We need to get away from the hyper specific culture issues and back to universal programs. That codes as “centrist” to a lot of voters who consider themselves centrist but actually have quite progressive economic views.
You know, this universal program issue popped into my head the other day. It was after some intense marital fun, so I don't remember all of it. A pity, because I'm quite sure I had it all figured out. Alas, I'll have to make do with what I do remember:
What's the most popular universal program in our history? People say SS or Medicare, and those are good answers. But was anything quite as popular and quite as universal as the interstate highway system? As you know, I'm concerned that drained-pool politics have sapped universal programs of their appeal; plenty of white voters have shown that they would rather do without than let the black people have any. But what about disguised universal programs, like interstates? People think of them as roads. People know they benefit from them. I've never known anyone who was upset at the racial implications, nobody who has complained about minorities suckling off the state teat, etc.
And this gets us back to Ezra's point about a liberalism that builds. The problem, of course, is that building things is -- well, the same interstate system that produced great roads and faith in our system also created urban sprawl. Liberals rightly resist more road construction, because down that path lies more global warming, more gasoline expenses for people, and more road construction for when the new roads get clogged up.
So if building roads isn't going to be the plan, what is? Mass transit? Nah, half the country or more is poisoned against the idea, mostly because it's been done poorly where it's been tried in the past 50 years. Housing? Sure, but that's not really universal.
And this brings me back to thinking about the Apollo program, which I have always considered highly overrated. I've never thought of that as a particularly noteworthy accomplishment of the Dems in the 60s, at least when it comes to policy. But I suppose there is something to be said -- and perhaps a lot more than I have thought -- for its role in creating faith in the system. The value of picking a goal, and then delivering -- it tells people that the government isn't an inept pile of shit institution. When was the last time the US government was ahead of schedule on any really big project?
So maybe we just need to pick some area of public investment and say, "this is our goal. We're going to do it." That was something of the premise of the Green New Deal, which bombed for all the usual reasons (resistance to change, people who refuse to admit carbon is a problem, an eye-popping top-line, headline cost figure, etc.). But it's also not a great candidate for what I have in mind because it's non-experiential. You might find yourself cruising on a highway and thinking, "wow, it's so great that we have this road that goes just where I need it to go." Nobody ever thinks that way about zero carbon emissions.
No more space stuff, for a variety of reasons. We really could do with a revamped electric grid, but again, that doesn't make people happy. The American public will always underinvest in safety and reliability because you can't see them, or experience them, or know they exist. Stadiums would be a possibility, but we already have way too many of them and anyway, they tend to benefit wealthy interests.
We need to find something that is a) big enough to have a major impact and high visibility; b) worth doing; and c) will improve people's lives in a tangible way. Any ideas? I don't have any.
