Here at Jon Thinks Out Loud, I have been arguing that Democrats must counter the appeal of Trumpistauthoritarianism by offering a new, compelling vision of a democratic Republic that works for the middle class and working class (MC/WC).
I have built this argument mostly around the need to “center” the welfare of MC/WC and I have emphasized the need for the Biden Administration and all Democratic administrations at every level of government, to both deliver on substantial and sustained economic investments in the MC/WC and their communities, and to aggressively communicate this commitment to them and the nation.
But I have just read an article that adds an extremely important element to this formula that we all really must discuss more broadly and deeply.
In Democracy Journal this month, Deepak Bhargava and colleagues present a compelling argument that it’s wrong for “progressives” to believe that a focus on mostly delivering economic relief (what they call “Deliverism”) will win over the disaffected MC/WC. They point out, for instance, that even as Biden has been delivering enormous investments into MC/WC communities, creating good jobs and all sorts of new infrastructure to rebuild despoiled communities, the popularity of Trump and his campaign “revenge tour” continues unabated.
Instead, the authors argue that the political motivations and voting behavior of the middle and working class tracks much more closely to indices of relative “happiness” and the lack thereof. They maintain that “progressives” must broaden their focus beyond mere messaging and the economistic fix of Deliverism, to ”center” this now deeply entrenched MC/WC despair and disaffectioon. They write:
“Solving the authoritarianism challenge requires a progressive program and organizing strategy that speak directly and persuasively to the wave of unhappiness and despair and are rooted in the texture of everyday life—what people actually talk about, care about, and worry about. Such an approach will continue to foreground economic security and rights, but it must also affirm other aspects of human flourishing that have long been emphasized by diverse social movements, including the importance of collective care, community, belonging, and solidarity . . .
The task for progressives at this historical juncture is not to find the magic message or to deliver more popular policies. Rather, it is to offer a compelling, energizing, persuasive vision of the good life and to organize mass-based organizations through which people shape and live out those values in the here and now.
I think Bhargava and colleagues are absolutely right to point out how mere messaging along with a narrow, untilitarian economic “deliverism” alone can’t solve our authoritarianism problem. The MC/WC has become so alienated and “unhappy” that tens of millions of our fellow Americans have been won over to (or affirmed in) the belief that happiness now can only be gained by authoritarian means that wreck the “Liberal” status quo and impose a new regime based on a somewhat latent old (Confederate States) regime of oligarchic white nationalism.
Bhargava and colleagues argue that progressives must develop a vision of “the good life” that is compelling to the MC/WC and to adopt a form of deep organizing that engages deeply and directly with disaffected communities to build commmunity-based organizations that provide mutual aid, a sense of belonging and community, and that can nurture a shared project of achieving the good life.
How do we deliver a vision of the good life for the MC/WC?
Here’s where I would start:
Dig into and really own the already very compelling American alternatives to brutishness and authoritarianism, things like: e pluribus unum, Lend a Helping Hand, the Golden Rule, Live and Let Live, Crown thy Good with Brotherhood, and much, muchmore that is well embedded in our traditions and culture.
Work to bring these ideals into existing organizations (like unions, PTAs, police athletic leagues, and countless others). Bring these ideals into public discourse about problems and solutions in ways that enable MC/WC people to have a big say in how we get solidly on the path to Happiness.
I think this is a message that Joe Biden could effectively deliver. It seems a natural fit with his optimism and his oft-repeated refrain,
“There is not a single thing America cannot do — not a single thing beyond our capacity if we do it together.”¹
But the vision derived from these fundamental American values and commitment can’t be Biden’s construction alone. It must be a project engaged in and built by democrats and pro-democracy people throughout the nation for the foreseeable future.
Does this mean Deliverism is Dead?
Per Mark Twain, I think this report of the death of Deliverism is greatly exaggerated. I suspect Bhargava was likely aiming for a title to catch the reader’s attention more than to actually argue against Deliverism. But I do think it’s worth pointing out that Deliverism must be authentic if it is to have any value.
Politicians have been promising to deliver to the MC/WC for decades, starting with Reagan, but almost nothing of value has ever materialized. In fact, all of the promises of both parties — in the thrall of Trickle-down economics, neo-liberalism and globalisation — amounted to the opposite of Deliverism:“Extractionism.” Neo-Liberal globalization policies had resulted in the immiseration and resulting “unhappiness” (to put it mildly) of the MC/WC.
Therefore, actually delivering for the MC/WC in big and concerted ways — actually “centering” their livelihoods, communities, and lives with good jobs and all of the related investments that follow the money, could play a vital role in diffusing at least some of the visceral anger and resentment out there.
In this regard, I have long thought that Biden and the Dems should be making a much bigger, louder deal of the pivot to countering the blight of “Trickle Down Economics” with a new “Bottom-up, Middle-out” economics dedicated to the wellbeing and future of American’s MC/WC. I’m very pleased to see that this project is now beginning. The Administration has launched a major effort to promote and sell to the MC/WC, and the nation at large, the pivot away from Trickle Down Economics to the new “Bidenomics.” This is a critically important effort in this election season and beyond.
But we also urgently need the complementary element that Bhargava, et al., have identified: a compelling vision of, and then massive commitment to, “The Good Life” for our MC/WC.
I believe, as Biden does, that we have the wherewithal to do these things.
I don’t think we can or should rely simply on “progressives” to lead the way in developing and articulating a compelling MC/WC vision. In fact, I think such visions are already implicit in much of our history and in much of our ongoing national dialogue about a better future.
We know a lot more about spreading the wealth and spreading the love than we have lived-up to for many years — and forever for elements of our population.
I think that the American Promise of healthy communities and a good life is in our American “DNA.” It consists of the commitments I mentioned earlier, and much more. The MC/WC disaffection and resentment would not be so strong if the Promise of America were not so great and so achievable. It is the abject failure to “deliver” on this Promise that has created so much disaffection.
In this sense, then, I would argue strongly that, rather than sound the death knell for Deliverism, we should double-down on Deliverism. Deliver the Promise of economic opportunity and Deliver on the promise of “The Good Life.”
Delivering on the American Promise will deliver us from evil.
That’s what I’m thinking. What do you think?
If you find this post interesting, I’d be grateful if you would Like it and then Share it with someone else you think might find it intersting. Comments are also greatly appreciated!
Jon,
I like this. “Deliverism” as you put it on only economic issues will not do the trick. People want something to believe in, or to have someone articulate what they would like to believe. And that’s why Trump is so popular. He taps into people’s worst natures. It’s a side of us that we can’t escape, and he has lived his whole life based on it. I like what Bhargava and colleagues say about “offer[ing] a compelling, energizing, persuasive vision of the good life and to organize mass-based organizations through which people shape and live out those values in the here and now.”
And you have said it very well: “Dig into and really own the already very compelling American alternatives to brutishness and authoritarianism, things like: e pluribus unum, Lend a Helping Hand, the Golden Rule, Live and Let Live, Crown thy Good with Brotherhood, and much, muchmore that is well embedded in our traditions and culture.”
It strikes me that this is why Trump appeals so much to Christian evangelicals. They are in that movement because they have been captured by belief in an authoritarian God. So it’s an easy leap to an authoritarian asshole.
But Southern Baptists, for example, lost more members— almost a half million—than any other main line denomination last year. Part of that, of course, is the overall decline of organized religion’s appeal in general. But maybe it’s something about the SBC’s values that is, for more and more people, lacking.
Garrison Keillor produced a hat back in 2019 that said “Make America kind again. That could work!