The Informationist

I hope I’m Wrong

As I survey the political terrain, I see us heading for a Democratic rout. I suspect that Barack Obama will become the next President of the United States, and that he will arrive in office with the full backing of a compliant, comfortable Democratic majority in Congress.

For the first time in my political life, the thought of such an outcome fills me with dread. I believe that the prospects for both the country and the world under such American governance are bleak. I believe that Obama has the potential to usher in some very negative trends—trends that may take a generation or more to reverse (if they ever become reversible). In short, I believe that he is capable of delivering upon his campaign promise of “change.” Regrettably, change for the mere sake of change is not what the world needs.

Here’s why:

In late 2002, I started to notice a disturbing trend in Democratic circles. People seemed to be running—hard and fast—away from the worldview that had proved so successful during the 1990s. They started running away from the worldview that had animated people like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, representatives of the center-left who succeeded at politics, at policy, and at governance.

That trend first hit broad public view in 2003 with the Dean campaign, and picked up steam immediately following the 2004 election. It reached fruition when the party closed ranks behind Obama—the first true representative of a new Democratic Party.

What makes the party new is that—for the first time at least since I started paying attention in the late 70s—it has cohered around a worldview. Stated succinctly, (and I hope fairly and objectively, because I disagree with it), the worldview of the Democratic Party goes something like this:

Globalization certainly had its strong points, but it also created a fair number of challenges that require immediate attention. In particular, America’s focus on globalization: (i) created unfair benefits to one stratum of society at the expense of the others; (ii) allowed too much of our wealth, and too much of our attention, to flow abroad, rather than focusing on pressing domestic problems; and (iii) entangled us with countries and regions that would be better off left to solve their own problems. In short, America’s global footprint is too big, and the poorest parts of American society are paying a disproportionate price.

The solution, or at least the direction in which the solution lies, follows from the worldview:

We must reduce America’s global footprint. By reducing our military presence, we will antagonize fewer countries and make ourselves safer. By promoting direct high-level contacts while routing most of our diplomatic efforts through multinational organizations like the UN, we will achieve better, more durable agreements, and enhance our standing as a good global citizen. By halting (if not reversing) free trade, we will allow governments around the world, including our own, to protect important local industries. Furthermore, reducing our global footprint will lead to direct savings—savings that we can invest better at home to improve our social safety net.

It’s a compelling approach—and one to which many voters resonate. It sounds like a prescription for a wonderful world and a renewed America. And in many ways, it is a prescription for a wonderful world. Unfortunately, it rests upon a misdiagnosis of the world in which we live. It rests policy upon a world that should be rather than upon the world that is.

Here’s my view of the world as it is:

Globalization has been a huge force for good—perhaps the greatest such force that the world has ever seen. Free trade and global economic integration have created jobs around the world and allowed billions of people to lift themselves out of poverty. It has created a premium on education, and pushed previously illiterate cultures to recognize the importance of basic literacy and numeracy skills. It has generated enough food to feed the world, and cleaned drinking water supplies in some pretty remote regions. Global communication has also provided people with unrivaled insights into other cultures—and in particular promoted the growth of political freedom and the respect for individual choice. America’s benign though imperfect hegemony has been the best guarantor of both economic integration and the spread of freedom. Liberal policies follow a network model; the more people included under the umbrella of democracy and capitalism, the better things are for all who participate.

My worldview also points policy in some particular directions:

• We should expand free trade wherever possible, and use parts of our increased wealth to retrain displaced American workers.
• We should respect individuals rather than governments, even in the cases that such a bias is currently unfashionable, such as when dictators oppress people unfortunate enough to share their ethnicity.
• We should promote the cause of individual freedom and liberty wherever possible, using all available leverage to push countries around the world into joining the liberal network, even if it means impinging upon their sovereignty.
• We should maximize our leverage in all arenas. A strong military coupled with a credible threat of intervention is the best way to minimize the likelihood of actual interventions. Diplomacy anchored to our own national interests and liberal values are the best ways to promote those interests and values—whether we approach negotiations unilaterally, with allies, or through an umbrella organization.
• The increases in productivity and growth that globalization has always impelled will create a domestic environment of increased tolerance (as the past few decades demonstrate), and create conditions that improve the living standards of even the least affluent Americans. We should thus invest in programs that improve our domestic infrastructure, the education and training of our people, the integration of our immigrants, and the competitiveness of our markets—and only such programs.
• We should find novel and creative market mechanisms for internalizing environmental costs into production, thus rationalizing consumption choices and helping to ameliorate the deleterious environmental consequences of growth.
• We should recognize the current wave of Islamofascist terrorism, and its leftist Chavista rooting corner, as parts of the backlash against globalization. Status quo forces elevating the cause of “tradition” above that of “liberty” are willing to use lethal violence to preserve their ability to oppress. Slowing the pace of globalization will not mitigate their distaste for it; it will only allow them to be better prepared for the ongoing battle. We should thus see them as existential risks and work to fight them wherever practical.

So here’s the rub. It’s pretty obvious that I no longer belong in the Democratic Party. I’m not alone. Many Democratic pundits and bloggers have decried Sen. Joe Lieberman’s “defection.” In fact, Lieberman simply belongs to a faction that lost in the battle for Party supremacy, and has decided to stick with his principles rather than with the party label. He will not be alone. But he has been among the very first. Most voters don’t really notice when parties change philosophies—they only notice when parties change behavior following new philosophies. So most longtime Democrats who agree with my worldview are unlikely to leave the party quite yet.

At the same time, Bush has gone a long way towards alienating large parts of the Republican no-longer-faithful. At least a fair number of them are likely to find the new Democratic worldview seductive. And by emphasizing a relatively new set of issues, the Democrats can tell a coherent story without stumbling upon the keywords that previously alienated these disgruntled Republicans.

Taken together, the Democrats have moved in a direction that will eventually alienate a faction of their previous support—but is unlikely to have done so already. The Republicans have hardly reached out to draw them in. The Republicans have worked to alienate many of their voters. The Democrats have stopped chasing them away.

That’s why I say that it looks like we’re heading to a Democratic rout, followed by a wave of policies emanating from a dangerously misinformed, Pollyannaish worldview.

…And that’s why I’m sitting precisely where I sat following the elections of 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004:

I hope I’m wrong.

Posted by Bruce Abramson from on 06/16 at 08:32 PM in American Government, Politics, and Domestic Policies