Beating Reaction in 2006

The good news is that progressives seem to be making some progress. The bad news is that many of these advances have come because of Republican weakness rather than Democratic strength. Although the Republicans are less disciplined because of Iraq and some painful scandals, their leadership remains reactionary (rather than conservative) is trying to deeply entrench its influence throughout the government beyond the end of the Bush Administration. Not only are they moving towards control of the Supreme Court (although Justices have a habit of moving to the center after appointment), but the GOP has well developed network of think tanks and loyal foot soldiers that have given their revolution real staying power.

On the other hand, not all is lost. Although the Democrats lost painfully in 2004, the good news is that their losses came mostly in places (such as the South) where they faced a fundamental disadvantage. The presence of Democratic senators from states such as South Carolina was an artifact of a past filled with deeply conservative southern Dems. Most importantly, the Republican victory was clear but not overwhelming. Losing by three percent is the end of the world. The 48/51 split means that the country is still divided rather than conquered by reactionary values.

In addition, the control of the GOP by the radical right is starting to repel voters in the more moderate Northeast and Midwest. The intrusiveness of government into peoples' private lives and deficit spending is also very troubling to many voters in the libertarian states of the interior West. These changes mean victory is possible. In addition, according to most surveys, around 20 percent of Americans are liberal, 35 percent are conservative -- and the remaining 45 percent are centrist. This means it is possible for sensible progressives to still fight and win if they can connect with the center. The big question is how.

Some believe that it is time for Democrats to "return to their roots". In other words, they should tack to the left and reclaim the base. This would entail embracing protectionism, going soft on terrorism, following harmful economic policies, reflexive pacifism and other measures sure to alienate most Americans. Unfortunately, turning the other cheek will not work for Osama Bin-Laden. Although these kinds of "old-left" polices would excite Greens and some Howard Dean supporters, embracing these policies will lead to a cycle of ever larger defeats for Democrats. The result will be a virtual one party Republican state outside the east and west coasts. Reactionary government will be the main winner.

The alternative is to tack to the center with the hope of reclaiming the votes of disgruntled moderates who have abandoned the Democrats. To some extent this is necessary to win, but the question is how to proceed. Some favor embracing either social or political populism. The social side might include invoking religion or embracing socially conservative moral positions. While this might sell well with conservatives, this begs the question of what a progressive is support to be. Does it only mean being less conservative? If so, why should voters support a conservative lite rather than the real thing? Those who oppose conservatism will not support us and conservatives will support "real" conservatives.

The lure of economic populism also tempts. By attacking outsourcing and open trade during a campaign, politicians after winning office face the choice of either embracing bad economics or breaking their word, which undermines trust with the voters. In an interdependent world, a trade war would spell economic disaster. Not only would the United State lose vital export markets, but we are also heavily dependent on many kinds of imports. A major trade disruption would sharply raise prices and severely impair economic activity.

In the end, becoming more like more like the Right won't work -- not only does social conservatism negate progressive politics but it can look patronizing and insincere. Even worse, it can lead to a vicious circle where Democrats become conservative -- and Republicans move even further to the right. This is arguably what has happened since the 1980's. The result is more reactionary government.

In the end, it's impossible to out-Right the Right. The first step to escaping the ideological death spiral is to acknowledge that some voters are simply unreachable. However, this does not means entire regions are out of reach. Progressives need not write off the south, for example. Although religious voters are very important the region, there are many moderates who could still make places such as Virginia, North Carolina, Florida or Arkansas winnable by a centrist. The important question is how to create a kind of progressive politics that can sell in the heartland.

The way to victory will come from acknowledging thoughtful ideas from all parts of the political spectrum. Progressives will follow sound economic policies by advocating free trade, flexible labor markets, eliminating most subsidies, keeping strict control over deficits, limits on pork barrel spending, reducing many kinds of regulation and enhancing national competitiveness. At the same time, we understand that people need to survive in a dynamic globalized economy which means the government needs to ensure access to health care, education and retraining and transition support for displaced workers. Progressives believe in democracy and human rights, including freedom of speech, religion and association. We seek to build a society where it is unacceptable to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation and religion.