Two Cheers for American Exceptionalism. By Joseph Loconte. American Enterprise Institute, March 5, 2010.
Permanently Blue. By Hunter Wallace. Occidental Dissent, September 8, 2010.
Kotkin:
Once giants walked this earth, and some of them were Democrats. In sharp contrast to the thin gruel that passes for leadership today, the old party of the people, with all its flaws, shaped much of the modern world, and usually for the better. Think of Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman, John Kennedy, or California’s Pat Brown, politicians who believed in American greatness, economic growth, and upward mobility.
For
more than 40 years, the Democratic Party has drifted far from this tradition,
its policies increasingly a blend of racial and gender politics combined with a
fashionable brand of environmental fanaticism. No longer does it constitute a
reliable, middle class-based alternative to the corporatist mindset of the
Republicans. “Today’s Democrats have no more in common with Franklin Roosevelt,
Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson,” notes author Michael Lind,
“than today’s Republicans have in common with Abraham Lincoln or Dwight
Eisenhower.”
To
regain their relevancy, Democrats need to go back to their evolutionary roots.
Their clear priorities: faster economic growth and promoting upward mobility
for the middle and working classes. All
other issues—racial, feminine, even environmental—need to fit around this
central objective. In survey after survey, economic issues such as
unemployment, the economy, and the federal budget top the list of concerns
while affirmative action, gay rights, and climate change barely register.
From Obama Back to Jackson
Democrats
do not need to become Republican lite, as was true among some New Democrats (I
was a fellow with the Progressive Policy Institute, the New Democrats think
tank). Democrats need to respond aggressively to the crony capitalism practiced
by many Republicans, particularly regarding Wall Street. But they can’t do that
if all they offer in its place are policies that service instead their own
cronies not only in finance, but technology and media as well.
Right
now it’s hard to make the case that the Democrats have a strategy to improve
the economic prospects of the middle class. The
New York Times’s Tom Edsall notes notes that after six years of Obama,
voters stubbornly hold unto pessimistic views about the future. Of course,
declining or stagnant wage growth started well before this president took
office. Nevetheless, Democratic rule has not only failed to halt the trend, but
appears to have accelerated it.
Not
surprisingly, many middle and working class voters, particularly whites, have
deserted the Democrats in increasing numbers. This November, notes Gallup,
support for Obama among white college graduates dropped to 41 percent while his
support among those without degrees fell to a pathetic 27 percent.
Critically,
in 2014 this erosion began to extend to millennials; white millennials,
particularly those without BAs (the vast majority), went Republican. This is a
generation that, according to the Census, is both somewhat more educated than
previous ones but far more likely to live in poverty.
Although
likely to reject Republican views on social issues, such as gay marriage,
millennials may not become “permanently blue,” as imagined by some boomer
progressives. Faced with the consequences of slow, and poorly distributed
growth, they are already less likely to see themselves as environmentalists
than the national average and particularly the generally better off boomers.
Some
progressives suggest that working class voters, particularly whites, can be
lured back to the party by expanding the welfare state even further. But such
an approach works against the traditional pride in self-sufficiency espoused by
many in the American middle class. The old Jacksonians challenged financial
power—then the Bank of the United States—but also worked to expand the economy,
opening new lands to settlement, and encouraging home ownership and grassroots
entrepreneurship.
. . . .
Class Not Race
The
growing opposition towards Hillary Clinton’s ascension has one thing right:
Democrats should not be seen as the second party of Wall Street. Obama’s
recovery and Fed policy have, as Democrats like Elizabeth Warren like to point
out, often favored the financial oligarchs, although their support for
Democrats makes them far less keen on taking on the Silicon Valley Venture Capitalists,
who have also profited under Obama. High valuations—even absurd ones—enrich the
insiders who found companies, underwriters, and merger mavens, but those
valuations have done precious little for the vast majority of Americans.
Faced
with the loss of middle class voters, the administration seems determined to
double down on its current coalition. So to whom do they turn to determine
their future political direction? Not to a successful elected official from a
swing district or a Main Street businessperson but to Google’s Eric Schmidt, an
oligopolist of the first order from the party’s new heartland around the San
Francisco Bay Area.
