Restoring The New Deal Coalition

Although you have to keep in mind the different American meaning of terms like "economic liberalism" and "middle-class", the following, from Right Democrat, is not only hugely timely, but very much applicable to this country, too:

In my view, Michael Lind is one of the brightest political minds in America today. Lind, a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, has a most astute analysis at Salon.Com concerning how Democrats can restore the New Deal Coalition. Check out this link to the full article. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/08/15/newer_deal/

The New Deal Coalition dominated American politics from 1932 to 1968 and remained a powerful force until the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 although certainly weakened by the McGovern debacle of 1972. Lind writes:

"The Roosevelt Party ran on economic issues, and didn't care whether voters were in favor of sex or against it on principle as long as they supported the New Deal. The McGovern Party, by contrast, has made social issues its litmus test. Economic conservatives have had a home in the McGovern Party, as long as they support abortion rights and affirmative action, but social democrats and populists who are pro-life or anti-affirmative action are not made nearly as welcome."

"Beginning with its namesake, George McGovern, in 1972, the McGovern Party has been trounced repeatedly by the Nixon Party, not because of its economic agenda, which the public actually prefers to the alternative, but because of its unpopular stands on issues like race-based affirmative action, illegal immigration, crime and punishment, and national security. Progressives are fooling themselves when they dismiss these as insignificant "wedge issues." What can be more important than whether civil rights laws apply equally to everyone -- even those wicked "white males" -- regardless of race and gender, or whether, in an age of terrorism, the nation's border and immigration laws are enforced? There is no democracy in the world today where a party that stood for ethnic quotas that excluded the national majority or welfare benefits for illegal immigrants would not be in political danger. As I write, all of the major European democracies except Britain are governed by parties of the right that are more nationalist and populist than the left parties they have defeated. And Gordon Brown isn't looking too hale either."

Lind contends that it is possible for Democrats to allow for a diversity of opinion on the social issues and build a New Deal-style coalition as a large majority of Americans hold a number of economic populist views and favor the same sort of activist role by government once advocated by FDR, Truman and JFK. Lind continues:

"In fact, the majority of Americans, including many social conservatives, never ceased to support New Deal policies, which from Social Security and Medicare to the G.I. Bill have remained popular with the public throughout the entire Nixon-to-Bush era. Consider the results of a June 17, 2008, Rockefeller Foundation/Time poll. When "favor strongly" and "favor somewhat" are combined, one gets the following percentages for policies favored by overwhelming majorities: increase the minimum wage to keep up with the cost of living (88 percent); increase government spending on things like public-works projects to create jobs (86 percent); put stricter limits on pollution we put into the atmosphere (85 percent); limit rate increases on adjustable rate mortgages (82 percent); provide quality healthcare to all, regardless of ability to pay (81 percent); impose higher tax incentives for alternative energy (81 percent); provide government-funded childcare to all parents so they can work (77 percent); provide more paid maternity/dependent care leave (76 percent); make it less profitable for companies to outsource jobs to foreign countries (76 percent); expand unemployment benefits (76 percent)."

"Note that almost all of the policy proposals that excite the American public are exactly the sort of old-fashioned, "paleoliberal" spending programs or systems of government regulation that are supposed to be obsolete in this era of privatization, deregulation and free-market globalization, according to neoliberals and libertarians. Bill Clinton to the contrary, the public clearly does not think that "the era of big government is over." Nor does the public show any interest in the laundry lists of teeny-weeny tax credits for this and that that neoliberals love to propose, to appear compassionate without spending real money. The public wants the middle-class welfare state to be rounded out by a few major additions -- chiefly, healthcare and childcare -- and the public also wants the government to grow the economy by investing in public works and favoring companies that locate their production facilities inside the U.S. There, in a sentence, is a program for a neo-Rooseveltian party that could effect an epochal realignment in American politics."

Lind notes that Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 won by appealing to populist sentiment but changed their tune after winning office. Carter took his substantial evangelical Christian constituency for granted, took generally liberal positions on social issues (although Carter did play a role in the passage of the Hyde Amendment which banned federal funding of abortions) and championed airline deregulation instead of economic populism. There is no doubt that Carter missed a golden opportunity to revitalize the New Deal Coalition. Clinton pushed for free trade deals at the expense of working class Americans and supported financial deregulation while becoming closely identified with the pet causes of cultural liberalism. Failed Democratic nominees from George McGovern to John Kerry have been rejected in large part because of their distance from mainstream America on issues like gun control, traditional family values and abortion rights.

Making the case for a Democratic Party focused on economic populism, Lind argues for a "big tent" approach to the social issues.

"A Newer Deal party that ran on this economic agenda could attract Southern Baptist creationists as well as Marin County agnostics. I hear the riposte already: "I'd rather move to Canada than share the Democratic Party with those people!" But across the country there are lots of potential Democratic congressional and senatorial candidates who would like to move to Washington -- and might be able to, if social conservatives were welcomed to a big-tent party defined almost exclusively by economic liberalism."

And Lind has no illusions about the difficulty of selling this approach to the Democratic Party's activist base. Lind explains the obstacles and the opportunities for Democrats if they are willing to move beyond the culture war:

"Unfortunately, the upper-middle-class left, with its unerring instinct for political suicide, is probably incapable of seizing the moment and bringing more Baptists and Catholics into the Democratic Party, because it has developed an almost superstitious distaste for religious conservatives. This might make sense if the religious right were still a menace, as it was a generation ago. But with the exception of state referenda and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, religious conservatives have lost one battle after another, from failed attempts to promote creationism on school boards to the doomed effort to repeal Roe v. Wade.'

"There would have been no Progressive Era without the followers of William Jennings Bryan and no New Deal without the support of ancestors of many of today's Protestant evangelicals and traditionalist Catholics. Social conservatives, having lost the culture war, should be offered not only a truce but also an opportunity to join a broad economic campaign for a middle-class America, as many of them did between 1932 and 1968. When pro-choicers and pro-lifers unite in cheering the public investment and living wage planks at the convention of the neo-Roosevelt party, we will know that the political era that began in 1968 is truly and finally over."

I agree that many of our party activist types would rather continue to lose election after election than to coexist with social traditionalists, however, Lind has given Democrats a real strategy for building a long-term governing majority.