[Industrialblog,
May 12, 2004]
Progressives and Regressives
Here is an interesting piece under the nom de plume Publius.
Publius believes progressives are on the side of truth and light, and that conservatives have a "flawed vision," but are winning on the level of rhetoric. Oh, those tricky conservative :) Here's how he puts it:
Hmm...OK, let's use the sales analogy. Sales is about two things: Understanding customer needs and knowing your product/service. There's more to it, but that's the two basics. Progressivism has declined because of 30-40 years of failures in both these areas (and partly because of big victories previous to that). After years of victory of the labor, suffrage, Civil Rights, feminist rights, and early environmental movements, progressives lost touch with the people they purport to protect; they have become at odds with people's real needs. Because of this, they have difficulty presenting reasons why people want their particular product or service. And when confronted with this knowledge, they blame the customer, or the other sales person (those evil conservatives bewitching customers with their slick sales talk), or go down other such unproductive avenues to assign blame.
Look at what Publius is saying. He seems to think that if progressives can just get the sales pitch right, that is progressives can speak in terms of God, America and traditional family, they can "sell" their progressive agenda, just like the conservatives do. Ain't how politics works. And it ain't how sales works.
What progressives should do more of is studying people's real needs — and determine, what, if anything, will create a more just society. That is, they'd need to adjust their solutions to the customer's problems, not seek to find ways to adjust customer's problems to their solutions.
One reason I no longer consider myself a progressive is their product/service almost always involves state control. Maybe, just maybe, the state doesn't do many things well. My experience in a city school system, for example, demonstrated to me that organizations which have monopolies can sometimes get into situations where they are incapable of reforming themselves. The only answer in a situation like that is to force the organization to compete with another organization to survive. Hence, school choice, which to me is a progressive idea because it empowers local communities to take charge of their children's educations, and gives the children the best possible opportunity to get an education.
But progressives often deride school choice. Why? Is it because they love their product/service more than they care about the customers' needs? I don't know. It seems like that to me. And as any sales person will tell you, when you place your product above the customer's need, more often than not you don't get the sale. And even if you do, you don't get a happy repeat customer who gives you referrals.
I'd suggest that a thorough and honest accounting of people's needs is more likely to make Publius a conservative than make progressives out of most people. FWIW.
Publius believes progressives are on the side of truth and light, and that conservatives have a "flawed vision," but are winning on the level of rhetoric. Oh, those tricky conservative :) Here's how he puts it:
The Left's problem isn't that they lack good policies. We're right on the issues. Our problem is one of narrative and rhetoric. All we need is a new way to sell these ideas. Many people are simply scared that the Left is going to undermine what they hold most dear - God, America, and traditional family. Instead of destroying these concepts, we can use those concepts to persuade. In short, we can construct a new progressivism using these very concepts. Obviously, my ideas will need to be worked out, but we've got to start somewhere. And what better place than the blogosphere - the printing press of the 21st century. [Emphasis mine.]
Hmm...OK, let's use the sales analogy. Sales is about two things: Understanding customer needs and knowing your product/service. There's more to it, but that's the two basics. Progressivism has declined because of 30-40 years of failures in both these areas (and partly because of big victories previous to that). After years of victory of the labor, suffrage, Civil Rights, feminist rights, and early environmental movements, progressives lost touch with the people they purport to protect; they have become at odds with people's real needs. Because of this, they have difficulty presenting reasons why people want their particular product or service. And when confronted with this knowledge, they blame the customer, or the other sales person (those evil conservatives bewitching customers with their slick sales talk), or go down other such unproductive avenues to assign blame.
Look at what Publius is saying. He seems to think that if progressives can just get the sales pitch right, that is progressives can speak in terms of God, America and traditional family, they can "sell" their progressive agenda, just like the conservatives do. Ain't how politics works. And it ain't how sales works.
What progressives should do more of is studying people's real needs — and determine, what, if anything, will create a more just society. That is, they'd need to adjust their solutions to the customer's problems, not seek to find ways to adjust customer's problems to their solutions.
One reason I no longer consider myself a progressive is their product/service almost always involves state control. Maybe, just maybe, the state doesn't do many things well. My experience in a city school system, for example, demonstrated to me that organizations which have monopolies can sometimes get into situations where they are incapable of reforming themselves. The only answer in a situation like that is to force the organization to compete with another organization to survive. Hence, school choice, which to me is a progressive idea because it empowers local communities to take charge of their children's educations, and gives the children the best possible opportunity to get an education.
