Progressives Can Gain Support from Non-Voters and Struggling Conservatives
Given the results of the 2014 midterm election, it seems evident that progressives face immense challenges in 2016 to rally both the mass popular movement, and then the votes, that would be needed to put a president and congressional leadership in office committed to redirecting national politics toward the goal of economic fairness for working families. To begin with, it is certainly the case that, in both the primaries and the general election, the great majority of voters with a stake in the current political system--and there remain scores of millions in that category--will undoubtedly, as they always have, vote in what they deem to be their own self-interest. Even most Democrats will probably support candidates who favor economic policies they think will either add to their pocket or avert any "redistribution" from it.
Besides a relatively small, but largely committed, body of self-identified progressives, two groups of Americans compose the natural pool from which progressive candidates for national office might expect to draw votes and support. One is the sixty-three percent of eligible voters so alienated from, or uninterested in, the current political system that they couldn't bring themselves to participate in the 2014 midterms. The other group consists of the millions of economically struggling Americans who did vote in that election but gained nothing from it--a large part of them natural conservatives. Both of these groups stand to gain most from the "bold ideas" for economic change that only progressives offer. (American blacks will vote for progressives in the general election, when the opponent is a Republican. But, in primaries, I suspect, they will vote for the establishment Democrat.)
I strongly believe that to first get a fair hearing from both politically alienated and conservative-minded Americans, and then cultivate their support, progressives must present their ideas in a way that helps dispel the deep suspicion both groups have that the federal government really has no answers for their problems. That suspicion is plain in the case of non-voters. If they had any hope that government could make a positive difference in their lives, they would surely take a chance on that possibility by casting votes for candidates who offer plausible proposals for making good on it. In the absence of voting records and exit-polling data, however, we can't be sure why non-voters harbor the doubts they do.
The case is different with conservatives. I think we can discern the basis for their distrust from exit polling and voting patterns in stronghold conservative districts, and from the chatter on conservative-radio talk shows. They all suggest doubts that the federal government can pass any major legislation, no matter what its ostensible aim, that does not serve primarily to help powerful interests, enhance the careers of the politicians who back it, and expand government control over those it affects.
Conservatives harbor these doubts for an understandable reason. They recognize that, as is the case with most individuals, their own impulse in any competitive challenge, whether personal or in business, is to try to gain the greatest possible advantage for themselves. They assume prominent politicians have the same impulse, but recognize that they are much better positioned than they are to gratify it. This is because ordinary people, in their own competitive engagements, struggle against competent rivals or a free market that puts limits on their powers. But federal lawmakers, often backed by the promise of majority party-line support, face little or no effective counterbalance from the public as they shape major legislation to mutual advantage with corporate power brokers. Their constituents may have voted them into office in the first place, but all but a few are thereafter totally disengaged from active efforts to influence policy.
Progressives Need to Present Their Policies in the Context of a Moral Vision
This brings me to the major point of this paper. I believe there is an effective approach progressives can take to gain a fair hearing for their policy proposals from the many millions of alienated non-voters and struggling conservatives who are among those who can benefit from them most. That approach is to consistently present progressive policy proposals in the visionary context of building community. As I use the term here, highlighted in italics, it does not denote a reality, but rather an ideal that conservatives resist because they do not perceive any connection between individuals that transcends their separate identities and roles. However, this visionary conception also represents a reality that progressives would actually undertake to create. It would take the form of a nation-wide American social order that abounds in interconnected interests and activities and in which each member assumes and willingly acts upon a genuine concern for the well-being of all the rest.
Of course, creating and sustaining such a society would require a scope of government involvement that has been a traditional turn-off for conservatives. However, I believe progressives can make a case for doing so that, given today's highly refractory economic conditions, is in at least two ways compelling enough to win over many struggling conservatives. First, by relating specific policy proposals to the moral vision of building "community," progressives can present them in an entirely new political framework. That will divorce them from any association with the current system of Washington power politics--which are disdained by conservatives as well as progressives. And, second, by pointing out the characteristics of the community they plan to build, progressives will make it clear that, under their leadership, the federal government will operate very differently from the way it has operated under preceding administrations. The "new American community" would be fully committed to true equality of opportunity. It would enact laws that serve the common good, not special interests. It would ask the very rich to give back more generously from their own superfluity to help provide a decent life for the many now struggling whose efforts helped make their success possible. And it would offer opportunities for all citizens to control and shape their own economic future. In such a society, each citizen would be valued for his or her contribution, and joy would be found in the multifarious creativity of citizens freed from oppressive want.
In presenting such a vision to alienated non-voters or struggling conservatives, progressives could invoke a single moral principle to explain what moves them to embrace it: "Love your neighbor as yourself." The motivation could also be defined in a single apt political slogan: "The narrow special interests are doing fine. It's time to serve the broad common interest."
Here are several related ways in which I believe that, by grounding their policy proposals in the moral vision of community, progressives can greatly improve their chances of gaining the support of both alienated non-voters and many active voters of a conservative mindset:
- Most Americans are appalled or "turned off" both by negative campaign ads and the partisan wrangling in congress that has led to procedural paralysis. When they hear progressive calls to "break up the banks," or assaults on "the Koch brothers," it sounds to many of them like "politics as usual." In confronting America's gross economic inequality, progressives need to make clear what they positively stand for. Another way to express that purpose is this: "It used to be, 'You're on your own. It's every man for himself.' Now, 'We're all in this together.'"
- By grounding their policy proposals in a vision of America as "community," rather than as a Mecca of freedom for individual ambition and gain (think Marco Rubio), progressives can make clear that their politics are derived from a moral center and aim to empower those who struggle for a better life, not further privilege a small ruling elite. Unlike mainstream Republicans and even "liberal" Democrats (like Hillary Clinton), progressives can argue convincingly that they offer a new direction in national politics that differs fundamentally from the lobbyist-driven crony capitalism now in place.
- One offshoot of the progressive orientation to "community" is the political commitment to serve "the broad common interest" rather than "narrow special interests." Another is to expect that very rich Americans will understand that their "success" would not be possible without the interconnected economic infrastructure built up and sustained by the efforts of their fellow countrymen. They therefore have a moral (or ethical) obligation to accept more steeply progressive taxation to help meet the unmet needs of both the country and its people.
- Given the implications of their commitment to "community," progressives can make a believable case to the 63-percent of disaffected eligible voters who didn't turn out for the 2014 midterms that they can be trusted to do all they can to provide economic opportunity and the chance for a better life to all Americans who are presently without them.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
3
2
