Remember all the discussions about the best way to get Republicans and conservative Democrats to support progressive legislation? These "theory of change" discussions were often the focus of the 2008 Presidential campaign, especially in the Democratic primary. There were at least three competing theories:
- Good faith bi-partisan outreach is needed for change: This was the theory put forth by then-Senator Obama. The idea is to engage in very public, good faith outreach to Republicans, conservatives and corporations in an attempt to find common ground. Once they are at the bargaining table, they will then either have to act in good faith, and a positive, broad based compromise will be forged that will last a long time. However, if they do not act in good faith, then they will be exposed as bad faith actors, and pushed aside with public support.
- Experience is needed for change: This was the basic Clinton argument. In order to make real change, you need to know the ins and outs of Washington, D.C. Change can only be enacted if you know who the key players are, where the bodies are buried, and where the pressure points are.
- Outrage needed for change: This was the basic Edwards argument. People need to get really angry about the excesses of the governing class, and basically demand change or else. At the center of the Edwards argument was, above all else, populist passion. Without widespread, mass anger, those in power will never be willing to give up even an inch.
Mark Schmidt presented these three theories back on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. I think his diagnosis of the three theories remains accurate, even though the end of the primary season makes their continued attachment to the three candidates less relevant.
While I am sure that there is a place for all three theories, and that none will either succeed or fail in every instance, it also seems that last week showed, fairly conclusively, that widespread, blinding populist outrage against the excesses of the ruling class is actually the best way to get Republicans and conservatives on board with progressive policy. Last Thursday, by a 328-93 margin, the House voted to place a 90% tax on bonuses for Wall Street executives. This measure was supported by 50% of Republicans, and 90% of Blue Dogs. It has been a long time since the Democratic leadership was able to gather that level of Blue Dog and Republican support for any widely publicized piece of legislation. This leaves Republican and Blue Dog support for things like the stimulus, or the budget, or health care reform, or a new energy economy, in the dust. It even flipped dozens of House members who voted against executive compensation only a few weeks earlier.
Beyond experience, beyond public displays of "post-partisanship," beyond hard work, beyond threats of primary challenges, beyond threats of general election defeat, it was white-hot populist outrage that finally did the trick in flipping conservative and Republican votes. The episode makes me wonder if we spend too much of our energies targeting politicians and elections, and not enough time whipping up populist anger. My perspective has long been that new progressive media is best off when it targets targets political junkies and grasstops, but perhaps gathering an angry mob is actually a more effective path. Certainly, given the votes that flipped, it is worth strongly considering.
|