But progressives often deride school choice. Why? Is it because they love their product/service more than they care about the customers' needs? I don't know. It seems like that to me. And as any sales person will tell you, when you place your product above the customer's need, more often than not you don't get the sale. And even if you do, you don't get a happy repeat customer who gives you referrals.
I'd suggest that a thorough and honest accounting of people's needs is more likely to make Publius a conservative than make progressives out of most people. FWIW.
Given that their ideas are to undermine God, America and the traditional family, what he's calling for is nothing more or less than outright lying.
To use a food analogy, he's talking about falsifying the ingredients list, not changing the packaging.
Incidentally, this is what gets me about when democrats cry about how republicans are "questioning their patriotism". I haven't met a straight-ticket democrat voter under 30 who approved of patriotism. To all of the people +/- 5 years from 20 that I know, patriotism is a dirty word; when shortly after 9/11 the country was covered in American flags, it made them feel uncomfortable.
The irony of the whole situation is that republicans don't generally question the patriotism of democrats, but they often should. That's a separate — and complicated — issue for another day.
Suffice it to say, we'd all be better off if this clown were only calling to repackage dog shit as New Improved Dog Shit™ — he wants to call it roses.
Chris - you're leaving me rolling on the floor!
BTW, the reason Dems worry about school choice is - as you surely must know - because, as narrowly defined by post-Reagan Republicans, it tends to undermine the very idea of universal public education, not because Dems are all totally in the thrall of the teachers' unions; even T. Kennedy worked on and voted for 'No Child Left Behind' (hardly a hit among the teachers unions). Certian ideas - public education for everyone; progressive taxation; seperation of church and state - are principles which differentiate the US from banana republics and oligarchies. And why, I wonder, do you disapprove of monopolies in the public sector but not so much (I presume?) in the private/business sector? The fact is, public-sector organizations are de facto MUCH more subject to reform than are private sector ones. It's a good idea to run large organizations efficiently, along applicable business models, but that doesn't make public education a 'business'. Businesses exsist explicitly to make money, period.
Anyway, I'd think twice about Publius' post if I were you.
NOTHING has changed the Philadelphia school district, and even when it tried to privatize, the mayor was caught (via leaked memo) trying to guarantee its failure. the dems' positions on school choice is simply indefensible -- already in many of these city districts half the kids drop out, but worse, the rest of them already aren't getting anything that resembles an education at school. progressives, in this case as in many, allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, while others pay the price. i'm not exaggerating, forcing kids to attend high school in philadelphia is very close to a human rights violation. it's that bad. and it's many progressive ideas, specifically, the language of rights and entitlement that prevents teachers from exercising classroom discipline, that's at the root of the problem.
Businesses exist to make money, yes, but the funny irony is in fact the most successful businesses are those most geared to innovation in meeting customer needs ... that is, you treat your customers right, and you'll profit. the public sector may have purer motives, but one of the ironies i've found is this: the more elevated and lofty the organization's motives, the more political (and usually tawdry) it behaves in practice, that is, among its employees.
If progressives are serious about getting past their postmodern cul-de-sac, well, welcome back to America. You're right in the sense that if progressives change, the rhetoric will take care of itself. But that's true of your opponents, too. Failure to recognize this will lessen your chances of success. People like Bush not because they are suckers, but because they feel he identifies their concerns.
There is a progressive agenda that perhaps people can buy into. Contempt for your opponents won't help.
Performance and the lack of it are a big subject for most bloggers. If what you say differs widely from what you do, you are immediately skewered with your own words.
I think the sorry example set by the Left, including liberal mainstream media, on Human Rights violations has been a wake-up call to most Americans. Lofty words, absolutely criminal behavior. The only beneficiaries of their efforts has been the poor, downtrodden Palestinian terrorists. Tears for Yassin, scorn for his victims.
The same pattern shows through on their sympathy for Saddam and his terrorists vs their indifference to the Iraqis and Coalition people who are trying to make things go right.
More open communication, not less, is the answer. Bloggers as a culture can remake the political landscape.
The problem with bloggers and blogging is that it is often more crass than usual communication. (Take my own immediate and inappropriate harassment of Chris above.) The anonymous nature of the web makes it easier to throw out insults and accusations than it would otherwise.(Chris I apologize).
