Money or Virtue?
Compare.
Newt Gingrich, on Saturday:
“I’m here to tell you that if you don’t start with values and you don’t start by establishing who we are as Americans, the rest of it doesn’t matter. Life is not just about money.”
Democracy, A Journal (No. 20, Spring 11, p. 8):
“No debate is more fundamental in politics than economics. It’s the sun; everything else revolves around it.”
I’m not saying that money doesn’t matter. I’m not even saying that economics are not fundamental to politics. I’m saying that progressives ought to know by now that political arguments have to be about liberty, justice, equality, and other ideals. It’s not enough to demonstrate—are you listening, Yglesias? Klein?—that a change in metropolitan parking policy or commercial zoning would be profitable. Economics isn’t enough to win an argument, because Americans don’t speak technocrat.
There’s something strange about the idea that the purpose of my blog should be to try to win over swing voters. Elections are largely decided by people who have little interest in politics or knowledge of policy issues. Persuading them is, as you and Gingrich indicate, largely a matter of making emotional appeals. And that explains a lot about the tenor of politicians’ speeches and campaign ads. But I’m writing a blog aimed at people who are interested in politics and public policy. Is that most people? Of course not. But if I could get 0.1 percent of Americans to read my blog it’d be way more successful than it currently is.
Posted by Matthew Yglesias | March 28, 2011, 10:22 amFair point. After all, it is not uniquely your job (or Klein’s, for that matter) to develop a unified philosophical theory for a new progressive era. We also need to be the party of effective policy and fact-based debates.
What is problematic, though—à la Freddie DeBoer—is that the broad tenor of progressive rhetoric is really thin on these sorts of narratives/values. In other words, it’s not about getting every swing voter to read a specific blog or two, but it might really help if more progressives started justifying themselves in non-technocratic terms.
Posted by CPW | March 28, 2011, 10:35 amBut dammit, Matt, no one else is doing it, and wonkiness won’t win elections!
Couldn’t you use your (considerable) bully pulpit to push some new progressive ideas?
Posted by Rawls | March 31, 2011, 8:38 amI agree – made me think about why nothing like UK Uncut has happened in the U.S. (other than me being too busy to get it going). Arguments about direct cost/benefit tradeoffs that seem to work so well for UK Uncut seem to fall on deaf ears here. Part of the reason I suppose is a general rancor against taxes here, while getting people to pay up is the heart of the UK argument, but beyond that the tradeoff arguments have no sway here with many people.
Posted by Tyler | March 28, 2011, 10:28 amTrue….US Uncut hasn’t gotten off the ground yet. Then again, Bernie Sanders and the NY Times might have enough juice to light the spark.
Posted by CPW | March 28, 2011, 11:18 amGah…mixed metaphors…”juice to light the spark.” Forgive me…
Posted by CPW | March 28, 2011, 11:18 am