Note: I know the author of the book reviewed in this post.
When it comes to politics, I want concise and salient talking points spoken by politicians and myself. Sadly, the former does not possess this and the latter possess more passion than saliency. In these times of polarization, I returned to John K. Wilson’s book How The Left Can Win Arguments and Influence People to see if talking points made almost 20 years ago hold up and to see if I could apply them to today’s political conversation. Sadly, they’re still relevant.
While the examples may be dated – Dan Quayle jokes, jabs at Jesse Helms – Wilson’s book does a good job of framing the conversations progressives need to be having with the masses.
In his writing, Wilson is very intentional in refraining from writing that these are arguments Democrats should be making. This is a book for progressives, and as such, he writes for progressives – which while they may lean left, don’t necessarily align to a particular party. And his intentions pay dividends. When talking about Republicans and Democrats, the conversation inevitably shifts into an us vs. them context. Wilson believes that progressives can bridge this divide. This is done in two ways.
First, while progressives may lean more left than not, by calling themselves “progressive” and not a particular party they’re not automatically ostracized. Second, Wilson is convinced that people can and should be won over by arguments of compassion and human decency.
Its vexing that three presidential administrations after the book was written, we’re still talking about the same things. From taxes, the environment, equal rights and more, it almost seems like not a damn thing has changed. And in a way, that’s true. Most of these topics are still topics because our government kowtows to special interests and an increasing political schism in Congress.
Wilson does a great job of making some salient points about certain causes. For example,
On why the left should avoid centrism:
Centrism shuts out the possibility of progressive politics and turns it into a small number of poll-driven policies that never really explain or challenge a corrupt system of politics.
What came first: centrism or the swamp? The next two points dovetail nicely with why centrism should be avoided.
On communication:
A pragmatic progressivism does not sacrifice its ideals but simply communicates them better to the larger public…the language of progressives needs to become more mainstream, but the ideas must remain radical.
I find Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to be examples of how the left can help frame the conversation. They speak from the heart, are impassioned, and care about people first. And lastly, a lot of people view their ideas as “radical.”
On compromising:
Legislative compromises, however, don’t mean that progressives must turn to centrism…by creating a popular agenda and winning back control of the Democratic Party, progressives have the potential to take power away from corporate interests that run American politics.
Listen Liberal talks about this a bit more extensively – especially how centrism has damaged the Democratic party, but I think this correlates strongly with the previous point about being better communicators.
Now these points are more around “soft skills” rather than policy, but Wilson has some policy advice too.
On taxes:
Until progressives address tax cuts, they will always find themselves on the losing end of American politics.
On affirmative action:
Affirmative action is not compensation for the injustices that occurred two hundred years ago but those of two minutes ago….when we let racists dictate our public policy as a justification for banning affirmative action, we only encourage bigotry.
I found this particularly apropos given some recent events in this country because we do have racists driving horrible policies. See also this.
On welfare:
If progressives can change the terms of the debate and introduce ideas such as equal financing and innovative desegregation options into a tired debate about vouchers, the left can revitalize these arguments in new directions
I’m tired of hearing about vouchers and I bet you are too, but there’s money to be made from voucher systems, and it’s just an idea that won’t subside until we run out of things to voucherize.
In section after section of the book, I was left wondering why are we not hearing these points of view from our leaders? To me, a lot of these seem like palatable solutions. However, I firmly believe – and Wilson’s extensive section on corporate welfare reinforces said belief – that our politicians are beholden to fundraisers first, and citizens second.
Like I mentioned earlier, this book seems very pertinent now more than ever. Wilson does a great job explaining the issues and how progressives can address the matters, but I feel it’s lacking the “tactical” part of its subtitle. In this age of 150 character screeds, people want thriller not filler. Months after the election, I’m still struggling to find out how I can make a difference. I want something prescriptive, but I’ve come to the realization that no two plans for making a difference in society are the same and the responsibility is up to you and me, the concerned citizen, to embrace what we’re passionate about and do something about it.
In these politically polarizing times, I object to the notion of labeling myself as part of “the resistance.” The label “resistance” sounds like an obstinate individual. I am a happy and vocal dissenter, but I don’t think those opposed to this administration should rally around a label of being a resister. Having seen what the Tea Party did to this country and Congress when it comes to civil and political discourse, I don’t want to be seen as being obstinate; I want to be progressive.
I don’t believe progressivism is dead or has died. Rather, what’s happened is we’ve become tolerant of corporate excess and politicians not addressing topics head on. I believe there’s a lot of progressives out there and they need to raise their voices.
After rereading Wilson’s book, I hope I can start not only winning arguments, but influencing people through meaningful and engaging conversations with folks of all political dispositions.