Interesting StuffI really enjoyed reading this
post at Jane Galt, which refers to
this post at Crooked Timber (smarter than average leftism), which leads us
to this article by the writer that CT is talking about. There is something to be said for leading the people to a place they may not realize that they want to go yet.
But... as I mentioned in the comments on the Jane Galt post, the central flaw is the idea that economic populism will work, either politically or in the real world of economics, where being wrong can leave you far behind
a la Europe over the last few decades. Despite the passionate wishes of folks like Robert Reich and Rick Perlstein, there is no sense in the United States that we wish we had France's economy or Germany's unemployment rate.
Here's what I see as the key paragraph in the Perlstein article:
Now maybe the members of Judis and Teixeira’s emerging Democratic majority indeed think in pretty much the same way as do Mark Penn’s “wired workers,” and maybe to veer toward economic populism is to risk losing their support. But might not it also be likely—especially with fears about the outsourcing of professional jobs abroad being the hottest new political issue—that the reason these people are becoming Democrats is despite the party’s turn from market interventionism, not because of it?I don't agree with Judis & Texeira's emerging Democratic majority either, but I seriously doubt that market interventionism is going to sell well to a bunch of people in this country. Our experience with it has been pretty bad, from Smoot-Hawley to public housing to welfare.
But of course, in classic (not classical) liberal fashion, Perlstein seems determined NOT to learn from the mistakes of the past. Indeed, he could not be more plain:
When social scientists render conclusions at odds with their own data, it is reasonable to wonder why. Again, one reason may be generational. Dissenters who do call for a bolder Democratic Party—one thinks of Robert Borosage of the Campaign for America’s Future—are sometimes dismissed as throwbacks to the ’60s. Well, I can’t be dismissed as a throwback. The ’60s ended when I was less than three months old. The traumas that shaped the world view of a Teixeira, a Greenberg, a Judis were the post-’60s backfirings of left-of-center boldness. The same goes for Al From, whose formative political experience, he has told me, was McGovern’s loss in 1972. The traumas of my own political generation, conversely, were the backfirings of left-of-center timidity.
Which may be why, when I read these writers’ stories about the history of the past 25 years, I don’t know what they’re talking about. Let's do a little math here, shall we? Perlstein says he was born in late 1969 (arguably late 1970 if he's using the "Jeopardy!" definition of the 1960s). So he's 35 years old now, and he wants to say he's an expert on the politics of the last 25 years... that means he's an expert on everything that's happened since he was 10 years old. Seeing a little problem here? Or maybe he means it literally--that he does not in fact know what they're talking about?
I remember seeing a quote on somebody's blog earlier today about how conservatives believe in the wisdom passed down from generation to generation, while liberals believe in only what they themselves have experienced. It certainly appears to be true.
And this:
"Well, I can’t be dismissed as a throwback. The ’60s ended when I was less than three months old."
is farcical. A throwback is always somebody who was born after his "normal" time. From
dictionary.comA reversion to a former type or ancestral characteristic.As for Perlstein's economic populism, I would certainly like to see the Democrats embrace it heartily for one election cycle. Once and for all I would like to see this argument defeated in the court of ideas, but it won't happen. The problem has been that nobody has been willing to do it because it polls awfully. So the Democrats run as non-redistributionists (Kerry made a point of it), and when they then lose, the populists claim it was because they weren't redistributionist enough. The only way it will be settled is if somebody from the Democrats goes all Bolshie on us, and even then the Perlsteins of the world will attribute the loss to something else.
Hat Tip:
Conservative Grapevine
