What's The Point of Winning?

It’s going around in Democratic circles these days that the party of the people needs some ideas. Incipient attempts at political innovation have been the subject of a debate-setting essay on the ‘common good’ by American Prospect editor Michael Tomasky, a favorable op-ed in the Washington Post by liberal opinion-setter E.J. Dionne, a news item in the New York Times, as well as of a number of meetings, magazine articles, blog-threads, and dinner conversations. It has splintered into subsidiary debates, as major figures in the party, like Madeleine Albright, argue over whether philosophical rejuvenation has to happen in foreign policy first, or whether it is time to shift emphasis from security to other ideas. Looking more broadly, it seems the Democrats are playing catch-up with an already existing, trans-Atlantic project of left-wing political renaissance and manifesto-writing.

In theory, intellectual and philosophical renovation, especially of such an unimaginative party as the current Democrats, is a good thing. But there are a number of odd and uninspiring aspects of this new development within the Democratic Party. First, the main inspiration for renewal seems to have come from a series of electoral defeats: two phenomenally uninspiring presidential candidates, who lost elections they had no business losing, and an equally pathetic showing in the 2002 mid-terms. On top of which, with Bush sinking in the polls and the Republicans floundering, the Dems sense a huge electoral opportunity this fall, but don’t have a way of presenting their party as the answer to the country’s problems.

But there is something oddly instrumental about this approach to political ideas. The syllogism seems to be: a) ‘The Democrats lost the election because of their current ideas’ b) ‘The Democrats therefore need new ideas’ therefore c)….what? Logically it must be c) ‘The Democrats therefore need new ideas that will win them an election’. Needless to say, this is not how new, compelling political ideas emerge. When thinking is dictated by the electoral cycle, and the baseline injunction to win an election, the ideas will inevitably be shallow and inorganic. They will not emerge through an extended period of testing, discussion, organizing, and engagement. Rather, they will happen in a series of somewhat rushed conversations on op-ed pages, in think-tanks, party conferences, and watered down campaign speeches. The ideas that emerge will be vaguely pleasing, adequately abstract, and ultimately sound like campaign slogans rather than substantial and inspiring ideas. These ideas will be unconnected to a series of policies and programs – rather, certain policies will be pressed into service to justify ideas, even as ideas are forced into the straight-jacket of electoral thinking. Just think of how opportunistically the Dems have used port security as part of their security-first strategy.

This is not to say that political thinking should be wholly unaffected by strategic, political considerations. No doubt it is easy to work out a philosophy from the sidelines, without having to worry about convincing other people. But the point is that political renewal in these floundering times is too long-term, profound, painstaking, and gradual a process to be dictated by the electoral demands of a political party. It requires many different kinds of political engagement, and debates at all levels of society that do not make assumptions about who is worth talking to and who isn’t. The need to get elected forces one away from making overly controversial arguments that might traumatize the existing terms of the debate, and it disciplines political engagement by focusing interest mainly on ‘most likely voters.’ At some point, electioneering has inverted the means and the ends. We only seek power because we want to implement a political project; we don’t want a project that may also help us win an election. The times call for wider experimentation, and much more patience, than current political parties and their organic intellectuals are willing to accept.