CRITICS OCTOBER 15, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Midway through her recent TNR article “Building the Progressive Brand,” Sara Robinson makes one essential point: Progressives, she writes, “have always been at our best when we speak from a place of strong moral authority, rooted deeply in a daring vision of the kind of world we’d like to create.” Unfortunately, she completely ignores how such visions emerged in the past and, worse, assumes that a clever ad campaign can substitute for serious political thinking and organizing.
Powerful, history-changing ideologies—whether of left or right—are not commodities. They take shape gradually as activists, intellectuals, and politicians respond to mass grievances and desires, make demands on existing institutions, and build new ones of their own. The original progressives, circa 1900, were motivated by a fear of corporate domination and inspired by the Social Gospel and an equally fervent belief that applied social science could fix the injustices and inefficiencies of industrial society. Their successors in the 1930s advocated a mild, but quite moral, version of Social Democracy; while liberals from the 1950s through the 1970s shifted the focus to winning equal rights for black people, women, and homosexuals. The Center for American Progress has an excellent, ongoing series of essays that outline the key ideas and achievements of these earlier progressives: Despite their differences, I suspect that all would have found either ludicrous or appalling the suggestion that they should “brand” their ideologies as if they were marketing executives at Coke, Ford, or McDonalds (all of which Robinson praises for establishing “corporate identities”). William Jennings Bryan, FDR, Martin Luther King, Betty Friedan, and their followers vigorously resisted the notion that the market should be the main arbiter of winners and losers in American life.
Robinson is also wrong about how conservatives built and have maintained a movement that puts forth a simple ideology of laissez-faire economics, an aggressive military, and “traditional” values. After World War II, the right slowly put together a coalition united by a hatred of communism and a profound suspicion of where secular liberals were leading the nation and the “Free World.” Conservatives were able to fit their core ideology on a single index card for two main reasons. First, unlike most progressives, they appreciated that a movement can prosper only in symbiosis with a major party—and parties always translate their agendas into headlines and slogans. Second, as a group composed mainly of white middle- and upper-class Christians, they had no cause to fragment into the various identity clusters that have both enriched American culture and made it difficult for liberals to say precisely what they stand for. But, if it were so easy to be anointed “the Official Conservative Candidate,” as Robinson believes, why have such conservative officeholders as Robert Bennett and Lisa Murkowski been trounced this year by Tea Party Republicans?
The best and perhaps the only way for progressives to regain their sense of moral authority is to build movements and nominate candidates who can speak in clear and rational ways about the need to build a decent society that mixes the creativity of the marketplace with the altruism of well-funded, well-run government programs and community and religious activism. A compelling self-definition will arise from that process. Leave the branding to Don Draper.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
13 comments
Bob Bennet and Lisa Murkowski lost because: 1) This is a special, anti-establishment election year 2) Conservatism's center of gravity has shifted sharply right this year, following the path their rhetoric has taking since 1964 or 1980. Thus, both were considered 'not conservative enough.' It's a testament to the -power- of conservative branding, not an argument that undermines the idea. It's simply that the party apparatus is no longer in control of that branding, for the moment, at least. Much of what Kazin says is likely correct, but if he doesn't think that the right's persistent, 'values'-centric efforts at communication over the last thirty or forty years have something to do with the fact that voters know better what the Republicans stand for, then it seems to me he's in error. Which isn't to say that communication is a panacaea for the center left's problems--it's a necessary thing, just not sufficient.
- Curran1
October 15, 2010 at 2:26am
Mr. Kazin, As you rightly point out, Bennett and Murkowski were trounced despite sticking to the script provided by the Conservative brand. This doesn't run completely counter to Ms. Robinson's point, however. Conservatives have lost control of the brand, the Tea Partiers having put anti-incumbency high on the checklist. That such novice politicians will likely cruise to victory in the general elections is further testament to how easy it is to use the Conservative brand, at least in places like Alaska and Utah. Proves Ms. Robinson's point nicely, I think.
- RobertC
October 15, 2010 at 2:34am
Ms. Robinson did not say "that a clever ad campaign can substitute for serious political thinking and organizing". What she did say is that progressives would benefit from a "self-defined narrative through-line that carries us from one election to the next" so that the nation (and voters) know "the core values our movement stands for". As if to make Ms. Robinson's point himself, Kazin offers as exemplers the Social Gospel movement of the late 19th century and FDR's New Deal of the 1930s for "a mild, but quite moral, version of Social Democracy", not realizing that these were the "themes", or branding, that identified progressives. Unfortunately, Kazin makes the same mistake as do most progressives today, assuming that their policies are so self-evident they sell themselves. But they aren't and they don't. Until people like Kazin come to realize it, progressives (and Democrats) will continue to be lost in the weeds and to allow the opposition to define their "values".
- rayward
October 15, 2010 at 7:18am
I suggest Kazin, Frank, and Kinsley get together this evening over beers.
