Can the Bemocrats Biowing it Again in 992? Michael Lerner Probably not. problem is not the personality or past marital practices or draft record of Bill Clinton, or even his dramatic failure to respond to the LA. riots with a vision of an alternative. Nor is it Ross Perot. Perot is a of the failure of the liberal and progressive forces, not a cause of that failure. The problem is deeper. It?s not about how to run elec- tions or how to market candidates. The liberal and pro- gressive forces have the wrong paradigm about what human beings need. Though often internally motivated by a deep moral commitment, they?ve framed their in- tellectual commitments around a belief that the only things that really move peeple are economic entitle- ments or political rights. As a result, they can?t explain their own internal motivations (many of them are net'- ther economically nor politically Oppressed). And they can?t explain why pe0ple who are economically hurting or scared seem to get attracted to right-wing movements that call for greater economic benefits for the rich and not for themselves. What they miss is that human beings have a deep need to have their lives make sense, to transcend the dynam- ics of individualism and selfishness that predominate in a competitive market society and to find a way to place their lives in a context of meaning and purpose. It is the deprivation of meaning in contemporary society that fu- els people?s sense of de5peration and loneliness?and that leads them to grab onto anyone who seems to un- derstand their pain, whether it?s a Texas billionaire or a right-wing religious movement. The Right understood this, and the extent that Bush has lost his attractive- ness to many Americans is the extent to which he has moved away from an intuitive understanding of these issues and back into the Republicanism-as-usual that characterized the party before it was taken over by cultural righbwingers. Of course, the cultural Right ut not for the reasons that you might think. The Michael Lerner is editor and publisher of Tih/eun and author of Surplus Powerlessness (Humanities Press, 1991) and The Socialism of Fools (Tile/cur: Books, 1992). proposed ?solutions? that were often no more than scapegoating ?the other,? and their decline should be welcome. But as they decline, other extremists may step into the same role, providing alternative forms of grati- fication. Only a progressive social movement could ac- tually and deeply address the human needs for love, connection, meaning, and purpose in a humane way? by linking the deprivation of meaning to the ethos of materialism, selfishness, and moral relativism of the competitive marketplace. All the more tragic that they do nor try to do so, and instead dismiss all of these con- cerns as irrelevant, ?not political,? or even The Democrats could transform themselves and po- litical dialogue if they were to adopt a politics of mean- ing. So, too, could other parties and political movements of the liberal and progressive world?though the dis- cussion here is framed in terms that are meant to show how these ideas might work in the electoral arena, I don?t intend to be endorsing or affiliating with any particular party, candidate or legislation. Yet I have no doubt that the success of any of the candidates and parties and so- cial change movements of the liberal and progressive world will depend on the extent to which they incor- porate, consciously or unconsciously, the perspective ar-. ticulated here. To the extent that they fail to do so, they condemn themselves to endlessly licking their wounds and wondering why they aren?t winning. Introduction to the Politics of Meaning Whats the difference between a politics of meaning and the current politics of the Democratic party and the lib- eral and progressive social-change movements? The old politics addresses economic entitlements and political rights. It is based on the assumption that these are the only needs that politics can address. A politics of meaning addresses the ethical, and spiritual needs of Americans. It incorporates the liberal and progressive agenda, but it puts this agenda in a much deeper context. Kinds of Needs Are ?Meaning Needs?? Americans turned to the Right in the late 19705 and through the 19805 despite the fact that the Republicans did not actually deliver economic improvements for the majority. What the Right did deliver was an ac- knowledgment of something that the Democrats and lib- erals could not recognize?that human beings have other needs that extend far beyond a politics of rights and entitlements. The liberal model seemed to be based on the notion that it would provide everyone with ?equal opportunity? to pursue his or her own Self-interest. But the actual so- ciety that emerged from the free pursuit of self-interest was one filled with selfishness, cynicism, and despair. The liberals didn?t notice this, because they focused all their energies on trying to make sure that the groups that had been left out or discriminated against would have the same equal opportunity to compete in the market- place without unfair obstacles. Of course, we support the attempts to provide equal Opportunity?and as we say in the platform below, this agenda requires a mas- sive economic commitment to full employment and re- building the cities. But meanwhile, everyone else?the American majority?was feeling that its needs were not being addressed by the liberals. Bill Clinton and other Democrats have recognized that feeling. But so far, they have not really understood it. Their solution was to extend more economic pro- grams and benefits to the middle class. True, many middle-income Americans do feel economically insecure and 'do appreciate the benefits being offered by the Democratic party and liberal social-change movements. Still, at a deeper level, they continue to feel misunder- stood. Part of the reason they have found it difficult to trust Clinton is that even though he is offering them economic programs, he still seems unable to compre- hend their pain. That pain is deeply rooted in the experience of most Americans. They feel on a daily basis that their society is fallingapart, that things