Digby: *The Big Argument* Why aren't we Dems using Liberal Philosophy?

[KoKo]

The Big Argument:

Ezra Klein has written a rousing defense of liberalism and wonders why the Democrats aren't using this social security battle to help illustrate our philosophy of government:

"Now that Republicans are reeling from running into the brick wall of the foundational Democratic program, wouldn't it make sense to toss their ideology an anvil? Half our number seems to think we need to close the Social Security battle now while the other half wants to draw it out and win it closer to midterms. What about widening our attack so the counteroffensive takes some time and does larger damage? How about using the "crisis" language and the fact that Bush's Medicare pperversion is a much larger economic fiasco to propose fight for changes that'd make it more cost-effective, more progressive, and force Bush's promised veto? How about forcing Bush to roll back his tax cuts to fix Social Security's shortfall, and demand that he not starve government to satisfy his radical ideology?"


I think this deserves some real discussion in Democratic circles. It is past time for a passionate defense of liberalism for liberalism's sake. That is to say its philosophy and meaning as it applies to both our opposition to the Republicans and the affirmative case for progressive policy. {b]For instance, I was very disappointed that we didn't draw the philosophical parallel between social security privatization and this bankruptcy bill. Essentially, the Republicans are saying in both cases that people must assume all the risk in their lives and that there are no second chances. (Interestingly, these are the same people who constantly screw up and claim that they have been redeemed by a belief in God. See Gannon, James and Bush, George W.) They are actively using the power of the government to make average people's lives more insecure. That we aren't standing fully in the path of legislating usury into law, especially in the current climate where people are clinging to the side of a mountain of debt with their fingernails, is just stupid. If we were smart at all we would have been talking about that right along with the social security mess at our all-star town meetings. It's all part of the same thing.

I realize that there has been a full generation of brainwashing about how the government is always bad and that everyone will get rich, rich, rich if the government just gets off their backs. But I have a sense that the force of this argument is getting stale. The assault on social security may just be the thing that opens people's minds to what their philosophy really means. And it may just open a window to allow the idea back in to the minds of the citizens that government programs can be an affirmative good. Social Security works. It's more efficient, more fair and more inexpensive than any of the alternatives. People apparently instinctively know this. Since the Republicans decided to bring this to the forefront we should take credit for it and piggyback our new progressive ideas on its back. It's been so long since anyone had the nerve to do it, that it sounds downright fresh.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_digbysblog_archive.html#111004302928780853

[ClassWarrior]

1. It's "Progressive," not "Liberal"...

The Radical RW has really damaged the word "Liberal" amongst the general public. Therefore, I tend to say I'm proud of the Liberals in our past: FDR, Adlai Stevenson, JFK, etc. But we live in Progressive times, which call for Progressive values.

And while I agree that the sitting Dems need to work up more passion on things like SS (Dick Durbin, whom I love, could have been tougher on Meet The Whores this morning), I've found Digby to be generally misguided.

For a real strategy on reclaiming the debate, read "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff.

NGU.

[Southsideirish]

2. Ezra Klein, go to the head of the class! Great article.

[brindis_desala]

3. excellent. Collective action has to be demonstrated as being

to the public good. Social Security is an insurance program and as such a perfect illustration of what pooled efforts can achieve more effectively. Either we're "rowing" together as a country or we're
paddling around in little life rafts.

[ClassWarrior]

4. It's about compassion for others, and responsibility to our seniors.

Values, values, values...

NGU.

[KoKo]

5. I agree...."Progressive" is the better word. "Liberal" has been co-opted

by the Repugs. But the argument of showing the connection between Bankruptcy "Reform" and "SS Privatization" is one that our Dems would do well to make. Until we take back our "philosophy" we are always open to attacks on "individual issues."

I think Digby's comments are on the mark, here. :shrug:

[ClassWarrior]

6. I agree. Making connections always helps to paint that "big picture"...

...and we need to become master picture painters.

I made the comment about Digby because the few times I've encountered him, I haven't been at all impressed. But taking into account your comments and those of the others on the Klein article, I'll go read it. Sounds like smart strategy.

NGU.