Let’s be optimistic. The 2012 presidential election isn’t
going to make room for new ideas because old ideas must first fight for seats
at the peace table.
The Thirty Years’ War of the 17th century had
great dramatic potential. The future of
the Holy Roman Empire would be returned to the Catholics—or the Protestants
would take over. God would stop making both miserable; supposedly, his
preferred management style would be revealed. It ended up, however, simply
exhausting an entire continent, being fought by mercenaries, and settled in a
series of real estate arrangements amongst nearly a dozen kingdoms and
sovereign states.
American politics has turned into a similar struggle for
dominance. Three decades ago, righteous amateurs and big ideas drove the
conflict. Now, professionals do the important fighting. The insurgent ideas on
the right are now as stained as the conservative ideas on the left. Candidates
don’t revisit Harvard to test their policies. They listen to billionaires who
want to restore America to a time when all they were thinking about was making
money.
The only certainty that keeps both sides fighting is the fear
that the other side will dominate the peace—will drive the “grand bargain.”
The absence of new ideas will necessarily discourage turnout
or make for a dull election. Their absence will be regretted and the campaigns
will carry on.
Nevertheless, concrete ways to think beyond this long
conflict are emerging. Clive Crook of the Atlantic
Monthly just introduced to the mainstream a concept and a blog by
University of Michigan professor Miles Kimball. It’s called “supply-side liberal.” Check it out.
It’s not as elegant—or elastic—as the
term “vital center,” coined by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. early in the Cold War. However, it offers a safe space for skeptical
and constructive thinking. It suggests that a vibrant private sector and a
vibrant public sector are both essential and that both must be closely
watched.
No comments:
Post a Comment