The State of Liberalism (TNR, Nation, Am Prospect editors discuss)

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/books/review/006LIBERA.html?pagewanted=print&position=

audio:
http://www.nytimes.com/audiopages/2005/03/06/books/20050306_LIBE_AUDIO.html

excerpt:

Peter Beinart, the editor of The New Republic; Michael Tomasky, the executive editor of The American Prospect; and Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation, are three leading voices for liberalism today. Now, following the re-election of George W. Bush, and with the continuing dominance of Republicans in Congress, the politics they stand for is arguably more embattled than at any time since 1933 and Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Barry Gewen, an editor at the Book Review, asked the three editors to discuss and debate the present state of liberalism in America, and its future.

. . .

Can the Democrats become the majority party in America again?

TOMASKY. One of the Democratic Party's problems is that it doesn't have enough contact with its rank and file. Right-wing people in this country have a place to meet and talk politics -- their churches, increasingly the megachurches in the exurbs. There's not a meeting place like that for liberals and for Democrats. I think it's a job of the new party chairman to initiate some conversations about the core principles of the party. This is not usually the job of a chairman. He's usually a mechanic. But I think this has to happen now, because otherwise, before they know it, it's going to be 2006 and they're going to be the party of prescription drugs again. And then it's going to be 2008 and there won't be any context for what the party should be.

VANDEN HEUVEL. One of the things that came out of this election, which is exciting, is that there's the beginning of an independent infrastructure outside the Democratic Party, a kind of fusionist politics combining movement politics with electoral politics. And I would build on that, building a farm team of new, Paul Wellstone-type leaders, developing messages and ideas. Stop listening to the pollsters and consultants inside the Beltway; that's not where the energy, the passion, the conviction's going to come from.

BEINART. I think that the base needs to be engaged, absolutely, and I certainly think that Washington and Washington political consultants should not be the only people who set the direction for the party. But I also think it's important to remember the base was enormously engaged in this election. The Democratic Party still lost. The party has to have a listening tour within its own base but also a listening tour among swing constituencies that are moving away: Hispanics, Jews, the military in particular. The Democratic Party needs a strategy with military voters not simply because of their numbers, but because military voters will give the Democratic Party credibility with nonmilitary voters who are concerned the Democratic Party is not tough enough. One cannot forget the central fact that the Democratic Party has lost every election since the 9/11 era, in which national security has been predominant. That is an enormous, enormous problem.

it boggles the mind that soldiers sent to fight this immoral war and their families would support the pugs. Even some who were maimed are claimed to still support *. :wtf: ?!?!!

to presume changeis only happening in Iraq. There is huge disparity been editorial comment in most of the world's newspapers this weekend about the radical democratic changes happening in the Middle East. I can to the "editorials" section of DU to share in the huge transition (that we have never seen in our lifetimes). Next to nothin' here on that subject, of course. But the idea that the catalyst for democractic change in the Middle East is denounced as "immoral" deserves to be discussed. Voting is not immoral. Liberating people is not immoral. Supporting status-quo dictators like Assad and Saddam -- now that's immoral.

election time and ignores the fact that in this election the Republicans won the election by pandering to their base, not to swing voters.

While the Dem base was engaged during the 2004 election, the Dem Establishment, like Al From, kept dissing the base and moving the Prez candidate to the Right. Kerry kept moving to the right and the swing voters saw Kerry as only interested in getting elected, not leading. As someon once said, rally the base and the swing voters will follow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/books/review/006LIBERA.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Obviously, I'd like people to go read the article beyond just the excerpts, because though it's by no means the end-all, it raises some interesting subjects.

Excerpt:

To move on to domestic economic policy, the Bush administration pursues a more market-oriented philosophy while liberals tend to pursue a more government oriented philosophy. Is there some meeting ground?

TOMASKY. Not on Social Security. Social Security returns efficiencies that very few private programs of its sort can return. It's the greatest social insurance program devised by any government, ever. A lot of Democrats are open to some kind of private account on top of it. But as a principle Social Security is inviolate.

VANDEN HEUVEL. In fact, liberals and progressives have done a lot over the course of history to save the market from itself and from its excesses. And there is an interesting movement under way within the Democratic Party led by people like Eliot Spitzer and the treasurer in California, Phil Angelides, to use public pension funds to invest in what are called high-road investments: clean energy, high-wage enterprises. I think that's an interesting use of the market.

BEINART. I completely agree on Social Security. But I think liberals should be entirely empirical about market-oriented tax credits versus new government programs. Does a tax credit do something better or does a government program?

VANDEN HEUVEL. Something that hasn't been mentioned is labor, which I think is very important. Labor was a core component of the New Deal liberal coalition. Now it's under assault. It's a diminishing constituency, unfortunately, in the progressive liberal coalition.

TOMASKY. Labor can play a significant policy role if it becomes more powerful. Because that's how politics works. To me, the effort to organize Wal-Mart is what it's all about. That's a very hard fight that could take 20 years, but if the unions can organize the Wal-Mart stores that would be a titanic historical victory, like organizing the coal mines in the past.