Liberals Can Find Fresh Air In Values

Of course I’m depressed. Not just because the Democrats managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again in 1988. But also because now the people I like best in the Democratic Party--left-liberals and progressives--are concluding that everything would have been fine had Michael Dukakis defended liberalism. They think the old-time religion just needs a better cheerleader--a Jesse Jackson or someone else who can defend the basic principles.

They are sadly mistaken. Sure, a spirited defense of liberalism, particularly during the televised debates, would have greatly strengthened a Dukakis candidacy. And trying to clone the Republicans (Sam Nunn or Bill Bradley next time?) is a stupid strategy. But the liberal world view is in crisis--not because it’s wrong on what it does address, but because of what it misses.

Liberals are stuck in a politics that is an amalgam of what seemed to work for them in the 1930s and ‘60s, but they ignore the psychological, emotional, spiritual and ethical issues that are central to contemporary American politics. From their success in the ‘30s the Democrats hold on to the notion that what really motivates people is economic insecurity; from the ‘60s the notion that the critical moral issue is to extend political rights and economic benefits to those who were previously disenfranchised.

It would be wrong to dismiss these concerns as having no audience in the ‘80s and ‘90s. Many Americans who ended up either not voting or voting against Dukakis in 1988 actually agree with the Democrats on these issues. Many would be happy to have a better student-loan program, a higher minimum wage, greater governmental help in buying a first home, fuller medical care, and even fairer treatment of blacks, women, gays, etc. The problem is that these are not their main concern.

The movements of the ‘60s hit a nerve when they focused on the alienation and sense of meaninglessness that most Americans experience--even after they have achieved relative economic security. Having accepted the notion that in American society one can make it if one really tries, people often feel terrible for having failed to achieve a life filled with more ethical and spiritual coherence, more rewarding work, aand more genuinely loving and committed relationships. The breakup of marriages, the difficulties parents have in transmitting values to their children, the lack of respect experienced at their places of work and from their children, the exploitative way people treat each other--all are experienced as personal failures.

No matter how simplistic their solutions, when the Republicans talk about the centrality of traditional values, or about preserving the family, and when they place these issues at the center of their campaigns, they make people feel better about themselves. By insisting that people’s personal issues require social and collective solutions, that they are not just issues to be left to individuals to work out for themselves, the right wing actually provides temporary relief for the self-blaming that plagues Americans.

The crisis in the meaning of life has to be the center of a Democratic agenda in the ‘90s. It would not be hard, for example, for liberals and progressives to make a convincing case that a culture of selfishness and “me-first-ism,” generated by the very competitive economic system that conservatives extol, is a major source of the values that break down families. The materialism, egotism and despiritualization of daily life are rooted in the marketplace. So, a reconstructed liberalism would critique the competitive marketplace not just because its consequences were unfair to those at the bottom of the economic ladder, but because it promoted values that were destructive to love, solidarity, and community.

This would take a revolution in the liberals’ way of thinking. For example, some liberals have recently understood that “family” is a good issue. But they approach this with the same old assumptions, looking to reduce the issue to specific programs like child care or parental leave. I want these to be included in the Democratic agenda--but the crisis in families is much deeper. It involves the sense that commitment and loyalty are eroding (a possible explanation for why the Pledge of Allegiance issue became important: People want a society that supports loyalty to something besides self-interest). A pro-family program, then, might emphasize restructuring of the world of work, or of the economy itself, in ways that would promote cooperation, loyalty, sharing and commitment to others--fundamental values that would strengthen family life. Far from adopting the conservative agenda, a liberal/left pro-family agenda might be quite radical and yet quite popular.

The key is to get away from thinking about programs and to start thinking about values. The pundits and political pros will tell you that this kind of thinking is “soft,” and that what really wins elections is money in people’s pockets. But George Bush got support from people who were hurting economically, because their deeper hurt was spiritual. The crisis in America is a crisis in meaning and values--and the liberals will continue to defeat themselves as long as they restrict their politics to the language of social programs, material goodies and political rights.