and for further reading

I posted about the new journal, Democracy, a while back. Well, being a quarterly journal, they've come out with their next issue. Go read it, people! It's free! This issue has got some interesting stuff on security and the demise of American cities, among other goodies. I think it's a great idea, and I hope enough people agree that they don't go bust.

In related news, last night I got to see an odd conversation: Gara LaMarche, director of OSI's US Programs and mover of our programs to build progressive infrastructure in the US, talked with James Piereson, one of the big boys of the conservative philanthropy that propelled the conservative rise in American politics in the '80s and '90s. Piereson's major argument was that the things the conservatives were lacking in the '70s, when the Democrats were becoming less and less popular, were ideas. So that's what the John Olin foundation, under his leadership, funded over 25 years--think tanks; the Federalist society; individual research and scholarship. It was interesting--how often do you get to hear someone working fervently against your ideals stand up and say how they beat you?

Over the two hours, Piereson said two things that I found most striking:

1. He referred to the ACLU as a "progressive organization" and the Council on Foreign Relations as "the beating heart of the progressive movement" or some such; and he said foundations such as Ford or MacArthur were "progressive foundations in self-denial." At first I found this totally bizarre. The ACLU is a rights-defending legal organization, not a progressive think-tank. Its values are more like the values of the Democratic party than the Republican party, but does that make it a progressive institution? I know the ACLU doesn't think of itself that way--not out of self-denial, but just because it's not true. The same could be said of the Council on Foreign Relations. And to think of the Ford foundation--a generally agenda-less charity--as a progressive foundation seems outlandish from the point of view of someone working at OSI. What I realized, though (with the help of after-talk conversations), is that the structure of the left, and its divisions, are as incomprehensible to someone like Piereson as the structure of the right is to someone like me. My instinct is to say that this means I should do more research--but then again, since his work has been so successful, maybe I should just ignore the divisions and think of it as a war. Which brings me to #2.

2. When asked about areas of common ground, where the left and the right might be able to talk without being in "different universes," he thought about it for a while and then said there aren't any. He said immigration was the one he thought might be easiest, but really, there just isn't a lot of common ground. NO COMMON GROUND. The right isn't looking for common ground. So what have progressives been doing all these years? Looking for consensus? Trying to establish compromise? Trying to win over the right with persuasive arguments? They're not listening! They don't want consensus! Right-wing philanthropists, think-tanks, and research institutes think of this as a battle they are trying to win! They're not looking for a happy medium--they want victory! What a rude awakening that was for me. In this context, it's easy to see why progressive thought has been so defeated in the past 20 years--progressives want to build consensus. They think there's a right answer and they want to convince others that it's right, instead of just beating them. We've been handicapping ourselves by definition. So now I guess I have to make a decision: do I want to drop out of the scene and be content with my own research and intelligence? Or can I fight the dirty war?