aren?t working right, that something very fundamental is wrong. When you pur- sue the conversation more deeply, as we did at the In- stitute for Labor and Mental Health during in-depth interviews conducted with thousands of Americans in the 19805, you hear the following kinds of answers: ?I?m afraid my family is going to fall apart and I'm going to be alone?; feel frustrated with my job?I don't feel respected at work, and I don?t respect myself there ei- ther, because I'm not doing something that really mat- ters and I?ve let myself down by not getting better or more fulfilling work"; ?Friendships are not what they 8 VOL. 7, No. 4 used to be? people just seem to be out for themselves?; ?My children are picking up really bad values?and I?m not sure if it?s television, their friends, the schools . . . but something isn?t right there?; ?I?m afraid that I?m going to be totally abandoned as an elderly person?nobody respects anybody, nobody really takes care of anybody anymore? ?It?s a dog-eat-dog world, and I?ve got to look out for myself, but I wish people weren?t this way?; ?Nothing feels safe anymore;? or ?My life doesn?t make much sense?I?m always rushing around doing things, but I can?t figure out what it?s all about.? I call this the deprivation of meaning?a social ill that feels just as pressing as the deprivation of economic se- curity. PeOple want their lives to have meaning that tran- scends themselves and that roots them in some larger framework of purpose. They have sought ?communities of meaning? that provide an ethical and spiritual frame- work that can link them to a past and future that offers them more than just self-interest. A politics of meaning is a politics that addresses these needs. Doesn?t the Rig/9t fast Manipulate T/aese Kinds of Needs? Yes, it does. It pretends to provide a community of meaning?but what it really provides is a set of fanci- ful communities that have no real existence in the daily lives of peOple except as theoretical consrructs. So when, for example, it encourages us to think that ?we? have won the cold war, it wants us to believe that we are all part of one big, happy, and powerful nation that is win- ning victories and getting bigger and stronger in every way. But in actual fact, after the victory parades are over, most people go back to daily lives that are frustrating, alienating, and emotionally precarious. The Right then responds to the pain of daily life by explaining that people aren?t really enjoying the big pseudocommunity of the American nation due to some ?other? that is screwing things up. Sometimes the Right points to gays and lesbians or peeple who it claims don?t respect family values, sometimes to Blacks or other peo- ples of color, sometimes to Japanese, Arabs, Jews, fem- inists, liberal reformers, or activists from the 19605. W193) Do People Buy This Stuff? Because they are in pain and the Right is providing them with the only explanation around. The Democrats and liberals don?t even recognize that this kind of pain exists or that it has anything to do with politics. They war I 01 it LJ /H?mmn-a. 68; but ting Ody Ddy 30k ake IgsM-vcve-v- wwme A.- l-wap-e- n-?yw?m?j tend to think that people ought church to deal with this kind of issue, but that it has no business being in politics. Wouldn?t We Be Better Off To Keep These Issues Out of Politics? They are already there and there?s no way to keep them out. The Democrats keep losing because they don?t even recognize that these are the questions that are being addressed. In fact, every political choice re- ?ects underlying values. It is pure self-delusion to think moral values can be kept out of politics. What happens normally is that value choices are made, but made as value-neutral ?efficiency? choices. Will a Politics of Meaning Abandon the Needs of African Americans or the Poor? Not at all. The Democrats and the liberals are doing a very poor job of serving African Americans and the poor by continuing to be defeated at the polls. The Democrats need to forge an alliance between the inter- ests of middle-income peOple and the intereSts of the poor. But this can?t be an economic alliance only, be; cause the needs of middle-income people are also ?meaning? needs. In fact, the only way middle-income people will ever be willing to provide massive support for the poor is if they come to understand that doing so is in their interests. The Left can help people under- stand that-what they want and need can best be served by building a society based on a principle of mutual car- ing and ethical seriousness. In making the case for a commitment not just to self-interest but to the disad- vantaged as well, we advance the interests of the poor and those who are still victims of racial and sexual dis- crimination, oppression, and harassment. Moreover, poor and oppressed peeple face the same crisis of mean- ing as everyone else. What?s the Central Notion of a Politics of Meaning? We need to build a society that promotes rather than undermines our capacity to be loving, caring, intelligent, cooperative, and ethically and Spiritually sensitive. The pre- sent society destroys rather than enhances these qualities. The Campaign for a Politics of Meaning Over the course of the?next twu decades we will he attempt- ing to take the valuesooriented, and spiritually sen- sitive approach of the Politics of Meaning and int roducc it in every area of contemporary thought and activity. Changing the domi- nant paradigm of liberal and progressive thought will take along time and meet considerable resistance. And although we are pre- senting here an attempt to apply our perspectiVe to specific areas of economic and political life, this rs only a first stab?we un- derstand that the ideas need to be further refined. You can join us in this venture. The discussion of these ideas, debates about how they should be applied to any specific area of economic and political life, and re?ections on the theoretical foundations will take place in the pages of Tile/em: magazine. If you don?t yet subscribe, please sub- scribe. Buying the magazine on the newsstand is not suf?cient for two reasons: a) If we want to contact you to tell you about