Given
their cozy ties to Wall Street and oligarchs like Schmidt, the Democrats have
failed to push class warfare as an issue, preferring instead to play the racial
trump card. They allow issues to be dominated by such flawed emissaries as the
detestable Al Sharpton, whose job seems to be the stoking of African-American
ire. Similarly, the president’s executive order on undocumented residents
follows this approach, by trying to appeal to Latino racial interests.
Yet
race politics has limited appeal to whites, and ultimately may not guarantee
keeping many minority voters in check. After all, minorities have fared poorly
under Obama: a recent Pew study found minority incomes dropped 9 percent
between 2010 and 2013, while only 1 percent among whites. Hispanics, notes a
recent Pew survey economic issues easily trump immigration. Texas Republicans,
for example, got close to half the vote among Latinos in that state, and
similar results were found in Kansas. Even in places as blue-leaning as
Colorado, Latino support for pro-growth Republicans has been growing. And
Asians also showed a shift toward the GOP in the mid-terms.
Embrace Exceptionalism
Historically
Democrats, like Republicans, believed in American Exceptionalism. This
sometimes spills over into messianic overkill—for example, under Woodrow Wilson
and George W. Bush—but overall the ideal of a uniquely American national profile
has been embraced by Democrats from Jefferson and Jackson to Roosevelt, Truman
and, arguably the last of the breed, Bill Clinton.
President
Obama, in contrast, has openly rejected this notion, perhaps reflecting the
world view of academics and much of the financial world that sees American
Exceptionalism as some sort of patriotic nonsense. In the past the old
Democrats saw the country’s broad resources and continental scale as primary
sources of national greatness. Early conservationists did not oppose the
expansion of industry, mining, or growth as inimical to progressive ideals;
instead, they sought to restrain the abuses of the capitalist classes in order
to prevent gouging as well as to preserve resources and open space for future
generations.
In
sharp contrast to their modern “heirs,” both Progressives and New Dealers were
builders of dams, roads, and electrical power systems. They embraced the notion
of a growing America, whose economy could be expanded for the benefit of the
majority.
Is There a Messenger For Dino-Democrats?
Hillary
of the many houses, $200,000 speaking gigs, Wall Street linkages, and her
aging, wealthy glitterati backers does not exactly appear the ideal messenger
for a neo-Jacksonian revival. Rather than the “shot and a beer” Hillary who
came back to almost save her 2008 effort, she now reflects gentry views on both
economics and climate change in ways that do not significantly diverge from
President Obama.
With
dissatisfaction with the economic status quo strong among many traditional
Democrats, it’s likely populist candidates could emerge. Some imagine Senator
Elizabeth Warren as the charismatic leader of a progressive version of the “tea party.” She has been a strong and vocal critic of Wall Street, which is to her
credit, but her base lies not in middle class voters but among academia and
wealthy Boston suburbs. On environmental issues, she seeks to out-green Hillary, something that might not appeal to voters in Ohio, Indiana, and a host
of other key states.
Bernie
Sanders, the self-described socialist, represents an emotionally appealing
alternative to the endlessly grifting Clintons and the law professor Warren.
But Sanders, a representative of the Northeastern vacation state of Vermont,
also opposes fossil fuel development. This approach would greatly limit his
appeal beyond the Northeast and the west coast. It’s hard to envision him
campaigning for votes at Great Lakes factories that depend on coal power, or
appealing to construction workers who would love to see the Keystone and other
pipelines built.
Right
now, former Virginia Senator James Webb may prove the best vehicle for
dino-Democratic ideas. A self-conscious inheritor of the Jacksonian tradition,
Webb epitomizes the individualist and populist values of his Scotch-Irish
forebears. With a strong military background, he also appeals to nationalists
who inhabit the South, Appalachia, and the non-coastal parts of the West.
Whether his candidacy takes off is still an open question, but the ideas and
spirit he embodies could revive a Democratic tradition that, although now
submerged, might provide the party with a way out of its current morass.
