A Modified, Limited Defense of "Ideas"

It should come as no surprise that I liked Jonathan Chait's article on the poverty of the idea that "Democrats Need Ideas." In particular, I appreciated his challenge to the commonplace notion that what conservatives possess is some thing called "Ideas" and that to succeed we need to come up with "Ideas" too. As Jon points out, not only do we have plenty of ideas, but what the right calls "Ideas" is really something very different.

I made some similar points last week on TPMCafe, which I hope everyone is reading and enjoying, with particular attention to the fact that many Republican ideas are slogans without substance, or with substance that contradicts the slogans, while liberal ideas are more likely to be serious, substantive, meaningful, but lack a slogan.

Still, I have been guilty at times of professing the "we need ideas" gospel, and in a certain way there is some truth to it. The other day I came across something that I wrote right after the election, a long memo on progressive think tanks. I can't make the whole document public, but rereading my introduction, I thought it made the argument in favor of ideas in a provocative way. I'm not sure

Once again, we find ourselves in the aftermath of an election in which progressive ideas lost ground to the forces of reaction on all fronts. The central insight of Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck's 1989 essay, ?The Politics of Evasion,? suddenly reveals itself to be as true as it was 15 years ago, in the aftermath of the first Bush victory: Progressives ?have focused on fundraising and technology, media and momentum, personality and tactics? instead of developing a powerful set of ideas, and a message that sells those ideas. The old ideas that shaped liberalism ? the social safety net, a strong government role in health care and economic security, regulatory protection of the environment ? have been discredited by the right and progressives defend them too half-heartedly to form an agenda. The next generation framework for progress is not yet born. The recklessness of the radical right forces Democrats to take responsibility without enthusiasm for ?conservative? goals such as reducing the deficit and restraint in foreign policy, rather than the inspiring aspirations of social justice and peaceful global leadership. And so liberal and moderate politicians are caught in a trap.

Ideas are a way out of that trap. Elections are moments of testing. Not so much by their results as by their content, they show in a harsh light the state of the body of ideas that progressives are offering. And for at least a second consecutive election, no serious new economic program was put on the table. No alternative approach to education was offered, beyond a promise to fully fund ?No Child Left Behind.? No coherent approach to terrorism or global engagement was put forward.

Ideas ? specifically, ideas about policy ? will play two roles in the revitalization of a progressive alternative. The first is to give content and substance to a movement. It is often suggested that this is to be a single, coherent message -- ?comprehensive? and ?consistent? are words often used when this argument is made ? but it should be noted that the right uses different themes with different constituencies ? economic ideas with a suburban constituency and ?values? themes with a religious constituency. There is room for some pluralism of ideas and themes, so that the next four years does not have to become a showdown over the one true church.

The second role that ideas can play is short-term and instrumental. An alternative vision of Social Security's future, for example, that captures some of the dynamism promised by privatization would help derail the push toward privatization and reach the constituency ? younger workers ? to whom privatization might otherwise be appealing. An alternative approach to environmental regulation can bring together environmentalists and organized labor, and also (in theory) avoid generating fatal hostility from business.

Ideas of this kind do not function on their own, but fit into an overall ecosystem of progressive activity that includes media outlets and strong grassroots organizing. But such infrastructure without ideas to fuel it can do very little on its own.

I'm not sure I can still believe this and also believe that Chait is right and that my earlier comments were right. But I think I can, keeping in mind Chait's point that what people mean by "ideas" are often different things. I think we still need a structure for our ideas and some clear ways of putting them forward (a Clinton era line, "If you work, you shouldn't be poor," always seemed to me the best example of such a line, a slogan but with real, substantive meaning.)