I do believe one of the biggest problems facing America in overcoming the deep divisions in the country is communication. But calling people traitors or killers doesn't forward the country or any cause. Nor does deflecting self criticism by pointing at the other guy and saying he's worse than you.
The web and blogs have been useful to the political parties in that they are an avenue of communication to their own. Since the left's message isn't conducive to talk radio, I suspect that the web has been a bigger help to the left. I don't see much evidence that bloggers cross over very often or even enter into many meaningful debates. They often seem fall to name calling and instant venting.
I didn't real the Publius blog, but sales and deliverying your message effectively using the language of your target audience is obviously better than finger pointing and screaming. That goes for the right and the left.
Apology accepted. :-)
Actually, one thing that happens often in comment sections is that people start getting to know each other and joking in ways that wouldn't be generally acceptable but are generally displayed due to the nature of the medium. It's hard to remember that you're talking to more than just the person you addressed the comment to.
Incidentally, a follow-up to what I said about democrats and patriotism: I do believe that many democrats are not patriotic, though they are generally merciful and charitable, which are better things.
When I say that democrats are not typically patriotic, I don't mean to say that I think patriotism a virtue. I suspect that it can be a virtue, but it is certainly not on the level of virtues like charity (in the sense of the greek agape or the latin charitas), mercy, courage, etc.
Patriotism is at best a partiality like that of a mother for her child, i.e. a partiality unjustifiable in itself but justified through external circumstances. I think that democrats would do better to be honest that they don't think that the love of one's country over another is much justified by external circumstances than to pretend that they do because they think it's necessary to get votes.
Also, don't forget that there is a significant distinction between comment boards on blogs and blogs themselves.
As much as i like the comment areas on a number of blogs (this being one of them), you generally get much higher quality stuff in actual blog postings.
The other problem, as unkind as this is to say, is that on the issue of Iraq the left hasn't generally had anything to debate. The closest to intelligent opposition commentary on Iraq I ever saw were some vague notions that we should do something — never specified — with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan first. That's defensible, though I never saw it defended in detail.
But most of what we've seen has been laughable — mostly just an endless parade of any-stick-is-good-enough-to-beat-bush-wish. Claiming that Bush declared that Iraq would be a cake-walk without casualties on the USS Lincoln, trying to pretend that Bush claimed that there was an immediate military thread from Saddam while he was roundly criticized for saying that we shouldn't wait until there is one, "Turkeygate", all the contentless hub-bub over whether he was AWOL, etc.
When people go out of their way to essentially claim that they don't understand plain English, have no historical perspective whatsoever, and are determined to avoid even the semblance of perspective on current events, you're not going to get a reasonable debate.
Take Afghanistan. Pundits wailed that it was a disaster, and then the Taliban fell a few weeks later. There's a reason that Donald Rumsfeld announced the fall of Kabul with "I think that what was taking place in the earlier phases was exactly as planned. It looked like nothing was happening. Indeed, it looked like we were in a, all together now, quagmire."
Not that this stopped anyone from screaming quagmire a few days into the invasion of Iraq. Not that's stopped them from screaming it at Fallujah, and about al Sadr.
Indeed, the screams of quagmire recur so frequently (and so predictably) that they might as well be from a CD set to repeat track 1.
If one side has constantly been screaming quagmire! There is no plan! no blood for oil! this is a mess! it's vietnam all over again! and been so smashingly wrong so many times, the surprising thing would be if there was a reasonable debate going on.
Note: I'm not saying in the above that there was no debate between the right and left because the people on the left were completely wrong or stupid, it's because the people on the left were generally not thinking at all; they were mostly just convulsed in paroxysims of bush hatred and we all had to listen to it. There could have been a national debate, but one side essentially brought party hats to a gun fight. There could have been something if they had at least brought knives.
I think that it will be a better test of the blogosphere if we see how it handles domestic issues; since these issues predate Bush, we might be able to get the left to produce some opinions which aren't just a sheer negation of Bush's position, and consequently can be argued for intelligently.
The republicans are certainly not infallible (e.g. the war on drugs — though that's a more bipartisan issue than is good for the prospects of the legalization and regulation of marijuana), so there certainly can be intelligent debate between the sides.
sales is much more about substance than you and Publius are suggesting.
