How Can I Best Defend Being My Brother's Keeper?
October 16, 2008 6:41 PM Subscribe
Where can I find the best arguments and mentoring for espousing a Democratic Party idealism and platform?
What I'm looking for in this post is information on the best sources for defending the Democratic platform/idealogy/worldview in debates against Libertarians/apathetic voters/Republicans/etc.
I'm hoping the hive mind can point me to great articles/books/thinkers who have long championed and defended the Democratic ideals in this country, so I can become more informed and have historical mentors to guide my thinking and inspire me.
What I'm looking for in this post is information on the best sources for defending the Democratic platform/idealogy/worldview in debates against Libertarians/apathetic voters/Republicans/etc.
I'm hoping the hive mind can point me to great articles/books/thinkers who have long championed and defended the Democratic ideals in this country, so I can become more informed and have historical mentors to guide my thinking and inspire me.
You can start with the party platform.
Bonus points for familiarizing yourself with the RNC and Libertarian Party platforms.
posted by wfrgms at 8:34 PM on October 16, 2008
Bonus points for familiarizing yourself with the RNC and Libertarian Party platforms.
posted by wfrgms at 8:34 PM on October 16, 2008
Looking at my bookshelf, I'd suggest:
The Power of Progress by John Podesta (former Chief-of-Staff to President Clinton and Executive Director of the Center for American Progress)
Reason by Robert Reich (former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton)
The Courage of Our Convictions by Gary Hart
Reason to Believe by Mario Cuomo
The Conscience of a Liberal by Senator Paul Wellstone
And, finally, I learned a lot about the historical significance of progressive political theory and American liberalism by reading Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s "Age of Roosevelt" series (The Crisis of the Old Order, The Coming of the New Deal and The Politics of Upheaval).
posted by elmer benson at 8:36 PM on October 16, 2008
The Power of Progress by John Podesta (former Chief-of-Staff to President Clinton and Executive Director of the Center for American Progress)
Reason by Robert Reich (former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton)
The Courage of Our Convictions by Gary Hart
Reason to Believe by Mario Cuomo
The Conscience of a Liberal by Senator Paul Wellstone
And, finally, I learned a lot about the historical significance of progressive political theory and American liberalism by reading Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s "Age of Roosevelt" series (The Crisis of the Old Order, The Coming of the New Deal and The Politics of Upheaval).
posted by elmer benson at 8:36 PM on October 16, 2008
This sort of thing largely comes naturally once you truly understand the nature of your opponents' arguments, and why they're (apparently) wrong. In order to understand conservatives and libertarians who argue from a values point of view ("everyone is responsible for themselves"), I strongly encourage anyone to watch this popular TEDTalk if you haven't yet. It's almost impossible to sway people on values issues, but insights like those offered in that talk will help you understand what kind of "wiring" makes people feel that way, and what makes you feel the way you do as a liberal.
On the other hand, not all conservatives or libertarians are innately oppressive ultra-religious moralists (as us liberals-at-heart would have it). Some libertarian-leaning types argue from essentially the same values point of view as most Democrats--they make political arguments based on the moral principles of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, in the terms of that video. But they say that greater economic freedom is the best way to get there. The pundit Will Wilkinson comes to mind as an extreme case of this type, even occasionally calling himself a "liberaltarian" for his belief in libertarian means to achieve traditional progressive ends like raising people out of poverty. He even argues that arch-libertarians like Hayek and Friedman thought this way too, but never get credit for it. Am I tipping my hand yet that I have come to a similar viewpoint? Thought so ;)
While this type of argument is rarer, it is far more credible, and you have to understand it if you want to counter the truly logical arguments for economic conservatism--based on universal values--that exist. You may, as I did, find your own viewpoint rocked a bit. The boilerplate arguments offered by rank-and-file Republicans are a pathetic caricature of the "real deal." I strongly recommend EconTalk, a popular science podcast from a libertarian think tank at George Mason. It's generally extremely clear and--imagine this--quite interesting. It opened my eyes to a rationale for economic conservatism that seems to flow naturally from mainstream economics--the main science, after all, tasked with understanding the effects of policy. Even if you're not swayed in the slightest, I think you would have a similarly enlightening experience about why true intellectuals can have conservative economic views--how they can even be easier to defend than liberal ones in many cases. Nothing could make you stronger as a debater than understanding the intellectual foundations of your opponents' views better than they do, and everyday conservatives understand the truly good rationales for their views even more poorly than liberals do. For a start, I'd listen to the episode Boudreaux on Globalization and Trade Deficits, just because global trade is one of the trickiest topics for liberals to defend themselves on: 93% of economists agree that "tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare."
This has turned into another of my big "brain dump" posts that I will link in the future when similar things come up. Sorry, if you were looking for something a bit more pithy.
