Does the globalization of the economy threaten democracy? Does America need a new work-family policy in the aftermath of the Littleton massacre?

These were some of the questions emerging from a discussion between President Clinton and four other heads of state promoting a "Third Way" political alternative. Joining Clinton at the April 25 confab in Washington, DC, were British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Netherlands Prime Minister Wim Kok, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, and Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema. The event was sponsored by the Democratic Leadership Council.

Differences between the five leaders became most apparent over the issue of regulating the global economy. Wim Kok pressed for debt relief for the poorest countries, noting that "winners must also take responsibility for the losers internationally - that is also community." The US has been reluctant to take this step.

The European leaders also stressed the need for curbing international financial markets, another initiative that discomforts the US government. Schroeder went so far as to suggest that globalization threatens democracy:

International financial markets are destroying country democracy. Speculators can destroy economies. The globalization of the economy must be accompanied by an internationalization of policies, not by central control but by more transparency and more common action by governments. People expect us to deal with the results of globalization. They hold us responsible. But at the national level we lack the tools to do this. We will lose credibility if we don't develop the instruments internationally to do this. (unofficial translation)

In response, Prime Minister Kok noted that in the Netherlands, part time workers maintain equivalent social benefits. These apply to both men and women, who "have an equal responsibility to raise children." Kok added, "We need to make it possible for both men and women to have enough time to not only raise children but to devote to other family members and to leisure. Flexibility is a dirty word to most workers, but it can be a good word if people get more choice about how to use their time."

The official themes of the meeting were opportunity, responsibility, and community. Do these Third Way buzzwords have any real coherence as an alternative public philosophy?

To critics on the Right and Left, the answer is a resounding no. The Economic Policy Institute's Jeff Faux, echoing many on the Left in the Spring 1999 issue of Dissent, warns that the Third Way is nothing more than a "deftly crafted slogan designed to make the capitulation to a conservative agenda intellectually and morally respectable." Many on the Right seem to agree. David Davis, a Conservative Member of the British Parliament, told an October 23, 1998, audience at the American Enterprise Institute that the Third Way was "inconsistent mix of conservative policies wrapped in progressive rhetoric." Elliott Abrams, writing in this month's Commentary, alternately rages at the Third Way for stealing conservative ideas while simultaneously arguing that it's all a cover for the return of old Left policies: "the heart of the [Democratic] party remains on the Left, and talk of a third way serves only to disguise the fact."

Meanwhile, the Third Way politicos are laughing all the way to the polling booth. If it is nothing more than repackaged conservatism, as President Clinton noted in his opening remarks, "Why is the Third Way getting elected?"

The answer seems to rest with several common themes which the participants hope will continue to distinguish them from their detractors. One of these might be called the "opportunity-responsibility" balance. Government's role, according to Blair, is to provide people with opportunity for continuing education, skill development, and technological training. In return, people are expected to seek and hold gainful employment or face loss of welfare benefits. Schroeder puts it this way: "People have an entitlement to education and access to jobs, with the responsibility to take a job. …assume the responsibility or lose the welfare." The Netherlands Wim Kok quipped, "Solidarity is a two-way Third Way." Unlike the Right, which seeks to privatize education and allow individuals to sink or swim as best they can, and the Left, which seeks to provide government entitlements regardless of performance or lifestyle, the Third Way purports to be a genuine alternative, according to its proponents.

Another common theme is the need for governments to continually adapt to change, and help workers to the same. "We must learn to accept change, take change as a given, and learn to create new opportunities out of change," said Wim Kok. Old forms of social protection – unemployment insurance and the like – are no longer adequate. As D'Alema put it, "skills are the highest form of social protection." Schroeder added, "How can we keep all people involved in knowledge and education and training. Prosperity depends on this."

Pragmatism was another repeated refrain. Ideology has never been a dirty word in Europe, but all of these leaders are resolute in their determination to shake it off. Schroeder elevated it to an "important principle:" "The Third Way is a practical strategy – what works." Blair called for a "results-based government."

Despite the common themes, the discussion made it clear that Third-Wayistas are still groping for answers. At one point D'Alema asked, "is it possible to have a dynamic society with social protections?" No one offered a definitive answer. Schroeder suggested that the Third Way may be some sort of a blend of these values, saying that "Germany needs to adopt parts of the US model, just as America could benefit from the European system. Europe needs more flexibility in markets, including labor markets." Unanswered was the question posed by Clinton: how do we redress increasing wage inequality which often results from such flexibilization?

Despite their differences over international policy and particular country circumstances, the leaders at the meeting seem to have developed a genuine camaraderie with each other. They hope that the Third Way, which is now little more than a sentiment, will become a more cohesive and compelling public philosophy. Blair especially seems determined in this regard. Toward the end of the meeting, he said, "It is significant that we are sitting here talking about this. It's easier for us to persevere in Kosovo if we are sharing these ideas together. What we have in common is that we are key to a modern, free democratic world." To fulfill this historic potential, the Third Way will have to resolve the question posed by Clinton at the beginning of the session: "How do we make the most of the new global economy, create opportunity, and still keep the social contract?" The inherent contradictions of this dilemma – satisfying the demands of mobile global capital while keeping the support of the people adversely affected by it - may prove to be the undoing of the Third way.