a gath- ering in your area or a national meeting about these issues, we can only do so by mailing to our list of subscribers; and b)We only get 40 percent of what you pay on the newsstand. We need more. if you already subscribe, and wish to be more involved, please drop us a note telling about your interests and talents, suggest- ing ways that you might be helpful (conVening a Tz'lzlzun salon or study group in your area to talk about the ideas? bringing together professionals in your field to refine a particular plank or develop one in an area we haven?t yet addressed? raising money to help finance a conference about these issues? setting up speaking en- gagements for Michael Lerner to present these ideas in your area? attending our summer conference?). Subsuiptions: $31. Tikkun, 5100 Leona St, Oakland. CA 94619 Can?t You Say This without Using Words like ?Love? or ?Spirituality? or ?Ethics? That Sound 50 Inappropriate for Politics? No. We refuse to abandon a word like ?love? just be- cause it has been so misused, so often appropriated by the snake-oil peddlers of the Right or of various fanati- cal religious groups. PeOple are right to be suSpicious of people who use these words, because they are so often intended to manipulate others. Nevertheless, they re- main central to our deepest concerns as human beings. To abandon these words is to give the entire terrain to the Right?and in the process, to ensure the Rights on- going political victory. But What Keeps This from Becoming a Right-lVing Terrain? The content of Our platform. We aren?t saying ?trust us, we?ll work it out later.? Instead, we are defining a specific platform that gives you an idea of what a poli- tics of meaning might look like. THE POLITICS or MEANING 9 Do We Have to Be Committed to All the Details? No. We are at an early stage in defining a politics of meaning. There already is a right-wing politics of mean- ing. We are trying to create a liberal and progressive ver- sion. We invite you to participate with us in doing this. What?s the Common Link in This Platform? Every plank represents an attempt to acknowledge that human beings have a need for a more loving and caring world, a world in which people take responsibil- ity for each other, a world in which ethical and spiritual concerns are given central attention. One simple way of putting it is that we are for the re-moralization Of public space as a step toward the re- moralization of daily life. What Do Ybu Mean by the Re-moralization ofPublic Space?and Isn?t That Dangerous? The danger that liberals sometimes conjure up is that right-wing nuts will be attempting to impose their moral values on the rest of us, so the best way to protect our- selves is to keep morality out of public life. That sounds like a good strategy?but it hasn?t worked. What liberals don?t notice is that their worst fantasy is already happening. Liberals have not succeeded in ing values out of public life; they?ve only succeeded in keeping their values out, and have left the terrain open for rightowing values. When liberals insist on leaving public Space free of values, they leave that Space Open to the values of the marketplace. Those values have encouraged a society based on selfishness and as value-neutrality. We reject moral relativism. A society based on love and caring is better than a society based on selfishness? and we are committed to doing what we can to creating such a society. The fact that some people use the language of moral- ity to impose their own narrow program cannot warrant the avoidance of moral commitment. When liberals talk about ?tolerance,? for example, we are saying that this is a value that we hold. We may kid ourselves into think~ ing that we are really being value-neutral, but in fact all we are actually doing is saying that ?tolerance? is our highest value. A politics of meaning is committed to tol- erance, but only as one of a set of values that includes 10 VOL. 7, N0. 4 love. caring, cooperation, responsibility, justice, peace, and moral and spiritual sensitivity. Is This Realistic? Do You Really Believe Anybody Is Going to Tithe This Seriously? It will take many years before the ideas put forward in our 1992 platform for a politics of meaning move to the center of the liberal and progressive agenda. We are launching a campaign to alter the way that people think about these issues. This is not a political canipaign. We don?t seek to elect a specific candidate or pass specific legislation. Rather, we are using the form of a ?platform? to give one example of how a politics of meaning might take shape. In fact, we are defining a new paradigm, and new paradigms take lots of time to get accepted. And this new paradigm isn?t just about politics, it's about ev- ery area of life and thought. The only part that seems unrealistic is to believe that the liberal and progressive forces will be able to under- stand and accept this approach. On the other hand, this platform is extremely realis- tic as a way to approach Americans. It is far more un- realistic for Democrats, liberals, progressives, or other groups to believe that they can sustain the old paradigm and simultaneously build the lasting loyalty of the ma- jority of Americans. What Are We Supposed to Do with This Platform? 1. Circulate it to friends, colleagues, social-change activists, Opinion makers, peOple in the media, union members, feminists, government employees, health- care workers, educators, elected officials, and any- one else who has been wondering why they are not getting excited about the kind of politics they hear these days. 2. Create a discussion group to refine it, develop new platform areas, and extend its vision beyond politics to other areas of your lives. 3. Begin to implement it. Fight for this vision in ev- ery arena of public life in which you are involved. 4. Join with us in building a campaign for a politics of meaning. If you are interested in becoming involved, we will be holding a planning meeting August 23?26 near Woodstock in the Catskill Mountains. And we will be getting pe0ple together in different communities to work on the platform and to plan ways to bring these ideas into the public arena.