I think it's only me suggesting; in fact, I think Publius is suggesting the opposite, which is where I differ from him. You can't have it both ways - either 'salesmanship' is more ephemeral/plastic or it's not. Either you get your principles down and the rhetoric will follow, or it's more the other way around. The fact is, it can be either, and is usually both. True salesmanship (in a commercial sense) is, almost by definition, a mixture of bullshit and absolute, irresistable, commonsensical truth. A little further on the spectrum, a Confidence Game has a mixture which is a little 'richer' (the ratio is more 'top-heavy' - BS to truth). Don't kid yourselves. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, and there's no 'system' which more/less works by itself without value judgements. The value judgements come first. Those you make - whether in business or politics - determine the rhetoric every time. I think the current Bush Administration definitely is in the 'con' region, because they are uncommonly cynical in their rhetoric - and the rhetoric comes before substance; eg, they think it's amusing and sly to say one thing and mean the exact opposite - as if it's some postmodern surrealistic coup. You don't have to be a partisian to see that.
As far as the issue of public schools goes, I have no doubt that forcing a child to go to some public schools in Philly (where I lived for a couple years) or Chicago (where I live now) is a form of spirit-torture. No question. But I still contend that the national republican party is not really interested in public education, and in fact doesn't mind threatening the the basic concept - as a 'defensive' gesture. But why so defensive? The GOP has controlled the executive branch for 16 out of the last 24 years, and controlled congress (and in an unusually aggressive way) during the eight years there was a Dem in the WH. And Reagan and the Bushes have stocked the judiciary in a major way. You WON! Dems have been on the defensive for at least 25 years (longer than that, really). No matter how much electoral success Republicans have, they keep throwing bombs: even though they've been in power for decades, they act as if they're still 'back-benchers'. Gee, I wonder why? Is it easier to protest than actually do the work?
If Republicans were really interested in dealing with public education, they would've. Bush's 'NCLB' is a rhetorical start, but, in typical Bush fashion, it was promugated but - cleverly - denied proper funding: you get credit for proposing it and no blame for sabotaging it - typical Bush/Rove! (Closed circut to Republicans: if you want your party to survive and thrive, don't elevate any more Bushes; they are fuck-ups, and - for example - if you'd nominated McCain in 2000, Republicans would control DC for the next 25 years. And McCain's not the only worthy one, of course.).
If anyone wants to grapple with public education, they have to deal with the over-reliance on local property taxes. Nothing deep about that. Republicans have utterly failed to deal with the overall tax structure in American life. The post-Reagan GOP has turned out to be the worst of both libertarian worlds: on the one hand, their program is random, disorganized, line-of-least-resistance, defensive; on the other hand, they don't embrace the good, basic, American values of sceptical, anti-government, anti-bureaucratic, pro-personal-freedom libertarianism. I think it's too bad. Maybe the 'Reason'-type of libertarians will save the day. We need some kind of check on - or synthesis among - wacky idealist notions.
Off-hand, Jonnybutter's points about the cynical nature of the Bush administration (and Rove in particular) seem like reality. Read the recent editorial from NYT Friedman about the current administration.
Chris - I agree with what a lot of you say about blogging - in general - blog comment logs are distinct from the blogs themselves, which generally have a higher level of comment.
Patriotism as a love of country is something I can't say that I believe Republican's automatically hold the high ground on, though on a practical level, they've owned it as a mainstay of their message for years. I suppose that Republican's on average practice a more public display of love of country, but like public and private prayer I find that hard to measure in total terms. I do think that Republicans have a well tuned attack machine around patriotism. Kind of like patriotism's their thing and weak-kneed anti-war liberals just aren't patriotic or something. That is not to say that you're not right that Democrats may in general take a more critical look at their country versus other countries.
I would agree that left pays a price because of the alarmist nature of much of the anti-war protest. The left's messages are always hurt by this in general. I think to simply be "anti-war" will fail the Democrats in the fall. I do think Bush is suspectible on his handling of the war. (Naturally I'll be muttering with rage all fall about the deficit).
Don't you really already have school choice. There is no law that says you have to attend public schools. Tons of people live outside of cities to avoid city taxes and send their kids to private schools. Since schools are largely funded at the local level, just choose a community where your taxes are low. Lots of people only live in the city until their kids have graduated High School and then move out of town to get lower taxes. Isn't the logical position on school choice is that you shouldn't have public schools at all, since if you don't have kids public schools are just a waste of time to you anyway? (My liberal position is that the economy is better off with an educated populace, so I'm for public school funding.)