I attended this event on the 25th.
There are two videos, one for the morning talks, and one for the afternoon talks. If you watch the video for the afternoon talks, near the end, close to the 4 hour, 11 minute mark, I ask the last question at the session that featured Tony Blair.
My father would have been proud. He always liked to measure the social distance that he traveled from his childhood with Yiddish-speaking parents in the St. Louis ghetto. Finding me in the same room with the former British Prime Minister would have given my father lots of nachas, so to speak.
My review of the conference overall:
David Brooks gave a lucid, entertaining opening speech. About minute 44-45 in the video, he gives an account of contemporary progressiveness that could come straight out of my three-axes model.
Earlier, he cites Andrew Delbanco’s The Real American Dream, which argues that America has had three phases of animating cultural idea. Until around 1830, it was “God.” Americans were fulfilling God’s will. From then until World War II, it was “nation,” meaning manifest destiny for the United States. After the war, it became the “self.”
Brooks argues that the individualism of the latest phase has reached its end as a successful animating idea. We need a cultural paradigm shift. He suggests that what might work better now is a form of communitarianism, in which we care about children (not just our own), the dignity of work, our local living places, and racial and social integration. We need for politics to be less important.
In the end, his “politics of love,” as he calls it, is easy to ridicule, and he recognizes that. But he tries hard to justify his proposal.
The first panel was “Why isn’t the center holding?” and it included Martin Gurri. Not surprisingly, I found Gurri’s remarks the most compelling. But I think he also came through to people in the audience who were not as familiar as I am with his views.
Frances Lee did make the interesting point that as political parties separated on ideological grounds (recall that 60 years ago, the Democratic Party was an amalgamation that included Northern African-Americans and white segregationists from the South where African-Americans were kept from voting) and elections became close enough that either party could win, party loyalty has strengthened. There is fear that if you work with the other side, you are helping them win, and this fear is expressed very strongly in the primary-voting public.
I got to ask a question at this panel. I wanted to make the point that the political divide is a subset of a broader cultural divide. It’s about the 2 hour and 9 minute mark. I don’t think anyone wanted to answer the question, but Brink at least helped to clarify what I was trying to get at.
The next panel struck me as less focused. I did note that Damon Linker cited a poll that suggests that in the 2×2 quadrant of left/right and social/economic issues, the least populated quadrant among American voters is the libertarian one of socially on the left and economically on the right. Will Wilkinson expressed doubt that any poll holds for very long, because American voters are volatile on the issues. Yascha Mounk suggested that demagogic politics is on the upsurge because people want contradictory things (I would say that in economic jargon, they don’t appreciate trade-offs), and politicians must try to cater to that.
The third panel turned me off quite a bit. Often, the discussion veered into philosophical and historical trivia. When it got back to present-day reality, it seemed to consist mostly of ritual expressions of contempt for Mr. Trump. At one point, Professor Levy implied that the Republican Party as an institution would benefit by having a prominent conservative Senator utterly denounce Mr. Trump. While I think that it would help to have a Republican challenge Mr. Trump in the primary in 2020, that challenge should serve to articulate what mainstream Republicans want the party to stand for. The challenger should in no way denounce Mr. Trump but instead should commit to supporting whoever the party nominates in the general election. And, no, William Weld does not get my endorsement for the role.
Denouncing Mr. Trump as Mr. Levy recommends would amount to the political equivalent of a suicide bombing that fails to even approach its target. Mr. Trump does not depend on establishment support in the way that President Nixon did. When Nixon lost the establishment, he was gone. But today a politician’s personal brand is more important than establishment support. See Tyler Cowen’s column on the young Democratic congresswomen. In general, hearing Professor Levy’s pontifications reminded me of the refrain, “You want more Trump??? This is how you get more Trump.”
In the hallway, Elaine Kamarck, a Bill Clinton Democrat who has written a book on primary politics, expressed her view that the winner of the Democratic nomination in 2020 will be someone who drives down the “center-left lane,” as she called it. I suggested that the convention might arrive with 12 candidates each having 8 percent of the vote. She ridiculed that possibility. If there had been time, it should have been possible to formulate a bet. A simple one would be, “A center-left candidate will arrive at the convention with more than 40 percent of the delegates.” Presumably, she would bet for this. I would bet against it. I would not bet more than a few dollars, because she knows much more than I do about the subject. That is what would make it fun if I won.
What do I think of the overall project of reviving a “third way” or a moderate center? I was skeptical going into the event, and I remain skeptical.
I would like to see a more moderate tone in politics. But oddly enough, Levy speaks for me when he writes,
if “moderate” is the name of a substantive position, then it risks being nothing at all, or at least nothing stable, only something defined with reference to the shifting sense of who counts as extreme.
