The Dodo Party
Two articles in the current issue of the The New York Review of Books underscore my sense that the Democratic Party is a dangerous obstacle to the progress of liberalism. There was really not even one solid, likeable candidate in last year's roundup of primary contenders, except perhaps Howard Dean, and he turned out to be terribly unprepared for a national campaign.
First, Thomas Frank asks "What's the Matter with Liberals?" I agree with everything about this article except its title, which stands for an equation of "Liberal" and "Democratic Party." Liberals were not responsible for this:
The illusion that George W. Bush "understands" the struggles of working-class people was only made possible by the unintentional assistance of the Democratic campaign. Once again, the "party of the people" chose to sacrifice the liberal economic policies that used to connect them to such voters on the altar of centrism. Advised by a legion of tired consultants, many of whom work as corporate lobbyists in off years, Kerry chose not to make much noise about corruption on Wall Street, or to expose the business practices of Wal-Mart, or to spend a lot of time talking about raising the minimum wage.
This strategy had a definite upside: Kerry's fund-raising almost matched that of the Republican candidate...
There you have the picture of a party that might as well call itself "The Also-Rans." And there, too, one finds the hint of a suggestion about what the Democratic Party's successor must be very clear and firm about: business. It is not enough to be "anti-business" anymore, or, rather, it is too much, counterproductive. We are all of us in business these days, buying if not selling in the national marketplace. But business today is extremely noisy: it causes too much damage, material and personal, and it hijacks too much attention. Someone out there, I hope, serious reformers are taking a good long look at the anatomy of the limited liability corporation, and finding that it is no longer a suitable template for today's highly interconnected life. Amazingly, the modern corporation isn't anywhere near two centuries old, but it has acquired an almost Mosaic venerability. I say, throw the baggage out. And so would everyone else if it were more widely understood that so many of today's executive suites are colorless but vicious replicas of the princely courts of old, with intrigue leading responsibility every time. (Here's a thought: let's let the workers elect the bosses.) Laissez-faire capitalism may have been what it took to jolt the West from an agrarian to an industrial age, but, hey, we're no longer living in a "industrial" age.
Second, Ian Buruma writes about "The Indiscreet Charm of Tyranny." (This piece is not online.) He notes that there are few big-time dictators these days, and all of them have wrecked their countries. Tongue in cheek, Mr Buruma asks what it is that makes tyrants so appealing - for to be sure they cannot rule without massive popular consent. He finds the answer in human nature:
What has not changed is human nature, the human desires that have allowed dictators to emerge in the past. The wish to worship, to be sheltered by a great father, to bask in the reflected glory of war, to be mesmerized by the spectacle of power, or swept up in collective emotion, these are still with us. And then there is the dictator's most potent weapon, our fears: of unseen enemies, threatening us abroad and at home; of individual meaninglessness and impotence; and indeed of freedom itself.
In a well-functioning democracy these emotions are defused....
If the United States is truly a functioning democracy these days, it is no thanks to the Democratic Party, which for forty-odd years has been exhorting Americans to set the unpleasant aspects of human nature aside. Leadership has been in scant supply since the departure of Lyndon B Johnson, who himself was a leader only in retrospect. Only Bill Clinton has made a plausible claim for the mantle of "great father" - and then he dropped the thing. Nor has the Democratic Party a coherent idea of religion. Beyond mumbling words of pabulum about "separation of church and state," it has nothing to offer as a vision of the church in public life. This is part of its pretense that we have outgrown religion, and the principal justification for conservative attacks against liberals. The leadership of a liberal party ought to be encouraging its supports to seize - literally! - their houses of worship as temples of respect for the integrity of diverse individuals.
How do we get rid of this wrinkled old carcass?
