National Greatness Liberalism

Via Matt, here's Chris Bowers, complaining about Barack Obama’s too-narrow framing of the benefits of withdrawal from Iraq:

The Iraq war is our major national project right now, equivalent to the Apollo program or the New Deal. Do we want that as our national project? I don't think many Americans would agree. Do we want a series of transactions to specific demographic groups and issues to be our national project? Even if is vastly preferable to making the Iraq war our national project, the truth is that isn't very appealing either. We need a different framing around what we want our national project to be, and we need a Democratic leader who is willing to make that case to the country as a whole.

Tell me that instead of the Iraq war, maintaining a massive global military deployment or doling out a series of narrowly targeted government programs, we are going to do other great things as a nation. Tell me that we are going to have a New Deal for America. Tell me we are going to build a Great Society. Tell me that we are going to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Tell me that we are going to win and end the cold war. Hell, even tell me that we are going to secure freedom around the world, because at least that is a national project that sounds worthwhile. These are the sort of transformative proposals we need from Democrats, and right now we just don't have any. Technocratic, transactional politics just is not as appealing, and ultimately secures a non-ideological mandate and a lack of purpose for the country as a whole. Until we offer just such a sense of purpose, we will never complete the progressive realignment towards which the progressive movement has been building for nearly a decade. Fighting for working families, homeowners, and Social Security recipients, however noble, just doesn't cut it.

One of the bigger internal tensions facing the Democratic Party if and when it assumes real power, I suspect, will be the division between the sort of meliorist liberalism on display in, say, this Democracy symposium (some of whose contents, as Reihan notes, could easily be swiped by a reformist conservatism) and the impatient desire among progressives like Bowers for a vastly more ambitious left-wing politics - a “national-greatness liberalism,” if you will, that harkens back to the salad days of the New Deal and the Great Society. Obama has done a masterful job straddling this divide: His rhetoric of change and transformation has been pitched to Bowers’ frequency, but his paeans to post-partisanship and his specific policy proposals have struck a more cautious, technocratic note. This two-step, though, has made it difficult to tell exactly what sort of President he’d be (a Burkean Democrat? the Reagan of Progressivism?), and it almost guarantees that an Obama Presidency will leave some liberal factions feeling disappointed and betrayed.

My own preference, I should add, is for something closer to the sort of politics that leaves Bowers cold. A “technocratic, transactional” agenda that seeks to head off long-term dangers with policies targeted to key constituencies seems vastly preferable to a crusading, self-aggrandizing spirit that wants a national project, dammit, and doesn’t care what that project is. I’m all for fostering a sense of urgency in our politics: Our book does call for Republicans to “save the American dream,” after all. But that urgency should be directed against real and pressing problems; it shouldn’t be summoned up for the sake of providing “purpose” to American life, or ensuring that the right people get to run the government for the next decade or two.

Moreover, it seems passing strange that someone like Bowers, who seems almost completely agnostic about what, precisely, our “national project” ought to be (another moon landing! another Great Society! securing freedom around the globe!), is nonetheless willing to dismiss out of hand the possibility that America’s current burdens in Iraq shouldn't be lightly set aside.

Comments

This two-step, though, has made it difficult to tell exactly what sort of President he’d be (a Burkean Democrat? the Reagan of Progressivism?), and it almost guarantees that an Obama Presidency will leave some liberal factions feeling disappointed and betrayed.

I don't see how you can say that. The man is stunningly liberal, assuming he has any genuine impulses at all. He may just be faking everything, of course, but if he's not, he's well to the left. The kind of liberal who doesn't realize he's way out on the left because all of his buds are there, too.

Posted by Cal | March 26, 2008 11:35 PM

I'm a liberal and I can give Bowers what he wants. You know what Obama's going to do Chris? He's going to create a political consensus to actually save our species from global climate change.

If there's one thing Obama has been consistent on and quite good on, it's his environmental plans.

Now why did I not give Bowers this comment on his site? Well because I despise Matt Stoller and do not have an account on Open Left.

Posted by MNPundit | March 27, 2008 12:31 AM

"You know what Obama's going to do Chris? He's going to create a political consensus to actually save our species from global climate change."

You mean Obama is going to convince 3 billion Indians and Chinese to keep riding bicycles and rickshaws so the planet doesn't get 1 degree warmer by the end of this century? Heaven help us.

The truth is that we can't afford any grandiose liberal plans right now. Americans are going to have to work harder, save more, spend less, and pay more in taxes just to afford something close to our current welfare state. Otherwise, within a decade and a half we may face a precipitous decline: the euro replacing the dollar as world's reserve currency, bond rating agencies revisiting our sovereign debt's triple-A rating, etc.

Posted by Fred | March 27, 2008 1:52 AM

"America’s current burdens in Iraq shouldn't be lightly set aside."

Ah, the Yankee's burden is a heavy one....

Regarding Mr. Douthat's preference for the "transactional and the technocratic," I thought that post-ideological claptrap went out of style years ago. Why do conservatives assume their politics are ideologically neutral? As if somehow, the military apparatus, our vast prison system, our shell game capitalism, our star spangled national identity, the blessed nuclear family, the church and frosted pop tarts were all organic features of a generic human experience.