I look at the “shifting sense of who counts as extreme” differently than he does. To me, it looks like the Overton Window is racing full speed to the left. In fact, the window has moved so far to the left that I think most young Democrats see Blair and Clinton as far right-wingers. Consider that when Barack Obama ran for President, he was against gay marriage, and by the time he left office his Administration was pushing trans-gender bathrooms. Consider that President Clinton took pride in balanced budgets and gave thought to fixing entitlement programs*, and now we have Larry Summers and Jason Furman writing that with interest rates so low the government should do a lot more borrowing and spending. And of course, socialism is now a yeah-word and capitalism is a boo-word among Democratic politicians.
After Munich, Winston Churchill said,
for Czechoslovakia and in the matters which were in dispute has been that the German dictator, instead of snatching his victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course.
I cannot support a moderation that amounts to serving the left’s victuals course by course. Get the Overton window to stand still, or maybe move it back to the right a couple of notches; only then we can talk about moderation.
*one of the event’s panelists, I believe it was Damon Linker, suggested that Clinton was getting ready to propose entitlement reform until a certain #metoo episode weakened him politically
“While I think that it would help to have a Republican challenge Mr. Trump in the primary in 2020, that challenge should serve to articulate what mainstream Republicans want the party TO STAND FOR.” [Emphasis Added] A.K., above.
How about what THEY want the Party TO DO; and HOW they want it done?
Contrast that kind of “thinking” (posturing??) with WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, including, if you must, HOW it has been done (and those things NOT DONE – and why).
He suggests that what might work better now is a form of communitarianism, in which we care about children (not just our own), the dignity of work, our local living places, and racial and social integration.
So Self-Proclaimed Head Bo-Bo wants a kinder and gentler Capitalism? The role of George Bush Sr. speech writer is already taken by Peggy Noonan. You of all people should know this ain’t happening.
Olivette? Clayton? The St. Louis ghetto? Well I guess I would have been the white trash that you write about.
I know how you feel about being in the room with someone like Tony Blair. Although I doubt my dear deceased father would be much impressed. My living white trash family was pretty funny when they found out that I had shaken Clinton’s hand at a ceremony where he had signed something that I had drafted. “Did you wash your hands well?” was the most positive response. Anyway, I have to concur that Clinton’s policies today would be regarded well to the right of Trump’s. Clinton does deserve kudos for cutting back the size of the federal workforce, reforming welfare, and reducing annual budget deficits even if by tax increases. Bombing the Norks with handouts not so much. And NAFTA, good intentions but bad results for wide swathes of white trash US workers.
No, not buying moderation either. Revolution today, tomorrow, and everyday until us white trashers get some real representation in government. Trump may be delivering full employment and wage increases but he was a fluke and the backlash is going to hurt. The Ancien Régime will not just die off quietly like they should. Their reactionary rearguard attempt to regain power in the guise of pleas to moderation are nauseating.
Nope, nothing short of a constitutional convention resulting in real representative democracy, the rule of law, and meaningful rights to individual self-determination will do. Maybe something like the constitution of Denmark. Until then, burn, baby, burn. Down with the elites. Down with the establishment. Down with the Republicans. Down with the Democrats. Down with Libertarians. Down with the system, the bureaucrats, the educrats, and all the other hypocrites and self-serving jesters. Down with all the public policy tax-exempt organizations. But most of all, down with the Niskanen Center and the corrupt little scam it is running.
This is like a caricature of the nihilism consuming the Republican base right now. The only thing I can glean from this as to what you want – as opposed to hate with a burning passion – is more political and cultural validation for “white trash.”
This is what the right diving head first into the left’s identity politics looks like.
We shift to borrow and spend, yes, but spend a lot of time in tax and sequester; or shutdown. Taxes go up, often, and federal government as a share of gdp seems stable. From 2010 until today is a long can kick by anyone’s standards. Our path since 1980 seems to be smooth, to lower inflation.
What if, just if Trump and the Dems did a six year sequester, kept the recession mild, boosted taxes, and go an across the board sending cut of modest means. We are still smoothly deflating from 1980, carpet bombed a lot fewer people than last time. Nixon Shock better than the 1929 crash. And when the kids take over, they can see the impulse pattern, and do even better at default.
Arnold wrote:
I agree with your detractor- there is practically no chance of this happening. At the end of the New Hampshire primary, there will be 4 candidates or less moving on. After that, the schedule will greatly favor Kamala Harris- there is South Carolina and Nevada, and on Super Tuesday, March 3rd, she will win 5 out of the 10 states holding primaries- CA, AL, VA, NC, and TN, and will win TX if O’Rourke isn’t in the race. After that, it will be a two candidate race from there on. I think it all but certain that a candidate arrives at the convention with a majority of the delegates- and at this moment in time, that candidate will be Harris.
