Kenneth S. Baer and Andrei Cherny write about big ideas in the Los Angeles Times. They support the concept of big ideas, but unfortunately don’t describe the big ideas they believe Democrats should stand behind. On the other side, Jonathan Chait recently argued for pragmatism over big ideas, believing “that you cannot, and should not, formulate sweeping dogmas when you’re operating on a case-by-case basis.”

I find the debate interesting even though they are arguing the wrong question. Rather than being concerned over whether to advocate pragmatism versus big ideas, decide what it is you support without worrying about whether it is a big idea or a pragmatic solution. As Baer and Cherny note, “The U.S. was established on grand notions of democracy and freedom that were radical breaks with the entire history of the world to that point.” Many of our current problems would be solved by returning to these ideals of freedom which our founding fathers fought for, as opposed to requiring new big ideas. There are also problems today which the founding fathers never would have dreamt of. If big ideas are needed then we must search for big ideas. If simpler, pragmatic solutions will suffice, that isn’t necessarily bad. Voters want problems solved, and care less about whether this is by a simple fix or a big idea.

Baer and Cherny overemphasize the role of big ideas in the success of the Republicans. They argue that “the bravest conservative thinkers took on the GOP establishment and its most plodding, popular voices. They developed a series of ideas — supply-side economics, Social Security privatization, faith-based social policy and so on — that reshaped the American political landscape. It took decades for their ideas to make it into the mainstream, but — for better or worse — American politics today is played out on the terrain laid down by these thinkers.”

Rather than bringing them success, it is these big ideas which may cost the Republicans their majority. George Bush campaigned as a “compassionate conservative” and hoped voters were not reading these big ideas being advocated by his conservative supporters. Even running as a moderate George Bush would not have won without the help of irregularities in Florida and the intervention of the Supreme Court. Supply-side economics which weaken government to the point of being unable to respond to disasters such as Katrina have helped turn the majority against the Republicans, and privatization of Social Security was hardly a winning issue for them. Republican social policies turn out the far right to vote, but are opposed by the majority. These big ideas may turn the Republicans into a minority party, but that doesn’t necessarily mean other big ideas might not be right.

I see Jonathan Chait’s promotion of pragmatism as more a description of where the Democrats are as opposed to what must be. If Baer and Cherney develop big ideas to solve problems such as achieving energy independence or affordable health care we should consider them. Once we have such big ideas on the table for discussion we can consider the ideas on their own merit, rather than debating whether to go for big ideas at all.

Filed under: Democrats, OP/ED's, Politics | Get Permalink or trackback |