Last year, I posted a piece about how I defined “democracy” and “democrat” in response to the current oppositional political environment in the U.S. Today, on the eve of Super Tuesday and a month away from our Pennsylvania primary, I am revisiting the topic in an attempt to make better sense of our political culture in 2020.
Today’s political environment is so oppositional that it is difficult to truly understand what either party stands for. Increasingly, Democrats and Republicans are defined not by their ideals but by who they stand against. In the process, we seem to have forgotten what we stand for. I have been a Democrat all my life, since my grandma took me to see Jack Kennedy give a stump speech in 1960. Let me take a moment to freshly articulate what politics means to me.
At the most fundamental level, my personal political philosophy is based in a view of why we have governments at all. I believe that, in a democracy, government is not a separate ruling elite or an impersonal bureaucracy. It is how we, individual citizens of local, state, and national communities, come together to help each other, to protect each other and our communities, and to improve the lives of all citizens. We elect fellow citizens—neighbors from within the community—to act on our behalf to ensure safety, to ensure that our freedoms are protected, and to encourage continuous improvement of the community itself.
In short, “government” is not imposed upon on us. It is how we establish and sustain the idea of community in a democracy in order to establish and maintain a quality of life for ourselves and our neighbors. Sometimes the impact is a direct result of governmental action; other times, it is more indirect. The interstate highway system is an example of direct governmental action to benefit the community. National safety standards for vehicles that use those highways is an example of a more indirect action.
I believe that, in the final analysis, the above description is not just for Democrats. It applies to all citizens across the political spectrum. There is a continuum of feeling on that issue among both Republicans and Democrats which, unfortunately, is often expressed only at the extremes. Some conservatives may believe that the ultimate key to success is to limit the impact of government—putting less emphasis on community, leaving individual citizens to make their own decisions and celebrate or suffer the consequences. Some liberals may believe that the key is to ensure that all solutions apply to all citizens. Others may want to focus on ensuring that corporations are able to succeed, on the assumption that their success will transfer to citizens who interact with a corporation as an investor, an employee, or a customer. There will always be different ways to see a problem and to imagine a solution. The question for all citizens is simple: to what extent—and in what ways—do we want to help our community by helping our neighbors be safe, secure, and happy—or, as the Declaration of Independence put it, to what extent do we want to ensure “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—the three “inalienable rights” of all citizens? Ultimately, responses to these criteria should be the basis of a party’s platform or governing strategic plan.
Personally, as a Democrat, I see government as the voice of the citizenry and hope that citizens will use it to ensure equality and to serve as the vehicle by which we help each other. I believe that this is absolutely critical in a time when the context in which we think about “community” is changing due to the rapid evolution of technology and globalization. Some priorities:
First, we should use government to ensure a physical and regulatory infrastructure that is equally available to all citizens, giving them equal access to resources. A good example is our national highway system, but infrastructure also includes proper control of rivers and other waterways, safe drinking water, access to electricity and other forms of energy, and so forth. Ultimately, the goal is an infrastructure that ensures that all citizens have equal access to a healthy environment and the ability to make a living.
Second, our government should also ensure that all citizens have equal access to health, education, and other services that help ensure a standard quality of life for all citizens and that helps ensure the ability of all citizens to realize their potential as members of the community.
Third, our government should protect citizens from threats. This can be threats from other nations, natural threats like climate change, or threats to our economy and health from uncontrolled actions by individuals and organizations. The goal of government in this context is to protect our ability as citizens to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One factor that must be considered is that America’s place in international conflicts has changed greatly since the end of World War II. We now live in a highly integrated, global, information-based economy in which many industries—and countries—are increasingly reliant on each other for materials in an international supply chain and as a marketplace. This does not mean that we don’t have enemies or that our partner nations don’t have enemies. However, it does mean that, increasingly, we cannot limit the impact of our actions on us alone. We need to consider global impacts—on our political allies, on our industry partners, and, yes, even on our competitors when we act internationally.
With these broad purposes in mind, here are a few items that I think should be the basis for a platform and governing strategy in the political debate as we move toward the 2020 President election:
A Marshall Plan for Appalachia and Middle America The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has called for the equivalent of a Marshall Plan to help communities and working people in the Appalachian region and industrial middle America find new economic, community, and personal opportunities. They call for a sustained effort, funded over multiple years in several dimensions to achieve results. Just as the Marshall Plan revitalized Europe after World War II, the proposed plan would be a sustained commitment to revitalization of our industrial core communities.