- rayward
October 15, 2010 at 10:12am
I thought we did elect a president who could "speak in clear and rational ways about the need to build a decent society that mixes the creativity of the marketplace with the altruism of well-funded, well-run government programs and community and religious activism" Unfortunately, once in office, he forgot that he needed to continue doing that in order to maintain his support. What does progressives in is "wonkishness"-- obsession with policy and procedural details that the average voter cares little about-- and the erroneous belief that the correctness of their ideas is so evident it doesn't need to be explained or sold.
- stanalama
October 15, 2010 at 11:45am
Ditto rayward. Robinson nailed it, and Kazin demonstrates her point. His arrogant "corrections" of her alleged historical mistakes are risible. "The original progressives, circa 1900(sic)" were not only motivated by fear of corporate domination, but of immigrants (especially Catholics and Jews), Blacks, and lots of other things we would find uncomfortable today. They were indeed inspired by a "social gospel and the equally fervent belief in applied social science". Unfortunately this produced in their successors in the 1930's not only advocacy of "mild, but quite moral, social democracy", but also advocates of systems that in action killed about 30 million various class and race enemies as defined by their "applied social science". In the end, Robinson looks smart and coherent. But her "one essential point": that "Progressives have always been at our best when we speak from a place of strong moral authority, deeply rooted in a daring vision of the world we'd like to create", is at the root of the problem. When most of us are confronted with people convinced of their own moral superiority who want to change the world in daring ways, we think of Hitler and Stalin more than of William Jennings Bryan.
- Robert Powell
October 15, 2010 at 2:32pm
People today remember WJB for the social gospel message; but his fundamentalism (as in literal interpretation of the Bible) is what he would like to be remembered for - even if, or because, it destroyed him (he died only weeks after his humiliation at the Scopes trial).
- rayward
October 15, 2010 at 3:42pm
As a lifelong conservative, I chuckle when liberal commentators think they have found the gimmick that is conservatism's secret sauce. The implied notion is "Conservative ideas are so obviously inferior, how can they have become accepted by a broad public." Such egotism is human nature, but, as the ancients wrote: those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make blind. They are not aware of the long, and continuing process, of idea development, adjustment and winnowing that conservatives had to undergo to escape their minority isolation. Fifty or so years ago, modern conservatism did not even exist. It has had to built against a liberal headwind, from the ground up. Even today, new developments like the tea party, or the Sarah Palin phenomenon will have to survive against a relentless barrage of criticism, not all of which is accurate or fair, by any means. Kazin speaks soberly, and with historical realism. I am impressed. If sober reality is displeasing to progressives, its not just some elections that will disappoint them, they will throw away their birthright to contribute to the ongoing dialog in which the new America is constantly being created. At this point in time, not only conservatives, but most of the center, is deaf to progressive arguments. You do have something to say. You have to learn to say it, and think it, in a way that it makes sense to thoughtful people who do not share your emotional predispositions. It's hard. But if we dumb conservatives could learn to do it, so can you brilliant progressives, if you suck it up and bury your self-regard.
- homeros
October 15, 2010 at 5:10pm
I'm afraid "excessive self regard" is an inescapable feature of the Left, which is what "liberals" and "progressives" actually are. The fundamental idea of the left internationally is that government, led by some form of The Vanguard of the Proletariat, knows better what's good for the rest of us than we do ourselves. This is going to be a very difficult concept to sell to folks as independent-minded as most Americans no matter how slick the branding. Given the current profound level of intellectual confusion on the left doing so looks to me damned near impossible
- Robert Powell
October 16, 2010 at 3:23am
What a brain dead set of posts. "excessive self regard" is an essential feature of Powell and the rest of his Tea Bag Righters that constitute the core of today's Republican party. Democratic Progressives may have been fundamentalist nativist racist Luddites that werre economic ignoramuses a century ago. But guess what. Things change. That description best fits Powell andthe Republican party today.
- drofnats1
October 16, 2010 at 8:55pm
Brain dead is as brain dead does, and drofnats certainly qualifies here. If you've got no facts, or even ideas about what some facts might be, I guess you've just got to go ad hominem. For what it's worth, I'm not a Republican (or a Democrat either), but I did vote for Clinton twice, Gore and Obama once each so far. Democratic Progressives certainly embraced a lot of "fundamentalist nativist racist Luddites that were economic ignoramuses", and today they are so confused that they want to rename themselves after them. In the battle of ideas folks like drofnats are clearly unarmed.
- Robert Powell
October 17, 2010 at 4:35am
powell. As expected, you walked into that one. I note you're quick to dissociate yourself from adhominem attacks on you and your Tea Party fellow travelers. And quick too make them about liberals/progressives using "facts" you think are true from 100 yrears ago to characterize them today. Are you also too dense to get the irony AND the hypocricy.
- drofnats1
October 17, 2010 at 11:23am
With all due respect drofnats, check your dictionary on "ad hominem". I'm making generalizations about "liberals/progressives", which is risky enough for the purposes of this forum.
- Robert Powell
October 17, 2010 at 1:01pm