Democrats and Special Interests: Can't Have One Without The Other
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in Democrats — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Taranto points us to this essay by Michael Tomasky in the American Prospect returning yet again to the question of What Do The Democrats Stand For? Tomasky argues - correctly - that the Dems have become increasingly effective as an opposition party, but that when it comes to retaking a majority:
What the Democrats still don't have is a philosophy, a big idea that unites their proposals and converts them from a hodgepodge of narrow and specific fixes into a vision for society. Indeed, the party and the constellation of interests around it don't even think in philosophical terms and haven't for quite some time. There's a reason for this: They've all been trained to believe - by the media, by their pollsters - that their philosophy is an electoral loser.
This is old hat by now, even from Tomasky, but this time he offers up a solution:
[New Deal and Great Society] liberalism was built around the idea -- the philosophical principle -- that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.
This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance -- not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity. Liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest. Any rank-and-file liberal is a liberal because she or he somehow or another, through reading or experience or both, came to believe in this principle. And every leading Democrat became a Democrat because on some level, she or he believes this, too.
Leave aside for now the correctness of this characterization of the New Deal and Tomasky's arguments about where and when the Democrats lost their connection with the common good and the general interest, and how Ronald Reagan appropriated that theme for the GOP. I'm not that familiar with Tomasky's writings in general, but he does make a good faith effort, as New Republic neoliberals like Peter Beinart and Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan have been doing for years, to get to the heart of what is most reactionary and illiberal about today's Democrats, and his essay is worthy of reading at length. But the simple fact is that placing the general interest above special interests runs so completely contrary to the core of how today's Democratic Party operates that suggesting that the Democrats become champions of the general interest seems like a crude parody of the party. Tomasky gravely underestimates the difficulty of breaking the habit of casting issue after issue in terms of how it affects the concrete interests of particular subgroups of voters. A quick tour of issues vital to bedrock Democratic constituencies only underlines this:
1. Racial Preferences. There is no more glaring example of a policy that rejects the notion of the general common good than the use of racial classifications to give preference to some individuals over others in education and employment. Yes, there are pretextual, fig-leaf "diversity" justifications for using such preferences four decades after the death of Jim Crow and extending them in perpetuity into the future, but try arguing with any supporter of preferences and you will very quickly cut through the pretexts to what remains the core justification, and the only one that could support explicit state-sponsored race discrimination: the idea that African-Americans and other minority groups are owed a debt by the rest of society that justifies transferring benefits to them at the expense of other citizens along racial lines.
Tomasky does make an effort at finessing this question:
[T]here exist powerful common-good arguments for affirmative action. In addition to the idea that diversity enriches private-sector environments, affirmative action has been the most important single factor in the last 40 years in the broad expansion of the black middle class, which in turn (as more blacks and whites work and live together) has dramatically improved race relations in this county, which has been good, as LBJ would put it, for every American.
On closer inspection, this argument collapses. Yes, diversity in and of itself is a good thing, and yes, that justifies some mild forms of affirmative action, from outreach and mentoring programs to a general posture of inclusiveness in considering candidates for jobs and schools. But that's not the issue - the issue is formal or informal practices of giving one man a leg up on another by virtue of the color of his skin. Pointing to the fact that this has brought benefits to African-Americans as a group just underlines the fact that the argument for preferences is the strictest of special interest arguments. Whatever the merits of that argument, you can't with a straight face present it as anything else.
2. Anti-Competitive Economic Policies. Few things get Democrats more exercised than the constellation of issues that, at their core, amount to efforts to protect particular workers or particular businesses from competitive pressures that could drive down the wages of some workers and cut prices for consumers. The list goes on and on - just a few examples:
*The minimum wage, which props up the wages of some workers at the expense of retarding the growth of low-wage entry-level jobs.
*Opposition to free trade and "outsourcing", on the grounds that competition from low-cost foreign producers would put downward pressure on wages.
*Hatred of Wal-Mart by businesses that compete with Wal-Mart and unions that see Wal-Mart as a threat to unionized competitors.
*Farm subsidies and other programs that keep food prices artificially high.
*The Davis-Bacon Act, which drives up taxpayer expenses for public works - a public good if ever there was one - to benefit construction unions.
