the Senator against Bush. Dean almost certainly would have been the candidate that Karl Rove most would have liked to run against.
Posted by: Scoop Jackson Democrat | January 9, 2005 12:12 PM