Ezra Klein: Freedom From Fear

« Parties Matter | Main | Big Media Me »

March 16, 2005

Freedom From Fear

If you read nothing else today, make it Mark Schmitt's piece on merging the security theme Democrats are finding in Social Security with opportunity. I've been beating this drum for awhile (and others have been pounding on it long before me), but it couldn't be more important. The Democrats are currently trapped in a war of outdated critiques. Will we move towards an archaic populism that pretends we can stop outsourcing, or will we embrace a Republican-lite philosophy of corporate cronyism? We've apparently settled on a weird state between the two, and so we spend a few months after every election yelling at each other over the incoherence of our position.

There is, as Joe Klein would term it, an information age (or post-industrial) populism ready to be assumed by the first party to grab it. Better yet, it fits perfectly with the current priorities and crusades of the Democratic party. Simply put, the government exists to reduce risk to the worker so they have more freedom to take chances and seek success in the modern economy. That's why Americans need guaranteed Social Security, so they can take risks with other retirement savings. That's why they need government-assured health care, so they're not stuck in dead-end jobs that waste their talent and stifle their entrepreneurism because they're afraid of losing their medical coverage. That's why we need unemployment insurance, asset-building, universal day care, etc.

Not only does such a critique fit with the proposals we push and the programs we fight to save, it allows us to embrace the modern economy, embrace the spirit of entrepreneurship, embrace the innovation and ingenuity of ordinary Americans, and do so all in the context of a social net. ts steals a number of extremely potent economic themes from Republicans and recasts them as central portions of the Democratic program. And the fight over Social Security is the perfect place to start. Americans, after all, are perfectly aware of how much risk their lives contain. Let Republicans call it potential, nobody who's ever fallen ill will be fooled. So I'm perfectly willing to fight that war, inviting the right to deny the risk facing ordinary Americans and allowing us to offer protection from the vagaries of fate. If President Bush wants to promote risk in Social Security, we can promote security and the freedom that comes from it. And that is the only change I'd make to Mark's framing. it's not mere opportunity, it's freedom. The freedom to change jobs, to start businesses, to tempt fate. It's freedom from fear of economic downturn, and that's exactly what Social Security offers. Indeed, that's exactly what Democrats should be offering.

March 16, 2005 in Strategy | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/2078519

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Freedom From Fear:

» More on Opportunity and Risk from CommonSenseDesk
Excellent commentary from Ezra Klein on the Decembrist post I referenced here on the broader discussion on security and risk. They are both worth the time and may provide a frame of reference for helping to answer the ownership society [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 16, 2005 10:36:40 PM

» Hillary's Prospects from CommonSenseDesk
A really good analysis of Hillary Clinton's prospects by Tom Watson. [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 17, 2005 12:16:07 AM

Comments

This is one of those commentaries that I wish could be published on the front page of every newspaper tomorrow morning. Wonderful ideas, Ezra. You are in danger of becoming my favorite blogger.

Posted by: Katherine | Mar 16, 2005 5:03:29 PM

This is one of those commentaries that I wish would be published on the front page of every newspaper tomorrow morning (at least the ones that the Democratic party heads read). Wonderful ideas, Ezra. You are in danger of becoming my favorite blogger.

Posted by: Katherine | Mar 16, 2005 5:08:20 PM

The ideas are nice, but there is a real risk of creating too much 'security' that it becomes impossible (or useless) to take any risks.

If all these wonderful ideas end up costing those who succeed all (or close to all) of their gains from taking risk, you have destroyed any incentive for taking the risk in the first place.

Another problem is that some things, like health care, HAVE to be rationed in some manner. If you are dying, is there any limit on how much you would spend to be healed? For most the answer is of course not. In our current system (which I think has some flaws) the rationing is done by how much you can afford. Something else will have to take the place of that function, it may possibly be better, but unless very well thought out I fear it would end up being worse.

I also worry in this scenario about cutting off the incentives to develop new technology. If only the very rich can afford any extraordinary health care then extraordinary health care will always only be for the very rich, where now as techniques become more widely used and practiced they move from 'expiramental' to 'common' to 'routine.'

Posted by: Dave Justus | Mar 16, 2005 5:23:10 PM

Ezra me bucko, you're doing great. EXCELLENT, in fact! But those big blocks of text don't slide in between the ribs. Try fewer words, more verbs. Go for the kill, spill more blood. Rip open your chest and show 'em your wet thumping heart.

You're good enough to make a difference. That's a rare gift, so GO GET 'EM!!!

(Not a critic, but a comrade-in-arms)

Posted by: John H. Farr | Mar 16, 2005 5:35:12 PM

Yes, exactly right!

Posted by: Mark | Mar 16, 2005 8:08:11 PM

I like it, works for me (and its always worked the number of times I've seen Ezra on this subject). One little nuance I'd add, some anti-corporate populism. Wal-Mart or Macdonald's doesn't want the average American to succeed (it would depress the number of desperate job seekers and people who were more successful would probably pay more for more choice in the marketplace). Tie this message to some Enron Worldcom bashing and see it fly.

Posted by: gord brown | Mar 16, 2005 8:17:02 PM

Gord -- agreed. That's why we need to combine it with Spitzer's fair market populism.

Posted by: Ezra | Mar 16, 2005 8:20:47 PM

Simply put, the government exists to reduce risk to the worker so they have more freedom to take chances and seek success in the modern economy.

