“No Ordinary Leader” seemed like a presumptuous slogan. It stood out below the name of Deval Patrick , candidate for Governor of Massachusetts, on the front door of Boylston Hall last night, and made me pessimistic about the talk to come. I knew a little bit about Patrick—his impressive career, the uphill battle he has in the primary against the party’s insider candidate, his iconoclastic politics—but I wanted to see him in person to find out more. He would have to be pretty damn impressive to live up to the puffery of “No Ordinary Leader,” but as it turns out the slogan was only a little big hyperbolic, if at all. Patrick was very impressive, and I thought it might be useful to consider why because I think he represents a few attributes that we could use more of in our leaders, in our party, and on the political left in general.
On many things he was solid. He is clearly a pragmatic wonk on policy, was friendly and funny (but not disingenuously adoring) with the audience, and had a directness that implied deep conviction. On a few little things, he was a bit amateurish. He sometimes didn't answer questions (not in the form of a political dodge but an absent-minded, confused detour) and lacked crisp and articulate summary statements of many of his policies that would impose themselves on your mind. He also didn’t have the kind of sparkling charisma of a Clinton, an Obama or (yes, it’s true) a George W. Bush, although few do. But, generally, he appears to be an impressive new Democratic leader—and none too soon.
What struck me, though, what spoke to my personal worries and politics, was the fact that it was clear that Deval Patrick is not just a big D Democrat, he is also a small d democrat. He proudly discussed the “grassroots campaign” that he is running and called for the “good people” disenchanted by the talking heads political culture to come back into the process. Simply on this point free standing he is so right; our politics is often problematically undemocratic and it will require political leaders saying so to move us somewhere better. Even more importantly, though, he seemed to understand the way in which advocating for a healthier democracy and a successful Democratic Party can be combined.
Two moments, on this point, stood out. The first was when he responded, respectfully, of course, to a young Republican who asked, essentially, "how are you going to pay for all of your liberal programs?" Patrick answered well, speaking for a moment about his own fiscal plan before returning to the question to note that he had no plans to raise taxes. But then he said something wonderful: "I won't take the "No New Taxes” pledge, though, because it's a stupid gimmick." Whew. A bit impolitic, sure, but such a necessary point for two reasons. First, it simply is a stupid rhetorical gimmick. Beyond the policy itself, the “No New Taxes” pledge, like the “Soft on Terror” epithet or the “flip/flopper” accusation (and surely many things Democrats use against Republicans), is a rhetorical device intended to cut off genuine dialogue and political options. It is a part of the talking heads culture that he noted drives people away from politics (and drives our politics to meaningless platitudes), an enforced dogma, an ideological loyalty pledge detrimental to our ability to have communication based on an honest exchange of ideas.
What’s wrong with that, obviously, is more than the political sloganeering and rhetorical browbeating, it the actual political content. The second reason Patrick’s line is important is that pushing back on the “No New Taxes” pledge and the profoundly anti-tax nature of our politics is necessary if in the next twenty years we want to maintain anything resembling a functional government. While a government “small enough to drown in a bathtub” may be preferable to anti-government dogmatists like Grover Norquist, the vast majority of the American people like the things government is currently doing and wants it to keep doing them: a social safety net, funds for defense and military, building the roads and putting out fires. President Bush's massive debt has put Democrats in a hell of a spot, if we don't figure out a way to convince people that higher taxes on extreme wealth are the only way we get to keep our government and lose our debt, we're going to have to cut our way back into black ink. Marginalizing the "No New Taxes Pledge," beyond simply improving the level of our discussion, is a necessary first step in reasserting a future for our government.
If that point was a reach, the second makes this case all the more clear. I'm not sure how he got there, but Patrick began to describe the ideological underpinnings of the right and noted that there is a rampant belief, Norquist again may be a helpful stand-in, that government is inherently bad. "Every time they say that," he noted with genuine indignation, "we should say ‘wait a minute, government is us.” The fact that this response was clearly one of deeply held frustration spoke to Patrick’s beliefs. The fact that he had such a simple and articulate answer, even if it isn’t original simply because it is the answer, is something that all of us who believe government can play a positive role in society should take to heart. Being a democrat means believing in a government that is truly an accurate expression of social will, slowed down though it may be. Making it more that way, making it effective, making it efficient is therefore part of making it more democratic. The demonization of government requires that it be seen as something other than the social will, an undemocratic entity that works on a different path altogether from social sentiment and desire. For the Democratic party, then, a democratic government is fundamental.
It seems that Harvard's political culture—at least when it comes to the party politics people—emphasizes the idea that the two tools that are necessary for effecting change are a political sophistication that involves presentation, spin, and media manipulation (well-meaning, of course) and/or an encyclopedic knowledge of particular policies. Both are obviously helpful (and I could probably afford to be more of a wonk), but I think that this message highlights a missing part of that formula. Motivating ideas, big ideas about democratic societies and the role of government and the nature of political progress, are essential for thinking long-term about the short-term political progress you intend to make. In this case, big ideas are also valuable for giving intellectual context, and moral weight, to a political message. It would be unfortunate if we forgot that the longer we lose the battles over big ideas-whether about government or taxes or rhetoric- the more difficult it will be for us to implement whatever ingenuously designed and calculatingly presented policy or platform we’ve come up with this year.
Oh, and if you’re registered to vote in Massachusetts, consider Deval Patrick.
--
Also check out thoughts from Markus Kolic at Demapples and this morning's Crimson article .
login
