Greater Democracy: A Liberal Long March?

January 25, 2005

A Liberal Long March?

Current liberal political visions in this age of connection are not strong enough to motivate the Liberal tribes to commit to a "long march" for a new political party. On a recent "The Daily Show", by way of contrast, Richard [America's Right Turn] Viguerie decribed himself as a revolutionary Conservative, NOT a Republican, who was a member of a "Long March". The revolutionary Conservatives are doing quite well today, as we know all too well. We Liberals, on the other hand, are not.

Where today do we see Liberals raising above our petty, tribal, zero sum, "identity politics" to organize into something larger that can sustain a long march? How else are we to displace the Democrats who have become little more than the soft wing of the Unified Money party? Viguerie and Stewart do not see any such behavior on the left. Neither do I.

Also, where is the recognition that the Liberal long march, in order to strongly and clearly differentiate itself from the old GOP and the Religious Right party, has to do two key things: 1] embrace the people and reject the Money party; and 2] embrace a peer to peer architecture that rejects the Hub and Spoke model. That is, the Liberal party must embrace the direct experience of, and participation in, active self governance and democracy. It must, to a very large degree, dis-intermediate the popes, bishops, priests and deacons of the Money Party political structure.

Are we only to be allowed to experience democracy through intermediaries? Direct experience is, today, political heresy. The Kerry campaign explicitly rejected this heresy. It remained a hub and spoke organization that stayed within the well defined precepts of the Money party. And it lost. It is, in point of fact, a losing formula for Democrats and Liberals as it is the natural mode of operation for the Republican party.

At the same time, the Liberal party must avoid the evils of too easily manipulated plebiscites. What can we learn, then, from the Communitarian architectures described by Amitae Etizoni et al? What can we learn from the failure of the Gnostic Gospels? Or the failures of other so called heresies though out history?

These explorations are important. Clearly, if we continue on the same old paths, we will only get more of the same-old-same-old. If we want more long term security and more success dealing with the problems posed by terrorists of various stripes, we need to find some new paths.

Posted by Jock Gill at January 25, 2005 11:22 AM | TrackBack

Comments

The peer to peer model needs some structural support. Governance in a crowded world is not easy. Several key structural issues that would give progressiveism or liberals some real leverage are

1. rethinking corporate charters, returning to states the right to impose conditions beyond federal standards but not weaker.

"business that meets needs"

2. Rethink the justice system so it is quick, fair, and humane, returning people to society as rapidly as possible, and retains a revitalized jury system.

"Justice with compassion"

3. A focus on the appropriate use of tech in a more entreprenurial local and regional bsuiness development strategy, eliminating subsidies to old like business. A new culture of ethics, and a new approach to those laid off. Strong environmental standards are n opportunity for tech development.

"Encourage the new business, not special subsidies for the no longer useful."

4. a foreign policy that is transparent and inclusive,

"partnerships for world problems"

5. Less government that is well done.

6. More freedom that is responsible to the whole society.

"freedom is not just property, it is the use of one's abilities engaged with the world."

7. Increased educational opportunitie that go beyond mere employment to fulfilling lives in the culture with historical and design awareness for all."

"An education worthy of a good society, for life, liberty and the persuit of happiness."

Posted by: Doug Carmichael at January 25, 2005 12:20 PM

Jock,

I think your post is right to reject the centrally-controlled model of the party as pre-eminent. However, what are we to do with those institutions we have? The DNC, for example, has managed to close the money gap and as such is regarded as indispensable to the party in some ways. How do we frame new institutions (or new versions of the old ones) so that they attract talent? Right now, I think the talent level in the Democratic party is at an all-time low. A network is valuable partly based on numerosity but also based on the quality of key individual members, the best of whom (at least in the conservative model) have been nurtured and drawn along via an institutional structure.

Posted by: Reuben Teague at January 27, 2005 11:08 AM

Reuben, Yes, the DNC Closed the money gap but lost the election. So it must be that somethings are MORE important than money. We need to look hard into what these more important things are. Perhaps we need a social contract that rejects the Money Party and its Ownership Society, Tax Reform, Stop Loss, "Strict Father", an over reliance on the punitive God of the Old Testament who can only be known through intermediaries, and so forth. How about, just to seed the conversation, a politics that embraces we the people, community, mutual aid societies ala Franklin, and studies the God of the New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels as well as the Gods of the worlds other religions.

Posted by: Jock Gill at January 27, 2005 11:47 AM

How about a social contract based on a spiritual model that talks about connections in a nonhierarchical and multidimensional way; one that says we are all parts of a whole that cannot exist without our presence in it and without which we could not exist; one that says it's all about potential energy and about individual fulfillment that enhances All That Is in a continuous feedback loop moving toward collective growth and fulfillment. It is never static or finished, but always infinitely gracious and evermore inclusive.

Posted by: Elissa at January 28, 2005 1:26 PM