As to apathetic voters, I don't know how to handle them. Sorry ;)
posted by abcde at 9:16 PM on October 16, 2008
On the other hand, not all conservatives or libertarians are innately oppressive ultra-religious moralists (as us liberals-at-heart would have it). Some libertarian-leaning types argue from essentially the same values point of view as most Democrats--they make political arguments based on the moral principles of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, in the terms of that video. But they say that greater economic freedom is the best way to get there. The pundit Will Wilkinson comes to mind as an extreme case of this type, even occasionally calling himself a "liberaltarian" for his belief in libertarian means to achieve traditional progressive ends like raising people out of poverty. He even argues that arch-libertarians like Hayek and Friedman thought this way too, but never get credit for it. Am I tipping my hand yet that I have come to a similar viewpoint? Thought so ;)
While this type of argument is rarer, it is far more credible, and you have to understand it if you want to counter the truly logical arguments for economic conservatism--based on universal values--that exist. You may, as I did, find your own viewpoint rocked a bit. The boilerplate arguments offered by rank-and-file Republicans are a pathetic caricature of the "real deal." I strongly recommend EconTalk, a popular science podcast from a libertarian think tank at George Mason. It's generally extremely clear and--imagine this--quite interesting. It opened my eyes to a rationale for economic conservatism that seems to flow naturally from mainstream economics--the main science, after all, tasked with understanding the effects of policy. Even if you're not swayed in the slightest, I think you would have a similarly enlightening experience about why true intellectuals can have conservative economic views--how they can even be easier to defend than liberal ones in many cases. Nothing could make you stronger as a debater than understanding the intellectual foundations of your opponents' views better than they do, and everyday conservatives understand the truly good rationales for their views even more poorly than liberals do. For a start, I'd listen to the episode Boudreaux on Globalization and Trade Deficits, just because global trade is one of the trickiest topics for liberals to defend themselves on: 93% of economists agree that "tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare."
This has turned into another of my big "brain dump" posts that I will link in the future when similar things come up. Sorry, if you were looking for something a bit more pithy.
As to apathetic voters, I don't know how to handle them. Sorry ;)
posted by abcde at 9:16 PM on October 16, 2008
It's important to remember that Democratic Party views are not "idealism" for most people who vote Democrat.
It may seem that way if most of the Democrats you know are graduate-degree-educated private sector workers (trial lawyers excluded!), but most of the people who vote Democrat are simply voting for who they think best puts the bacon in their pans.
(And to editorialize, I think that's entirely for the best. People tend to act far more rationally when they are trying to make informed judgments in their own self-interest than under other circumstances; voting as charity or voting as philosophy produces terrible results.)
posted by MattD at 6:11 AM on October 17, 2008
It may seem that way if most of the Democrats you know are graduate-degree-educated private sector workers (trial lawyers excluded!), but most of the people who vote Democrat are simply voting for who they think best puts the bacon in their pans.
(And to editorialize, I think that's entirely for the best. People tend to act far more rationally when they are trying to make informed judgments in their own self-interest than under other circumstances; voting as charity or voting as philosophy produces terrible results.)
posted by MattD at 6:11 AM on October 17, 2008
I would suggest going back and looking at some of the speeches by great Democratic presidents. Their inaugural addresses are particularly good places to look for stirring rhetoric about their vision for the nation. JFK/FDR/Clinton all gave lots of great vision speeches. Also check out William Jennings Bryan's speeches from the turn of the last century. Never became president, but was extraordinarily influential in the development of progressive populism.
Also: watch the West Wing. No joke. Amid all the policy-oriented debate and speechifiying on that show, they often return to the discussion of what makes Democrats and Republicans different, ideologically speaking.
Another good book to look at is Don't Think of an Elephant. It's about political messaging and framing, but it really teases out the central arguments of the Democratic Party.
Most of the people who vote Democrat are simply voting for who they think best puts the bacon in their pans.
Eh, probably only part of the story. People make political decisions based on a lot of factors, and economic self-interest is only one of them. The book The Political Brain, written by a political psychologist, explores this in depth.
posted by lunasol at 6:39 AM on October 17, 2008
Also: watch the West Wing. No joke. Amid all the policy-oriented debate and speechifiying on that show, they often return to the discussion of what makes Democrats and Republicans different, ideologically speaking.
Another good book to look at is Don't Think of an Elephant. It's about political messaging and framing, but it really teases out the central arguments of the Democratic Party.
Most of the people who vote Democrat are simply voting for who they think best puts the bacon in their pans.
Eh, probably only part of the story. People make political decisions based on a lot of factors, and economic self-interest is only one of them. The book The Political Brain, written by a political psychologist, explores this in depth.
posted by lunasol at 6:39 AM on October 17, 2008
« Older Challenge: help me id this 70s kung-fu movie that... | Other songs like Song of the Volga Boatmen? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by messylissa at 7:01 PM on October 16, 2008