The model you should be using is the Republican 2016 primary. There were truly heavy weight candidates and favorite son runs, and yet Trump won the nomination handily. Nomination elections always rapidly narrow down to 2 candidates after the first month- the others starve for funds to continue on.
Brooks argues that the individualism of the latest phase has reached its end as a successful animating idea. We need a cultural paradigm shift. He suggests that what might work better now is a form of communitarianism, in which we care about children (not just our own), the dignity of work, our local living places, and racial and social integration. We need for politics to be less important.
I am not sure those things are incompatible, unless you define “individualism” in rather extreme terms. Individuals live in communities and have an interest in making their communities nice places to live where their children, relatives, and friends, can live safe, happy lives. People generally tend to be happier when their loved ones are happier. Happy neighbors reduce conflict and stress. It is thus in my individual self-interest to be a little bit of a “communitarian”, at least to the extent that I need to be to create the pleasant, harmonious community that I want to live in. Of course there are trade offs involved and limits to how much I’m willing to sacrifice my more immediate self-interest – but there’s tradeoffs everywhere.
You could have a kind of libertarian communitarianism where the tradeoffs are largely voluntary, especially given the modern technological tools we have to coordinate voluntary action via the internet. The sharing economy, crowdsourcing etc. It’s kind of at the point that free riders are less of an issue because it’s vastly easier to coordinate many individuals to make small contributions to create public goods. For example, why bother with taxes if you can easily raise enough money to build a new playground by getting everyone in the neighborhood to donate money via a crowdfunding campaign?
“I would like to see a more moderate tone in politics.”
Moderation in tone and as a norm of civil public discourse is made possible by low stakes and lack of fear. If one reasonably fears that when “the other gang” gets hold of the reins of power they will use it in every way possible to completely roll over one’s own gang and destroy the things they care about most, then the necessary ingredients for amicable conversation and compromise are absent.
Lowering the stakes of political contests is necessarily prior to any restoration of amicable and courteous behavior even in the context of substantial disagreement.
And so, advocating for a “politics of love” is completely naive and putting the cart before the horse. Instead, “though leaders” / “opinion makers” should be advocating for structural reforms which can put the members of both parties at ease and ensure, that guarantees they will never be railroaded by the other side, and ensures that no new obnoxious interventions get implemented without general agreement and consensus.
For example, a reform I’ve mentioned before would be to turn the courts into a collection of bipartisan commissions, with equal number of slots reserved to each party and which the parties can fill or replace at will. The polar opposite of that would be for activists to openly advocate for “packing the courts” the moment the opportunity presents itself. There is no possibility of a moderation in tone or dissipation of ‘tribal’ social pressures when such actions are perceived to be disturbingly probable.
Good comment. I completely agree about lowering the stakes of politics. I don’t necessarily disagree about the courts though, as the judicial branch already has layers of review which prevent either party from appointing candidates which are too extreme, and the supreme court is more or less already evenly split with each party only getting 1-2 chances to appoint a nominee IF they happen to win the White House and get their nominee past a Senate filibuster.
It is the executive which needs to be reined in, since the executive appoints the heads of regulatory agencies that have the power to write and enforce massive amounts of regulation without having to pass those regulations through a majority vote in Congress. Make the Office of the President a less powerful position and you will see the stakes drop quite a bit.
Very nicely put. This is something that the Senate filibuster rules helped with, but now they are partially gone and I expect will be completely gone before too much longer. The other thing that’s needed, as Hazel Meade said, is to reduce the power of the executive, but that seems very unlikely. I wish I could be optimistic that things will turn around, but I just can’t…
I would like to see the Republicans run TWO primary challangers personally:
1) An establishment candidate like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio,
2) A media personality like Rush Limbaugh or Andrew Napolitano
Then we could find out if Republican voters really like Trump or are just falling in line out of party loyalty. And we can give them a chance to choose an alternative to Trump with a similar style. Maybe they’ll be bored of Trump by 2020 and will find Rush more entertaining.
I call BS on calls for moderation — unless such a caller is actively calling on Dem media and Dem politicians to reduce their insults against Trump & Trump supporters.
There exists a mental disorder which I call Democrat Derangement Syndrome, which is often being exhibited by Dems who criticize Trump now, but also other Reps like Kavanaugh, and even MAGA hat wearers who are minors. (I hope Nick’s $250 million lawsuit against WaPo goes to trial and he wins).
To Dems, the personal IS political. Politics isn’t just the main thing, it’s the only thing.