"Emerging Democratic Majority"

David Kusnet reviewed the John Judis/Ruy Teixeira election book (The Emerging Democratic Majority) for the November 24 New York Times Book Review -- a few weeks after the mid-term election was over. Kusnet calls it an "informative and intellectually adventurous study," which contends that "three decades of social and economic change have shaped a society favorable to Democrats: 'a new postindustrial metropolitan order in which men and women play equal roles and in which white America is supplanted by multiracial, multiethnic America.' "

As Kusnet indicates, this interesting and much-discussed book represents a shift on the part of the authors away from many of the enduring orthodoxies of the Democratic left. Democrats are encouraged to turn their focus from "old economy" middle and working class voters to liberal professionals in the nation's cultural and educational centers. Much in it recalls the "new class" theories that so entranced liberal thinkers back in the 1970s.

What happened back then was that while liberal pundits and consultants pursued their fascination with educated, affluent liberals, many voters at lower levels drifted toward the right, repelled by dismay over Demoratic stands on so-called "social issues" and doubts that the heirs of George McGovern would stand firm on matters of national security. Judis and Texiera treat the upsurge in concern about national security that followed September 11 as passing matter that is not likely to upset their central thesis. Given the depth and complexity of the challenges arising from Islamic extremism, this seems optimistic.

Judis and Teixeira also suggest that the extremism of the religious right will have an impact on the electorate similar and opposite to the impact that the Sixties counter-culture had – this time moving voters to the left. But the religious right is no longer so politically potent or provocative it once was, and the Democrats still have plenty of Al Sharptons and Barbara Streisands to contend with. It's far from clear who is winning – or ought to win – the culture wars.

But what is especially puzzling about this book – another point Kusnet touches on – is the way it glides over the role the labor movement is to have in the new Democratic coalition. Maybe educated moderates can be swayed to vote Democratic, but who is going to do the swaying? The declining strength and consequent political weakening of the labor movement, the institutional backbone of Democratic campaigns in recent times, seems to be getting Karl Rove's attention. It deserves more attention from Democrats. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira ought to have something interesting to say on this subject.

Blair for President

"Right now there is only one Democrat who could live up to all [my] rules: the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Maybe the Democrats should give him a green card. He's tough on national security, he has an alternative global vision, people like him and he's a beautiful, reassuring speaker. He's Bill Clinton without baggage."

-- Thomas R. Friedman, The New York Times, Dec. 18, 2002

Transitions

Eugene Victor Debs Rostow, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration and Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Reagan years, died on November 25 at the age of 89. He was a leader in challenging wishful thinking about the Soviet Union during the era of guilt and confusion that followed the Vietnam War.

Rostow parted company with many in the foreign policy establishment to oppose the policy of détente advanced by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger during the Nixon/Ford years. He helped rally support for tough-minded organizations like the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, the Committee on the Present Danger, and the Committee for the Free World. He churned out pages of reasoned but forceful argument against any illusions about Soviet purposes, whether it was arms control, the Third World or the Middle East.

Notesonline readers may notice that the Kissinger/Rostow debate about détente gets comparatively little attention from journalists and academics who have commented about either of these figures recently. Vietnam is still what matters to those setting the tone in much of American political culture.

Case in point: the vehement attacks on Henry Kissinger, which assuredly contributed to his unwillingness to chair the panel of inquiry into the September 11 terrorist attacks. One can imagine Gene Rostow arguing that Kissinger's signal failure did not involve Vietnam (a conflict about which many of Kissinger's critics have much to answer for themselves.) Kissinger's greatest deception was a self-deception -- involving the nature and behavior of the Soviet Union.

Christopher Hitchens and other Kissinger-baiters might also ponder this: does it make the American Metternich more uncomfortable to accuse him of ruthlessness and deception, or to point out a matter about which he was hugely wrong?

What Is Notesonline?

Notesonline is a monthly electronic bulletin of news and information for the social democratic community. Penn Kemble is the volunteer editor of Notesonline and is responsible for its contents and errors. To update your own e-mail address, or to be taken off our list, e-mail us at notes@notesonline.cc. We are eager to add to our list the names and e-mail addresses of individuals who share our outlook and might appreciate this bulletin. Please send them to the e-mail address above. We look forward to hearing from our readers about items that you think deserve mention. As always, Notesonline is grateful for contributions readers make to defray our costs. Please make your tax-deductible check payable to The League for Industrial Democracy, and mail it to: 1925 K Street, NW, Ste 401, Washington, DC 20006.

Tell Us What You Think

We would love to have your comments, criticisms or suggestions. Please e-mail us at: notes@notesonline.cc

To see what others have said, go to Letters to the Editor of Notesonline.