As the primary race becomes more conflicted by the day, it’s easy to get caught up by campaign tactics and strategic voting scenarios. Are voters are really so uncertain or confused on the issues that matter? Are we Americans fickle and unpredictable at the ballot box, twisting and turning on personalities and media spin? I would guess not. In this respect, we may gain a better perspective on where the nation is headed from a recent op-ed written by that old liberal warhorse of times past (and future?): George McGovern. In not so many words, Senator McGovern shed some needed light on the middle ground of the electoral battlefield.
On the major issues voters converge on choices that satisfy three guiding principles: freedom of choice, individual autonomy and insurance or protection against life’s contingencies over which they have little or no control. These three principles transcend ideology and partisanship and their application to public policy follows a new paradigm of individual autonomy and communal interdependence. Americans will reject cradle to grave security if it means giving up freedom of choice and personal independence. And they eschew the unchecked promise of free markets and personal responsibility if it means exposing them to risks they can’t control—things like market manipulation and embezzlement, as well as the lack of asset diversification. Nobody wants to see his or her retirement savings evaporate with Enron.
New Deal ideologues may disagree, citing public support for universal health care and entitlements like Medicare and Social Security, but measurable social and economic transformations over the past half century suggest these sentiments are more likely the residual of mid-20th century politics than a return to same.
After World War II, national politics was dominated by peak associations comprised of labor unions, business associations and government. John Kenneth Galbraith called these “countervailing powers” that provided checks and balances over the “new industrial state.” But the economic landscape has changed drastically since then. Today union members have declined to 15.4 million, which represents only 12% of total workers. In the private sector their share has fallen below 8%. Corporate business also underwent radical transformations with the rise of entrepreneurship and the proliferation of small businesses as new technologies favor the small and nimble. Of course, the government behemoth only grows ever larger, but invites greater skepticism and scrutiny from the post-60s generations.
This paints the big picture of national political trends, but the new paradigm is also confirmed by more narrow policy preferences. Let’s start with health care. Recent surveys show health care ranks up there right with
Next, education. Do the urban poor want free public education that leaves their children mired in ignorance and a cycle of poverty? No—they want choice and the freedom to make that choice. Just ask them. In financial matters Americans eschew unfettered markets that lead to more financial uncertainty and volatility in their lives. Does anybody really want to ride out roller coasters like the S&L crisis, the Long Term Capital meltdown, international currency collapses, the dotcom bust or the most recent housing bubble? Americans also want protection from criminals and foreign threats, especially something as unpredictable as terrorism. And they expect their government to deliver that protection at almost any cost.
Socially, Americans have become more laissez-faire and tolerant in their attitudes toward sex, divorce, drugs and alternative lifestyles, but at the same time many reach back to traditions and family to maintain a sense of continuity and community. There’s no inherent contradiction between these two tendencies as they both reinforce the three principles outlined above. I’d call it tolerant traditionalism.
The bottom line is that American citizens are fairly confident they can take care of most of life’s contingencies themselves and believe the proper role of government is to empower them to do so. They need to acquire resources and then have independent control over those resources. George Bush called this the Ownership Society, but then failed to address its uncertainties and risks; Hillary Clinton mistakenly calls it the “You’re On Your Own Society” and instead imagines a modern New Deal. We’re not sure yet where Senator Obama stands.
Maybe they should all take a tip from George because if one candidate gets it right, he or she will have little trouble attracting votes and the real winner in 2008 just may be the American voter for a change.
2 comments:
A "purple America"? How could this be? "Individual autonomy" and "communal independence" are oxymorons.
Either you believe that you are responsible for your own actions or you don't. How do you kinda, sorta take responsibility for your life, except for those areas where the government takes responsibility?
The fact that many voters want both, without actually even thinking about their contradictions, only goes to show how vacuous much of our society is.
You can't be partly pregnant or partly free. You can't have "freedom of choice" and have the government regulate all the "uncertain stuff" 2+2 can NOT equal 17.
Sorry, while I enjoy contributing to the discussion, I can't contribute to the idea that a "purple America" is any better than a socialist or "blue" one. I suspect that indeed a slightly less blue America is probably all that you are really considering, seeing as how you so favorably mention McGovern.
I do not want the Post Office or the DMV "taking care of me" and I never will.
I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
I'd have to disagree and perhaps my point wasn't perfectly clear. Individual autonomy and communal interdependence are not contradictory, or oxymorons as you say. Think of portable pensions or health care insurance. Think of how a family works best in giving members free rein over their life choices but still providing a safety net. In fact, letting small institutions like families and communities handle most contingencies in life is exactly what pioneers in America were doing it long before a Federal govt came along.
And you've misinterpreted the ideological position of a purple America - it's more closely aligned with small-town or suburban "red American" values than the entitlement society we have now.
If you notice, I've criticized one-size-fits-all institutions such as the PO or the DMV, especially for something as important as health care and education.
Thanks for your comments.
Post a Comment