In my recent post I noted that progressives’ stock-in-trade has been a “liberationist” agenda, which in an odd way mirrors the “freedom to do whatever I damn well please” of the right-wing. Parts of the left tell us, for example, that gender is a social construct to be deconstructed, while the right insists on being able to carry guns everywhere. But for many voters, social disorder is maybe the more pressing concern, with strong social bonds and reliable, viable communities an acutely felt need.
To reprise a quote from that earlier essay: “The central argument of the 21st century,” writes David Brooks, “is no longer over the size of government. The central argument of this century is over who can best strengthen the social order. In this contest, the Republicans have their champions and the Democrats aren’t even on the field.”
So I was cheered to read a call for a different kind of agenda for the Democratic Party by former Obama administration member Michael Wear at “UnHerd”. Wear, president of the Center for Christianity in Public Life, argues that instead of joining Trump in the degradation of our common life by aping his vulgarity and mean-spiritedness, Democrats should take up and champion a “pro-social” agenda for America.
What would being “pro-social” mean? Wear explains:
“What America needs today is a Democratic Party with a pro-social vision advanced through pro-social means: to defend human beings as fundamentally social, cooperative, and mutually dependent, both in the way they campaign and in the policies they promote.
“In order to regain Americans’ trust and deserve to govern, Democrats must become a pro-social party that filters all policies, tactics, and communications through a pro-social filter. Put simply, a pro-social filter means that what Democrats support and oppose must meet the test of improving our common life together, rather than just representing a hodgepodge of policies that please certain advocacy groups and the interests they claim to represent.”
Lest “pro-social” be thought nothing but a lofty abstraction, Wear tags a number of specific issues that at least some Dems have been raising, starting with the explosive sports-betting industry and moving on to the almost-as-explosive marijuana business. He also cites the tolerance of generally progressive prosecutors for shoplifting and evading fares for public transit. A sane immigration policy might also be pro-social instead of the current dragnet, which is leaving companies and communities without long-term employees.
But the overall point is that a pro-social agenda — in contrast to the crassness, cruelty, and vulgarity of Trump and the movement he has unleashed — is about valuing social order, cooperation, and our common life together. I suspect that many Americans, as David Brooks suggests, are ready for a politics that builds up our common bonds rather than giving both implicit and explicit permission to the mean-spirited and vindictive. A pro-social agenda is not just politically wise; it is what we really need, and what we have most lost.
Wear cites a number of examples of Democrats seemingly aping Trumpian crassness, including vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, who termed “Mind your own damn business” as a new “Golden Rule.” Here’s Wear on the folly of Democrats’ adopting Trumpian moves:
“Progressives who dismiss critiques of Democrats as ‘false equivalencies’ miss the point. It is no coincidence that Trump employs vulgarity, derision, anger, and fear; these are the social and emotional conditions that justify his antisocial politics. The nature of these tools does not change just because Democrats use them. Democrats help Trump when they appropriate his style — even when they ostensibly aim to oppose him.”
To be credible as pro-social, Democrats will need to do some deep thinking about what “pro-social” really means today (not just slap it on as a slogan) and will need to take on some things like sports betting and marijuana that have deep pockets and that haven’t been seen as blue issues.
These and other corrosives that we have grown to accept are the things that are eating away at American society and making us a more fearful and less trusting people.
Discover more from Post Alley
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve been treated to some excerpts from Gavin Newsom’s GovPressOffice x.com posts, wherein he mocks Trump very effectively by aping his style. He has people cracking up, and as the guy says in Karate Kid “no can defense.”
That’s good. There’s little point in more Democrats jumping that particular trick, at this point it’s been done, but humor is a weapon that they should be able to use much more effectively than they have.
There isn’t going to be any grand unified Democratic theory. It’s just a coalition of the responsible alternatives. General agreement on what that means, in any kind of detail, doesn’t seem very likely. Their problem is not that their real program is a problem with Americans, but that they are being hammered by dishonest portrayals of Democratic policies and achievements. Lies, in a word. They can do what they want to touch up their policy ideas, and they’ll still face an electorate that knows only the lies.
They need to start looking at their arsenal, and Newsom’s mockery is hopefully just the beginning.
I think this is the way and yet, it’s much easier said than done. Negative vibes attract more eyeballs than positive ones (for lack of better words), and we are living in a misinformation stained media landscape. How do get people to stop paying attention to the garbage streaming in on their phones and computer screens? Building up a whole new culture is much harder than tearing one down.
Serious question:
Is the abstract and strained rhetoric of “pro-social” understandable to Democrats much less persuasive to anyone on the Right and who isn’t glued to Trumpism?
I’m sure Wear is well meaning but it’s a whole lot simpler:
Democrats need to re-think DEI.
Period.
I don’t mean eliminated but actually discuss it — which I assert does not and never has in the last ten years — and figure out what it means and how much of it is a reasonable approach to governance.
If Democrats can’t take a hard look at DEI it will not become the major majority party.
Contra the abstract (sorry) almost-comical “pro social”, here’s an interesting comment apropos the Democrat problem I found on Substack:
“I see a lot of my liberal friends saying that Trumps crime crack down won’t work as either policy or as a popular idea.
“My wife is from the Philippines and Duterte pulled the same kind of shit. He faced a lot of resistance from liberals in the cities at the time. When we went back to her home town two years ago everyone, even her liberal family members, were 100 percent on board with the crime crack down. They all credited Duterte with making the cities safer. The stats are a little murky though but part of it was just his massive, coordinated anti crime messaging that broke through.
“Now, maybe Trump is doing this in the worst way, it won’t be effective or he’ll just drop the idea out of boredom.
“It’s not enough to be against the things Trump is doing, you have to present an alternative plan to solve a problem that is more appealing to the average person.”
https://substack.com/@westcoastwhynot/note/c-147977227?r=5cbn8y&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
At St. Marks we end our service with a prayer for elected officials, whether we like them or not, and then “peace be with you.” I remember attending a Friday night service, praying for George Bush, then walking out and marching from St. Marks to St. Joes protesting the war in Iraq. I truly miss those days but they are gone, for now. The other memory I have is in 3rd grade at Briarcliff elementary, there was a bully. He picked on girls who were smart and petite. Until my female athletic cousin about knocked his block off. Trump is a bully. Civility is long gone at this point and if Newsom’s mimicking social media posts knock the blocks off of MAGA, I am all for it. We can recover from this if there is a this left to recover from. Peace be with you.