Chimpanzees are lucky enough to be pre-ideological, but the rest of us hominini are doomed to fall for grand ideological projects - projects like God, socialism and trousers.

Posted by Adrian | March 27, 2008 2:34 AM

...willing to dismiss out of hand the possibility that America’s current burdens in Iraq shouldn't be lightly set aside.

Ross, do you think that withdrawal is equivalent to lightly setting aside a burden? Do you think that it is wrong to set aside that burden? Is there some level of agony with which a person should express their desire for withdrawal such that it isn't undertaken "lightly"?

What is the name of the lord do you actually think?

---------

I think your criticism here is self-parodic. If you believe the US ought to stay in Iraq, then make that claim. Bowers believes the US ought to get out of Iraq. He doesn't believe that lightly - he believes that as part of a liberal internationalist understanding of the use of American force which considers imperial projects to be inherently unworkable and corrosive to dignity abroad and democracy at home.

To criticize someone else for taking Iraq lightly, when you have acted as if the Iraq war doesn't even exist, is the height of hypocrisy.

Posted by DivGuy | March 27, 2008 6:57 AM

“national-greatness liberalism,” if you will

We won't, we really, really won't.

Gawd, I really like Bowers' writing, and I wanted to accuse you of slurring him and liberals more generally, but--having just looked at it--your characterization is not that far off. I can only hope his position in the post is a function of some sort of solvable problem, like a fall into alcoholism.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 27, 2008 9:14 AM

To criticize someone else for taking Iraq lightly, when you have acted as if the Iraq war doesn't even exist, is the height of hypocrisy.

Of course it doesn't exist - it isn't a weekly program on HBO.

Posted by Tiparillo | March 27, 2008 9:28 AM

You mean Obama is going to convince 3 billion Indians and Chinese to keep riding bicycles and rickshaws so the planet doesn't get 1 degree warmer by the end of this century?

No, peak oil will do the heavy lifting on that score.

Posted by keatssycamore | March 27, 2008 11:21 AM

You know what chafes me, more and more, as time goes on? Conservatives continuing to talk as though there is a party of small government in this country. Ross mentions the "salad days" of the New Deal and the Great Society, etc., in a way that I imagine is meant to evoke laughter. And I read again and again that it's totally unrealistic for liberals to expect a return to the days of large social programs. But why? There is no ideological opposition to large government programs anymore; there's simply disagreements about which expensive, massive government expenditures we should be taking part in. I can't tell you how often I meet people who claim to be small-government conservatives, but are horrified at the idea of cutting Medicare or Social Security, favor the Iraq war, the prescription drug benefit, an anti-missile defense shield....

If you don't like the kind of programs Obama wants to spend on, say so. But don't pretend there's some large anti-government spending movement in this country. There's just a question between programs like those Obama supports and the latest expensive Republican boondoggle.

Posted by Freddie | March 27, 2008 11:28 AM

The truth is that we can't afford any grandiose liberal plans right now. Americans are going to have to work harder, save more, spend less, and pay more in taxes just to afford something close to our current welfare state. Otherwise, within a decade and a half we may face a precipitous decline: the euro replacing the dollar as world's reserve currency, bond rating agencies revisiting our sovereign debt's triple-A rating, etc.

We can't afford another four or eight years of Bush Redux, so what's your point? I thought Rethuglicans were supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility. What ever happened to that? I have an idea. How about we cut taxes to zero. Try and fund your Iraq war that way. Have you seen the dollar lately? it's been taking because of Bushian policies.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 27, 2008 11:30 AM

Tell me: what is the great English National Project (NP)?
Or the French NP? Or the German? Or the Japanese?

The American one seems to be American Exceptionalism.

Posted by catclub | March 27, 2008 2:10 PM

Question: why do we need a national project? Or a sense of urgency to our politics? Responsibility, yes; urgency, no. Why can't the likes of Bower's just find some project for his own life, and leave the rest of us alone?

Posted by Mike S. | March 27, 2008 10:08 PM

"We can't afford another four or eight years of Bush Redux, so what's your point? I thought Rethuglicans were supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility. What ever happened to that? I have an idea. How about we cut taxes to zero. Try and fund your Iraq war that way. Have you seen the dollar lately? it's been taking because of Bushian policies."

Americans have been spending more than they earn and borrowing against rising asset prices to make up the difference since before Bush was elected. Now comes the inevitable adjustment in our current account deficit. That will invariably require more saving, less consumption, and narrowing trade and fiscal deficits. A Democratic president could pull the plug on the Iraq war on his first day in office and this would still be true. We spend about 5% of our federal budget on Iraq every year and that spending level is fairly constant and will end at some point. We spend about 45% of our budget on entitlements and that spending is growing at about three times our trend GDP growth. It's unsustainable.

