Thursday, May 04, 2006

Outline of book

Chapter 1 - Introduction

What is Liberalism?
Transcendence of Ideology

Chapter 2 - Jefferson and Early American Liberalism

Jefferson as Primary Exemplar
Democracy
Decentralization
Construction of the Constitution
Banking
Legislature and Executive
Judiciary
Civil Liberties
Ethnic Groups
Spending
Taxation
Military
Foreign Policy

Chapter 3 - Competing Philosophies: Hamilton vs. Jefferson

Foundation of Ideology
Ideology vs. Pragmatism
Commitment vs. Compromise
Populism vs. Elitism
Morality vs. Economics
Common Good vs. Special Interests
Agrarian vs. Urban
Left vs. Center
Radical vs. Respectable
Decades Between Jefferson and Bryan

Chapter 4 - Bryan, Humphrey, and Their Ideological Descent

Two Individuals
Bryan's Descent
Humphrey's Descent

Chapter 5 - Modern Philosophy 101: Approach, Fidelity, and Power

Ideology vs. Pragmatism
Commitment vs. Compromise
Populism vs. Elitism

Chapter 6 - Modern Philosophy 102: Foundation, Focus, Residence, Spectrum, and Status

Morality vs. Economics
Common Good vs. Special Interests
Agrarian vs. Urban
Left vs. Center
Radical vs. Respectable

Chapter 7 - Sources of Support

Liberal Interest Groups
Monied Interests
Contributions
Affiliations

Chapter 8 - Positions on Democracy

Crux of Jeffersonianism
Bryan and Popular Sovereignty
Bryan and Democratization
Bryan and Representativeness
Bryan and Plutocratization
Humphrey and Popular Sovereignty
Humphrey and Democratization
Humphrey and Representativeness
Humphrey and Plutocratization

Chapter 9 - Positions on Domestic Policy

Decentralization
Construction of the Constitution
Banking
Legislature and Executive
Judiciary
Civil Liberties
Ethnic Groups
Spending
Taxation

Chapter 10 - Positions on Foreign Policy

Military
Foreign Policy

Chapter 11 - The Post-Humphrey Era and Jeffersonian Transcendence

Evidence of Declining Influence
The Respectable Rulers: Heirs of Humphrey
The Radical Remnant: Heirs of Bryan

Chapter 12 - Democratic Politics Today and Tomorrow

Religion and Politics
Democratic Standard Bearers
Democrats and National Security
Democrats and Cultural Controversies
Democrats and Electoral Success



AUTHOR'S RESPONSE TO QUERY RE: PRESIDENT OBAMA AS JEFFERSONIAN HEIR TO THE "NEW POLITICS" OF McCARTHY-McGOVERN (February 2012):

I'd like to be able to say, "Yes, Obama's nomination and election represented the belated triumph of the New Politics, a resurgence of Bryan-like politics (without the racial prejudice), a revival of Jeffersonian politics," but I don't believe that's true. The assertion--or hope--doesn't stand up under scrutiny. You can't separate Obama's record as president from his 2008 campaign because his presidential actions call into question the seriousness, if not sincerity, of what he said as a candidate. Even as a candidate, he didn't campaign as a radical outside the mainstream, establishment consensus. He sounded populist notes, but every Democrat does that. It's mostly demagoguery, in my opinion, when the sounder of such notes is heavily dependent on financing by the corporate elite.

Think about the brief tussle Obama had with Clinton over NAFTA. It may have been on the eve of the Michigan primary. He correctly pointed out that Clinton's husband had been responsible for pushing NAFTA through but then it was revealed that Obama's campaign manager had a private meeting with the Canadian ambassador and the ambassador was reassured that Obama was just spouting campaign rhetoric and that he had no intention of trying to renegotiate NAFTA if elected president.

Also, consider Obama's foreign policy positions. He was more hawkish than Bush on Afghanistan. Many on the Left have been bitterly disappointed by President Obama's actions on foreign policy, civil liberties, etc., but they weren't being realistic during 2007-08. I think I accurately called it back in June 2007:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/06/23/more-muscular-interventionism/. Obama does not follow in the "Quaker policy" footsteps of Jefferson or the Tolstoyan footsteps of Bryan. Even when he opposed the Iraq war, in a politically-advantageous context, he repeatedly made clear that he was not opposed to war in principle. It was just that particular war with which he had problems. That's an honorable, and typical, position, but Obama has never been outside the establishment's bipartisan consensus of an armed global empire (Pax Americana, although it's often short on Pax). He's no Gene McCarthy (criticizing empire and the CIA) or George McGovern ("Come Home, America," as well as principled opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars).

I don't see anything very Jeffersonian about Obama. There's no opposition to deficit spending or central banking, no recognition of decentralized power or limited government, no championing of peace or civil liberties. He's even weak on civil rights, if you consider his maintenance of the status quo, in terms of attention paid to urban issues and the plight of the poor, federal drug policies, inflationary monetary policies, etc. Plus, his high-handed admonition to the Congressional Black Caucus, using his fake black preacher dialect: "Stop complainin', stop grumblin', stop cryin'!" I can understand why Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, and some others are angry.

I agree that Obama's '08 campaign had some of the flavor of a grassroots crusade a la Bryan '96 or McGovern '72, but there's a difference between style and substance. I think there are some parallels between the Obama and McGovern efforts. If McGovern had been elected, many of his supporters would have been disappointed by his non-radicalnesss, I think (see page 109 of my book). Bryan was more genuinely radical. (Still, I think McGovern compares favorably to Obama when it comes to purity and consistency.) Despite youthful, idealistic backing for Obama in '08, I would not place him in the New Politics, anti-CDM camp. He was no Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich. Superdelegates and party pro's eventually gravitated to Obama over Clinton because he was seen as a safe choice. That's why rival Biden described Obama as a "mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" and why Goldman, Sachs became Obama's #1 contributor. From his attendance at elite schools and joining of the Daley machine to his becoming a reliable friend of Wall Street and the Military-Industrial Complex, Obama has always understood how the game is played and has been willing to play by the rules.

Instead of being a populist/anti-establishment/New Politics example, Obama was a representative of the Kennedy fraternity within Democratic Party centrism (the "progressive" mainstream) in 2008 (see pages 86-87 of my book). In 2008, you had at least a couple Humphrey fraternity candidates (Clinton and Richardson) competing against a few Kennedy fraternity candidates (Obama, Edwards, Dodd). Some of the Kennedy touch was just a stylistic thing, but you also saw this in evidence when Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy endorsed him.