Is democracy in America fundamentally flawed? 
Do our political parties offer significant enough political choices? Do they actually engage in consequential political debate, offering alternative political policies? Are we so accustomed to inconsequential elections that our major newspaper confuses real consequential politics with authoritarianism? . These are the questions posed by Martin Plot in the past couple of weeks at DC. I think they are important questions, and I find insight in the answers he presents, but I don’t completely agree with Martin’s analysis. He thinks the democratic party in America may be over. I think it has just begun. Tonight, I will bluntly present my primary disagreement. Tomorrow, I will consider the implications of our differences and add a bit more qualification to my commentary. I welcome Martin’s response and anyone else’s.
First, though, I must acknowledge the insight of his media criticism. I think the Times reporter is inaccurate about politics in Argentina for the reasons Martin presents in his post, and further elaborated in his reply to the post. The reporter may very well hang around the wrong people, listening to critics who are far from unbiased and with questionable democratic credentials. And he may not fully appreciate that fundamental change can occur democratically, with radical changes in social policy, because this has not a common feature of American political life since the 1930s. Such a reporter can’t tell the difference between the democratic, and the authoritarian and populist left.
And when Martin notes that factual lies can persist because they are left unopposed in our fractured media world, in response to my concern about the power of fictoids, I think he is onto something very important.
But I do disagree with Martin’s overall appraisal of Democratic politics and the Presidency of Barack Obama, thus far. Put simply, I am not as sure as Martin is that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have not offered a significant alternative to the Republican Party and the Presidential leadership of former President George W. Bush, both in terms of platform and enacted policy. I don’t deny that “mistakes were made” in the development of this alternative. Perhaps more could have been accomplished. And I realize that Obama and the Democratic leadership have not played their hand particularly well in the competition with the Republicans, but this doesn’t mean that a different hand wasn’t being played. And, we should remember that there were significant winnings as the game proceeded.
The Obama and Bush administrations have proven to be fundamentally different in many ways, and it is important that we don’t lose sight of this. Instead of a failed attempt to privatize social security, there was a successful accomplishment of healthcare reform. The reform is initially modest and not all that Martin and I would wish, but the precedent has been set. Decent healthcare is emerging as a citizen’s right. America’s relation with the rest of the world is on a much different footing. The repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” is now supported by the Secretary of Defense and the military leadership. It will soon be a policy of the past, no matter how much kicking and screaming comes from John McCain. And most significantly, for the future prospects for a democratic society, there are very different Supreme Court Justices now being nominated and confirmed.
Given these very big differences in program and enacted policy, I think the notion that there is no empty space for politics in America, which Martin suggests drawing on Lefort, is a sophisticated way of saying that the parties don’t offer different programs, and don’t represent very different visions of the American common good and American identity. I think this is simply not true.
If there is weakness in our political system, it seems to me that it is related to not being able adequately identify major issues, and deal with them. Our mounting debt situation is absolutely unsustainable; virtually everyone knows this and few are willing to address it. Rather than dealing with the causes of unemployment and ways to address it, there is a tendency to suggest that we need to consider a new normal. There is a recognition that we need to produce and export more, yet policies on energy, permitting processes, trade policies, and taxation discourage it. There is generally a recognition that major changes need to be made in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, yet there is a reluctance to articulate all of the alternatives and choose the ones, which have the best chance of solving them. As Healthcare Reforms are regulated and implemented, there is inadequate attention to recruiting, training, and retaining the medical professionals that will be needed. As “don’t ask don’t tell” is changed, there is a tendency to overlook the cultural support changes that will be necessary to make this go smoothly — the Chiefs of the Army and Marines are concerned about the timing, and making the change while engaged in wars. I don’t see this as Democrat or Republican problems. They are just problems which require extraordinary efforts and leadership to deal with effectively. Perhaps the answer is in our existing political system if it is used properly. Deliberative reviews and consensus building might help, but these processes seemed to have been sidelined.
I agree that many of the most important underlying problems our country faces are not being addressed, although I think they are often identified. The national debt is one example. But who’s problem is it? Everybody’s… but nobody’s. The “compromise” on the Bush tax cuts is coupled with an extention of unemployment benefits. A win-win right? Not if you’re concerned about the national debt. (Or creating jobs rather than putting a band-aid on the problem.)
When it comes down to it, those that profess to be concerned about such issues seem to be more concerned about their taxes; that is, ultimately more concerned with their own small conerner of the country than with the common good. And it is ironic that someone might consider concern with “the common good” some kind of communist plot, even as they cry “Country First,” which to them apparently means “Tax cuts” First.
The political system, whether its efficient or not, whether it works or not, is not the primary issue. The political system does not operate independently of human action, obviously; But it was meant to take all the worst of human vice and somehow turn all that into a virtue; that doesn’t always happen, obviously. But the system is muteable, it can be subverted, co-opted, what have you. Fictoid based media, money based politics, and narrow interest based legislating all play a part in this. Currently, human vice has the upper-hand. But this is all subject to change, and I believe it inevitably will.
What have now is a problem of concerted collective action and consensus needed to take care of the big issues such as Medicare and Social Security (not to mention two wars and high unemployement). A system meant to pit vice against vice is not necessarily well endowed to do this. To turn back to the issue of plutocracy, I think this is a major reason why such problems go unresolved. Even as I also believe their are important differences between Republicans and Democrats, the conditions of plutocracy have a somewhat levelling effect making them seem more similar than they really are, because to get anything done, and to appease the plutocracy, compromise is necessary. Not that compromise is always a bad thing, but interest-based compromise is not the same thing as reality-based consensus.
I have to disagree on two points. First, this post seems to adhere to the notion that progressive legislation was not forthcoming because of either incompetence, cowardice, or simply being “outplayed” by the Republicans. I find that scenario unlikely since it has no place for the role of power. Put more plainly it ignores the outsized power of those lobbyists who defend privilege (like organized business groups) to determine legislative outcomes. The Employee Free Choice Act failed because of a power imbalance between labor and business groups not incompetence. Medicare is not allowed to negotiate with Pharma because of power, not a imbalance of legislative skill among democrats and republicans.
Secondly, Obama has had more success in setting the stage for social security privatization and the dismantling of the New Deal, through his deficit commission, than Bush could have dreamed of. And finally, far from setting the stage for health care as a right, Obama has managed to discredit government involvement in health care by keeping in place a failing private system.
Mr. Dowd, you paint President Obama a New Deal killer because of a widely ignored bipartisan deficit commission report- Indeed President Obama established the commission by executive order; but that does mean he should be held personally responsibly for the content of its report.
Quite frankly, I believe Bush did a bit more than Obama in attempting to dismantle social security as a entirely government run program. State of the Union 2005:
http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current&code=bush_admin&year=2005
“Here’s why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver . . .”
“And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away.”
Additionally, it is my understanding that certain Democratic legislators (senators mostly), rather than President Obama, were the ones who “discredit government involvement in health care by keeping in place a failing private system.” If you might remember, President Obama defended a public plan, defended insurance co-ops, and defended health care as a right for all Americans. However, he cannot write the laws of the United States, he can only sign them into law . . .