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 12:53 AM

You know what chafes me, more and more, as time goes on? Conservatives continuing to talk as though there is a party of small government in this country. Ross mentions the "salad days" of the New Deal and the Great Society, etc., in a way that I imagine is meant to evoke laughter. And I read again and again that it's totally unrealistic for liberals to expect a return to the days of large social programs. But why? There is no ideological opposition to large government programs anymore; there's simply disagreements about which expensive, massive government expenditures we should be taking part in. I can't tell you how often I meet people who claim to be small-government conservatives, but are horrified at the idea of cutting Medicare or Social Security, favor the Iraq war, the prescription drug benefit, an anti-missile defense shield....

If you don't like the kind of programs Obama wants to spend on, say so. But don't pretend there's some large anti-government spending movement in this country. There's just a question between programs like those Obama supports and the latest expensive Republican boondoggle.

Posted by Freddie | March 27, 2008 11:28 AM

*************************************************

Thank you, Freddie. You are a god among insects. Finally someone speaks the truth.

Posted by dragnet | March 28, 2008 10:08 AM

Moreover, it seems passing strange that someone like Bowers, who seems almost completely agnostic about what, precisely, our “national project” ought to be (another moon landing! another Great Society! securing freedom around the globe!), is nonetheless willing to dismiss out of hand the possibility that America’s current burdens in Iraq shouldn't be lightly set aside.

This is the most ridiculous misread I've ever seen here. Bowers point was just that it shouldn't be hard to think of a national project that accomplishes much more for less than Iraq. In fact, pretty much anything would.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 28, 2008 10:19 AM

Freddie,

Since FDR's era, Americans have always wanted more government programs than they've been willing to pay for. That's why we have a national debt, because we've been borrowing to make up the difference. The issue isn't whether or not Americans like Medicare, Social Security, etc. -- the vast majority do. The question is whether its possible to continue those programs at their current fiscal trajectories and even add additional entitlement programs to the mix (as Bush did, with Medicare Part D, and as both Democratic candidates promise to do). The answer, increasingly, is "no". Since these programs are growing faster than our trend GDP growth rate (in some cases, three times as fast) raising taxes alone will not help: our taxes can't keep going up at three times the rate that our economy grows.

We have been fortunate, since our government has the highest-quality credit, and since the dollar is the world's reserve currency, to be able to borrow from the bond market at extremely low rates. We won't be able to keep doing that indefinitely without restraining our entitlement spending. See, for example, "Moody’s says spending threatens US rating", Financial Times, January 8, 2008. Here's the lead paragraph:

The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody’s, the credit rating agency, said on Thursday.

If the bond market loses faith in our credit rating, our currency, or both, it will demand dramatically higher interest rates from us to continue to buy our debt. Interest payments will swell to consume more of our federal budget. Higher interest rates will slow our economy, which will slow our tax revenue, which will make us more dependent on more expensive borrowing, etc.

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 10:50 AM

I think you're spot on, Fred. I just don't believe that Republicans are going to rein in spending the way Ross implies they will. They certainly haven't under Bush!

Posted by Freddie | March 28, 2008 11:07 AM

It's not like money spent on entitlements just disappears--it either purchases medical services, or we simply cut a check to the recipient. In the future, we may need to cut smaller checks, or purchase different medical services.

This distinguishes entitlement spending from the resources we expend on a war that accomplishes very little--those physical and labor resources are simply gone forever. They could have been used to enhance our productive capability--but they weren't and aren't. The costs of Iraq (which are greater than the allocated budget numbers) diminishes our productive capabilities in way that entitlement spending does not. Like it or not, sometime in the next term the next president is going to be faced with really damn hard fiscal choices, and those choices will be much harder if we want to stay in Iraq.

We almost certainly won't purchase fewer medical services given medical inflation which exists in both the private and public market and therefore cannot be blamed on entitlement spending. Yes, it's true that medical spending cannot keep climbing at it's current rate, but that's not an argument against government spending--in fact, if anything that's argument for greater government interventions in the medical field.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 28, 2008 11:27 AM

Freddie,

Of the three candidates for president, McCain would seem to be the most likely to attempt to restrain entitlement spending. The other two candidates not only aren't proposing any restraint but are proposing brand new entitlements.

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 12:05 PM

Consumatopia,

"It's not like money spent on entitlements just disappears--it either purchases medical services, or we simply cut a check to the recipient."

Not that it matters, but you could say the same thing about military spending. It doesn't just disappear -- we buy equipment and we cut paychecks to soldiers, etc.

"This distinguishes entitlement spending from the resources we expend on a war that accomplishes very little--those physical and labor resources are simply gone forever. They could have been used to enhance our productive capability--but they weren't and aren't."

I've heard the argument that spending on infrastructure increases productivity, but never that sending a senior citizen a Social Security check increases productivity. So I'm not sure I see what you are getting at here. Whatever invidious distinctions you make between entitlement spending and the Iraq War, the salient reality is that entitlement spending consumes about 45% of our budget and is growing faster than our ability to pay for it; the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan consume about 5% of our budget, the amounts are fairly constant, and this spending will end at some point.

Posted by Fred | March 28, 2008 12:40 PM