Washblog

The Lesson of the New Deal

In his column "Lessons of 1992", Paul Krugman tells us that policy specifics are very important and (in another thinly-veiled, anti-Obama message) tells us that without them we are doomed to failure.

In that Krugman is more-or-less in the policy specifics business, I'm sure he believes this, but as Arthur Ruger gracefully points out in his front-paged post (which I highly recommend), an expression of high ideals and core values is also essential to create support for policy.

Most of the essential policies the Roosevelt administration brought with it into office were too boring and technical for words. But they had a message - America would get a "New Deal". And "New Deal" were the two essential words America needed to hear to keep it from the jaws of despair and likely descent into fascism.

The most important lesson I've learned from getting involved in actual, partisan politics (rather than political theory) is that emotions matter. Humans are busy creatures and even if they have the time, not all have the inclination to look deeply into policy. Besides, they know instinctively that change requires consensus and leadership. They look for politicians who can bring the intangible qualities to bear that foster trust, enthusiasm and hope.

I wish Senator Obama had a full suite of Progressive policies like the New Deal that I could read in detail and discuss and dissect. But frankly there is a good reason he doesn't. Krugman asks:

So what good did Mr. Clinton's message of inclusiveness do him?

...... Mr. Clinton may not have run as postpartisan a campaign as legend has it, he did avoid some conflict by being strategically vague about policy. In particular, he promised health care reform, but left the business of producing an actual plan until after the election.

Well, first of all, legend has nothing to do with the idea that Clinton ran as a "postpartisan" "third way" candidate. It had everything to do with Iraq-war-supporter and veteran loser Al From's DLC and the short-sighted strategy of "triangulation".

Politics is best understood as a battle of "define or be defined". Clinton's triangulation was a successful effort to redefine a Democrat as more conservative. He was vague about his health care proposals because this issue had already been defined by conservatives along with (short-sighted) doctors and the insurance industry in the most hysterical, Cold-War terms. Nobody could pretend to be even slightly conservative and  even breathe the words "single payer".

I agree with Krugman when he says:

those who don't want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don't want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s -- a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy -- are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can't bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn't one of them.

But I disagree that Obama's "rejection" of health insurance mandates will somehow kill the project. We are still suffering the hangover from DLC cowardice. Democrats have not yet remembered how to stand up to the right-wing media machine. I'm sure that's why John Edwards felt the need not only to sign onto, but help author the Patriot Act when he was a Senator.

By rolling over in their DLC style, the Democrats allowed many issues to be defined for so long, in the most hysterical of terms, that it is a long fight to move the debate back in our direction. To realign, you have to convincingly rise above the other side. But you also have to deal with the politics as you find them.

Franklin Roosevelt, the great creator of public programs and ultimate champion of Keynesianism, campaigned against Hoover's high deficit spending. He then proceeded to spend more and in more ways than Hoover could ever have imagined. Thus he campaigned, in a sense, against the specifics of his own program. But his genius was communicating his intent to give America hope and a "New Deal".

As Arthur Ruger points out, Roosevelt was the communicator, the salesman, the champion of the a renewed American confidence.

There will be a great deal for a Democratic President to do and most of it will be pretty boring (but important) stuff. What the nation needs is to feel the importance.

What candidate is best at making us feel that?

< WA's Senators Filibuster Bush's FISA Bill | More Prison Beds A Waste of Money >

Poll

What candidate is best at making us feel that importance
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
Other

Votes: 3
Results | Other Polls
Display: Sort:
I agree with you here dlaw --

policy specifics are not enough alone.  Krugman himself invokes all the tricks used to derail good policy.  What good are policy specifics that never get implemented?

The way you get policy implemented is to have the public behind you.

I quoted sustainable aviation guru, Franz Verhagen in this story:

"To develop a plan of action, it is necessary to start with values.  People say that theory is not practical.  But it is; it underlies most of what we do. Government and business do not want to change their underlying values.  They will make these changes only if citizens force them to.  

And how can citizens "force" changes in government and business?  By uniting on the basis of emotion and belief with enough political power.  That's really all we have.  

Saying that Obama's ability to inspire people is politically irrelevant is nonsense. It is the exact reverse of the truth. We have a wild ride ahead with our economy, climate change, and security. Only the right kind of political will can keep us focused on solutions rather than on fear and blame. Obama, I believe, has the ability to help the country avoid sliding into fascism and chaos as we deal with the exceptionally difficult times that seem likely to be coming.  Yes, even more difficult than what we face now.

Some of Obama's positions alarm me. But Kucinich and Edwards were knocked out of the game and he and Clinton are the two choices we have right now.  Though I won't be surprised if Obama's campaign is sabotaged next by the corporate and media powers. Clinton's history, votes, rhetoric, campaign tactics, and leadership style all spell problems to me.  I see her as a weak leader and as a divisive figure.  I ain't religious, but I'm praying on Obama.

by noemie maxwell on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:52:58 PM PST

* 1 none 0 *


<TABLE BORDER=0 CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 BGCOLOR="" align="cent