I agree completely with the idea of a broader, overarching approach that couples risk reduction with freedom/opportunity to meet the challenges of a world economy.

I'm not sure we're completely there yet on the formulation however.

Not everybody in any economy ahead that I can envision will be risk-takers. Many, perhaps most, are happy and productive in what they are doing but are vulnerable to economic risk due to business strategy changes, corporate malfeasance, industry migration to other shores, public-sector adjustments due to policy or fiscal cutbacks, failure of promising technologies or business concepts due to market forces, or other causes associated with a loosely regulated, but very dynamic, enterprise environment.

Dems should not be positioned as solely speaking to entreprenuerial people (btw, I don't like the word 'workers' so well if your formulation).

And, lets not forget that this security/freedom stuff is only one facet of the multitude of other issues that constitute a party philosopy and governmental policy. How can we deal with these other issues in a similarly modern, balanced way?

I agree with John H. Farr that large blocks of text are a hurdle for the reader, but I think the solution to that is easier tha rewriting (although every good wordsmith does that too): Smaller paragraphs. Particularly for online reading, 2-4 sentences per paragraph are enough.

Ezra, your writing is superb, and your ideas often even better. Don't weaken that skill with too much crafting. When you are doing your final pre-post spelling/typo check, just keep your finger on the enter/return button, and when you start a new thought or direction, or to need to provide reader-relief, make it a separate paragraph.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Mar 16, 2005 8:27:51 PM

Ez, the nerve ! Government should provide the conditions which will allow people to fend for themselves without being ripped off ! That's socialist... you want something just to damn well work. Watch it. I can hear the "communist" catcalls from here. That's bull, but too many buy it.

Posted by: opit | Mar 16, 2005 8:42:27 PM

Brilliant! And is there a way to connect up the economic security with 'national security'? something about dems being for 'real' security, or 'full' security, or 'honest' security, or whatever?

And Dave Justus, I don't think there's any chance whatsoever of getting so secure that we will eliminate incentive for the entrepreneurial spirit. First of all, entrepreneurs do not innovate and start companies with the possibility of getting rich as their highest motivator. It may be a strong second place motivator, but the main reason entrepreneurs start businesses and invent products is because they have a passion for the thing being created.

Also, we are SO far from anything approaching economic security in this country for the vast majority of citizens that even if there WERE a danger of getting too soft, we are a long, long way from that.

Finally, I agree with Ezra's idea here that providing people a measure of basic security frees us up to BE entrepreneurial, should that be our bent.

Again, great great post. Let's get it around!!

Posted by: shep | Mar 16, 2005 9:54:59 PM

Isn't the real issue how to operationalize this theme into a frame that the Dems can use to connect it to the real world experience that our fellow citizens live every day? It seems to me that would take this idea and move it to a level that would be truly useful.

Posted by: Jack (CommonSenseDesk) | Mar 16, 2005 10:41:58 PM

Thanks for the link to Mark Schmitt's piece. It was one of the most constructive discussions I have read, and I hope there will be many other links to it.

When Digby discussed Mudcat and the Southern problem, it would have been good to consider the points in Greg Anrig's article. The conditions leading to insecurity and anxiety are perhaps more prevalent in the South than in the blue states. If we keep these thoughts prominent in our minds, and if we remember the lesson about branding, i.e., “when George Bush's policies are attacked...Republicans feel attacked personally," we may be able to oust the neocons.

Posted by: Pokey | Mar 17, 2005 1:21:36 AM

Yes, exactly.

Government = safety net.

Progressive policies should provide individuals with more freedom & opportunities than they would get under a corporate regime, and with more security to pursue those opportunities.

You blog well!

Posted by: Cameron | Mar 17, 2005 4:47:15 AM

But note there can still be a slight anti-government slant as well; yes to the safety net, yes to bold government programs, but no to a government that micromanages our lives or takes away our freedoms. The key word is 'micromanagement' -- that describes bad government.

Posted by: Mark | Mar 17, 2005 5:00:41 AM

amateurxxx amateurxxx analxxx animexxx asianxxx bbwxxx bdsmxxx bigboobsxxx bigcocksxxx bigtitsxxx bisexualxxx bizarrexxx blackxxx blondesxxx blowjobxxx bondagexxx brunettexxx bustyxxx cartoonxxx centerfoldxxx cumshotxxx doggystylexxx doublepenetrationxxx drunkgirlsxxx ebonyebonyxxx ethnicxxx facialxxx fatxxx feetxxx femdomxxx fetishxxx gangbangxxx gayasianxxx gaybearxxx gayblackxxx gayfreechatxxx gaycollegexxx gayebonyxxx gayfreesexxxx gayhairyxxx gayhunksxxx gaylatinoxxx gaymaturexxx gayolderrxxx gaytwinkrxxx gaywebcamsxxx ayyoungxxx groupxxx hairygirlsxxx handjobxxx hardcorexxx hentaixxx hotgirlxxx hotguyxxx indianxxx interracialxxx latinoxxx legsxxx lesbianxxx livexxx angaxxx masturbationxxx maturexxx milfxxx amateurxxx orgyxxx pantiesxxx pantyhosexxx petitexxx pornmoviesxxx pornstarsxxx pornvideosxxx realityxxx redheadxxx sextoysxxx sexvideosxxx shavedxxx shemalexxx smokingxxx spankingxxx teenxxx trannyxxx transsexualxxx upskirtxxx voyeurvoyeurxxx webcamsxxx youngxxx