You know by heart the responses in favor of these policies, which amount to the idea that the interests of "working people" (i.e., distinct subsets of people who work for a living) trump the general interests of consumers and the broader interest of the economy. Indeed, Democrats mock as "trickle-down economics" the notion of doing things to benefit the economy as a whole rather than to benefit particular subgroups within the economy.
3. Public Sector Unions. If the Davis-Bacon Act is a glaring example of preferring the particular special interests of certain workers over the general interests of taxpayers and those who benefit from government services, the same philosophy operates writ large throughout the Democrats' approach to public sector workers: the insistence on above-market wages and job protections and benefits unavailable to comparably-skilled workers in the private sector, and the support of strong unions that exist in opposition, not to particular capitalists, but to the taxpayer and the citizenry at large.
4. Targeted Tax Cuts. A classic example of preferring special to general interests can be seen in tax policy - the Democrats are constantly arguing that this or that sub-constituency, behavior or activity is deserving of targeted tax relief, rather than taking the Reagan/Bush approach of cutting taxes for everyone who pays them. Whatever else may be said about those arguments, they are classic special interest arguments.
-----
These are, I should add, just a few of the clearest examples, but you can spot your own examples of appeals to the interests of narrow groups in almost any speech of any length by any Democrat. None of this is to say that Republicans are immune from the temptation to pander to special interests, nor to suggest that special pleading on behalf of particular special interest groups is always illegitimate. Sometimes, some people do have special claims on the public. But the identification of Republicans with policies that apply the same rules and distribute the same benefits broadly to benefit the general interest, and of Democrats with a collection of policies narrowcasted to particular constituencies, is neither an accident nor simply bad P.R. The style of special pleading and the belief in the moral primacy of special interests over the general common good is so deeply ingrained in today's Democrats, and so central to the way in which the most faithful voters, donors and organizers are rallied in election after election, that it is simply inconceivable (and yes, I know what that word means) to imagine a Democratic Party built around the theme that Tomasky envisions.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | In Illinois, a new impeachment tack — Comments (29) »
Democrats and Special Interests: Can't Have One Without The Other 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Sorry, but I take issue with that whole premise being framed in the inadequate "Left-Right" paradigm.
First of all, your wording can easily be used to criticize GOP as well as Dems:
"efforts to protect particular workers or particular businesses from competitive pressures"
Think about it. There's a greater complaint to be made here.
But anyway, in one way or another, you speaking against a mind-set that exists but if you want to generalize lines of division, take your common Left/Right image and then subdivide it into "Up and Down", if you will. This leaves 4 quadrants, so to speak.
In this sense, the general but clear division between "protectionist and globalist" comes to light.
I wish more conservatives would respect this division. It's a more honest way of discussing different coalitions and voting blocs.
...of an institution where everything is done "for the common good" or "the common mission" is the US Army. While I support the US Army, it's not really a place for pursuing your own personal dreams and eccentricities--unless your dream is wearing green camo while working like a mule and losing your hearing. In a free society, the "common good" is required at times, but should be about as rare as a solar eclipse. The only fair institutional dispenser of "good" is an open free market. It's so fair, it's brutal.
There's a lot to this. For instance, in some respects, the military is a socialist enterprise--it provides almost all the basic needs of its members--housing, food, healthcare, clothing, and so forth. Your military specialty will be determined, at least in part, by your performance on batteries of standardized tests.
Secondly, it probably is no accident that the highwater mark of liberalism--late 40s and early 50s occurred shortly after massive military mobilization, and liberalism began a rapid decline with the left's hostility to the military in the late 60s?
"The only fair institutional dispenser of "good" is an open free market. It's so fair, it's brutal."
But in this discussion it's neither here nor there since we don't really have an open free market. So, we lack the true evidence to make a complete judgement on its total "goodness".
As long as there exists any form of regulation, subsidy, tariff or favoritism in any way, the true potential, good and bad, of the true free open market is a moot point.
In the end,
Everything is driven by a battle of competing special interests...be they from labor, civil rights advocates and industry sector lobbies spanning all areas of the economy looking to alter the commerical arena to suit them better.
http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=18
This article/survey on raising the minimum wage to 7.15 shows a strong majority of 72% of Republicans supporting the increase and only 4% of the total country opposing it.
As a follow-up on my previous post above regarding the inaccurate views of Left and Right regarding anti-competitive economic policy, this is but one example that puts into question, if not refutes, the very loose ideas some have, in terms of Left and Right, about who supports what policy. Most people are not as animate and ideologically consistent as many would like to lead. The elecorate is hardly divided bewteen all out darwinistic "laissez-faire" and highly instrusive socialism.