Climate Change This may be the most critical issue facing our society today. We need governmental action to reduce emissions and minimize the damage that has already been done and to provide citizens with alternative sources of energy (solar and wind, as examples) that will do no further harm to the environment. We can only do this at the national level. In this case, social interest must override commercial/industry interests. We must demand that our representatives take this issue seriously and build an international coalition to minimize climate change and find ways to overcome its inevitable impact.
An Infrastructure for the Information Age While a national transportation system—first trains, then the Interstate highway system—were hallmarks of the Industrial Revolution, we are now seeing the need for an online information system that makes the Internet truly accessible to all communities. Today, more people are working remotely, linking in from their homes rather than commuting to offices. At the same time, the supply chain in almost every industry has become international, requiring easy communication with distant colleagues. And, traditional retail stores are giving way to e-tailing. Unless communities have easy access to the web, they cannot thrive. It even affects the ability of local schools to access knowledge for their students. Universal access to the Internet is as important today as roads, trains, and Rural Free Delivery were to the last revolution.
Universal K-14 Education As the Information Society matures, the need for new services that enable citizens to be successful is becoming clear. One of these is universal access to K-14 education—providing public funding for the first two years of a college education. This reflects a simple truth: the Information Society has made work more complex and requires greater entry-level skills. New York has already taken steps to provide free tuition in its public institutions for resident high school graduates—essentially funding a K-14 education for all. We need to ensure this in every state.
Access to Health Care Of equal importance is the need to ensure that all citizens have effective access to health care, combined with governmental control over the price of medicines. As lifespans increase in the new environment, all citizens deserve equal access to health services. This is a complex issue, but one that must be addressed. My own sense is that a “public option” is the most practical approach, giving people the right to have private or public health insurance, but ensuring that all citizens will have access to health services.
Immigration The current concern about immigration is not just limited to the border between Mexico and the U.S. It is a global concern, driven by the huge disparities in governance, rights, and economics in a new global society where everyone can easily see the alternatives. It is driving political discourse in developed countries around the world as they try to limit the economic and social impact of refugees. This will only increase as the global economy continues to evolve and, perhaps most important, as global climate change forces dislocation in some of the world’s most vulnerable countries. Clearly, fences and family separations, etc., are not a true solution. While we need to maintain control of international entry points, that is not the sole issue. For a long-term solution, we need to help our neighbors to the south respond to the political and economic problems that are driving their citizens away from their homes. The factors that contribute to the issue also suggest that we need to take a long view and work with other developed countries to address the core problems that are forcing families to leave their homelands in search of a better life.
Competition It has become clear that, in this new environment, our ability to function as an independent nation is being challenged by long-time opponents like Russia and China that can use technology and the internationalized economy to interfere with our democratic processes. This is not, in the final analysis, a simple question of cultural or political or even military competition. The real challenge is how we maintain our political independence and values in an increasingly “connected” cultural and political environment. This is how we can be strong as a nation in this new environment: we remain proud of our personal identities as members of a national culture, but we increasingly must also see ourselves as public members of a broader community that knows no national boundaries. We are Americans, but also citizens of the world.
Controlling the Use of Guns The first month of 2019 saw more than 1,000 gun deaths in the United States.
The Hill reported that nearly 40,000 people were killed by guns in the U.S. in 2017. Mass gun killings seem to be on the rise. Here in State College, 2019 began with four people (including the shooter) being killed in one incident. Pennsylvania legislators have discussed allowing deer hunters to use semi-automatic weapons. Gun control is one of the most divisive issues in the U.S., pitting gun manufacturers and gun advocacy groups against the general citizenry. It is time to solve this problem. We test drivers before licensing them, and we require that all motor vehicles be inspected and registered. We need a similar universal system to control access and mis-use of guns.
These are important issues with immediate implications. They are also examples of why we need citizen-focused government in these changing times to understand how issues affect different citizens and communities differently, so that our elected representatives can make better decisions on our behalf. Finding consensus is not easy in these days, but it is essential to democracy. It is worth our time to talk things through and find the best path forward.
Thoughts?
