Liberal tolerance

Since the Clinton years, moderates in the Democratic party have coalesced around the idea of "fiscal conservatism with social liberalism." This seemed to be a wise move, given recent events; socialist economic policies had obviously failed, but Americans had broadly accepted liberal revolutions in civil rights and women's rights. Why not keep what worked and ditch the rest?

Recently, though, some voices within the liberal community are starting to suggest exactly the opposite. Take this Michael Lind article, for example. He writes:

[T]he majority of Americans, including many social conservatives, never ceased to support New Deal policies, which from Social Security and Medicare to the G.I. Bill have remained popular with the public throughout the entire Nixon-to-Bush era. Consider the results of a June 17, 2008, Rockefeller Foundation/Time poll. When "favor strongly" and "favor somewhat" are combined, one gets the following percentages for policies favored by overwhelming majorities: increase the minimum wage to keep up with the cost of living (88 percent); increase government spending on things like public-works projects to create jobs (86 percent); put stricter limits on pollution we put into the atmosphere (85 percent); limit rate increases on adjustable rate mortgages (82 percent); provide quality healthcare to all, regardless of ability to pay (81 percent); impose higher tax incentives for alternative energy (81 percent); provide government-funded childcare to all parents so they can work (77 percent); provide more paid maternity/dependent care leave (76 percent); make it less profitable for companies to outsource jobs to foreign countries (76 percent); expand unemployment benefits (76 percent).

...[T]he public clearly does not think that "the era of big government is over"...The public wants the middle-class welfare state to be rounded out by a few major additions -- chiefly, healthcare and childcare -- and the public also wants the government to grow the economy by investing in public works and favoring companies that locate their production facilities inside the U.S. There, in a sentence, is a program for a neo-Rooseveltian party that could effect an epochal realignment in American politics.

A Newer Deal party that ran on this economic agenda could attract Southern Baptist creationists as well as Marin County agnostics. I hear the [social liberal] riposte already: "I'd rather move to Canada than share the Democratic Party with those people!" But across the country there are lots of potential Democratic congressional and senatorial candidates who would like to move to Washington -- and might be able to, if social conservatives were welcomed to a big-tent party defined almost exclusively by economic liberalism.

There are some good points here. Voters realize that our government now vastly underprovides public goods. The conservative economic revolution of the 80s and 90s may have done some good, but it's clearly well past the point of diminishing returns. People want the government to go back to doing its job.

Which leaves us with the question of social issues. Should the Democrats' big tent have room for people who believe homosexuality is a sin? People who believe there should be prayer in public schools? What about racists?

The fact is, on the issues, the Democrats are already in the mainstream. The country is inexorably moving toward greater support for gay rights (including marriage). A majority of Americans continue to be pro-choice. And all the signs are that racism is rapidly decreasing with the passing of older generations. Unpopular liberal social positions - gun control, affirmative action - have been shelved or dropped entirely. On the issues, we're smack dab in the center.

But issues aren't where Democrats need to change - it's our attitude.

The fact is, many Americans believe that liberals
A) don't like the idea of people getting rich,
B) think large cars, large houses, etc. are show-offish and should therefore be restricted,
C) dislike Christianity and want people to be secular,
D) believe white people bear collective guilt for slavery, and
E) are not happy with any expression of American power in the world.

Do liberals really think all that stuff? Well, some do. Some think some of those things but not others. And some don't believe any of that stuff at all. Conservative media have certainly convinced people that these attitudes are more prevalent than they actually are, but it's an exaggeration, not a lie. There is a grain of truth here.

If liberals are going to become America's new majority movement, we need to stop telling people that the way they live is wrong. We're supposed to be tolerant of people's cultures, right? Well, why do we condemn in our own country what we forgive in others? Liberalism needs an attitude adjustment. We need to stop telling people how to live, because not telling people how to live was the original idea of liberalism.

Which, like I said, doesn't make our policy positions wrong. We don't need a Michael Lind-style conversion. Gay marriage should be allowed, and people are realizing that. Illegalizing abortion would be a huge disaster. Prayer (or creationism) in schools will just turn us into Europe (where minorities don't assimilate well, and where people got tired of religion).

We've got the issues right already. So what we need to do is convince people that those issues aren't the tip of a sinister iceberg. We've got to tell people "Our society is awesome, and with a few tweaks it'll be even better," instead of "Our society is crap, we need to change it all."

And then we'll be beloved by all. Or most, anyway.