I think there are two factors that drive the current apparent approval levels for increasing the minimum wage. And, as an aside, I think you could make the poll number $12.00 per hour and it wouldn't have much impact on the result...
- Current unemployment is less than 5%. Competition for employees outstrips competition for jobs, at least at the "minimum wage" sector of the economy. Not many jobs actually pay the minimum so it's an academic question.
- The argument against the minimum wage generally works out to a treatise on macro-economics while the argument for the minimum wage is a "feel good" argument. Given the ability of most people to actually process an argument that requires more than 25 words to make it's case, eliminating, lowering or holding the minimum wage is a tough sell.
"make the poll number $12.00 per hour and it wouldn't have much impact on the result..."
I certainly hope not...though I'll admit I'd only go to maybe $6.75 for now.
I'm not so quick to dismiss the findings like that. I believe the poll is more or less accurate.
And yes, I agree that such a discussion, to do it justice, requires a little more time and words to fully appreciate.
But my premise for that stat was to sound warning bells to those who are quick to think that subtle policies are easy to label politically.
We must acknowledge, if get my meaning, that most voters' views are not as stark as American Enterprise Institute vs. Center for American Progress.
My larger point, with that in mind, is that many would reject many of the purist views of such think-thanks. And economic policy in particular, exposes huge gaps of opinion within parties and strange bed-fellows from across the aisle.
Mr. Tomasky did not actually say the problem was with "special interests" and the "common interest". He made the distinction between "self interest" and the "common interest". It is a very important distinction. Liberalism (and all variants leftward) thrive on the distinction between self interest (selfishness) and public interest (altruism). Practical liberalism consists primarily in using coercion to achieve what they perceive as the right "balance" between the two.
The logical problem that I have never seen overcome is that the notion of "public interest" cannot be viewed as an entity apart from self interest. The "common interest" is nothing more than what each individual deems it to be. If it makes me feel good to tax rich people at 97%, well, that becomes my "common interest".
This truth is reflected in Tomasky's other annoying deception - the notion that New Deal liberalism is based on the noble pursuit of the common interest. Never has their been a more painless sacrifice! Never have so few taken so much from so many at so little cost to themselves! What the New Deal primarily consisted of was taking from Person A and giving to Person B, under the cover of law, in the name of the Common Good. It was organized swindle of the lowest sort.
Liberalism, ultimately, wants to be a serious moral ideology. But it can't do the moral lifting required to be taken seriously. Any ideology that cannot reconcile the fact that a person motivated by self interest will benefit the public more than a person motivated by the "common interest" doesn't deserve to be resuscitated.
I don't think most people give a rip one way or the other. In the world of priorities, this is generally on page 52.
And I don't disagree at all with your point about AEI & CAP. In fact, I think most of the people who don't care about this issue also don't know who either AEI or CAP are,
As I stated above. I totally dismiss the issues listed anti-competitve economic policy in the main post as being Left/Right.
I think many protectionist and populist conservatives as well as moderate ones (and there's a lot of them) would agree to some degree with many of those issues. Likewise, many free-market liberals and new dems may not be as sympathetic to those issues as one may expect...or at least not to the same degree as many would expect.
Strong economic populism's base is with the further Left AND the paleo, cultural further Right.
Like immigration, we see strange allies on these issue.
the Holy Grail of every power grubbing opportunist of the past two hundred years. A noble idea that you should affix your eyes on while someone else pulls the levers and sits atop the heap.
The implementation of this cause,noble or otherwise, is another matter. What works in a primitive Soth Pacific jungle encounters a few bumps in the road in a large, modern and mass democracy.
It was inevitable that from the hazy concept of common good a drift to the downtrodden would occur. How can we have a common good when the oppressed, exploited, and underprivileged suffer amongst us?
From there a short hop to what is known now as identity politics or divide and rule, with the common good merging with the equally mysterious "social justice". Which last can only be actuated by the federal government.
Tomasky ignores the lure of centralized authority, the bastard of hierarchy and order. The variations of gibberish used to justify one man's control over another wax and wane, but they never go away.
Burke said of another time and other ideals which ended in bloodshed," they present a shorter cut to the object than thru the highway of moral virtues". A shorter cut, a higher price!