Category: books

A little over two years ago I wrote about a book entitled The Radical Center, by Michael Halstead and Ted Lind. Shortly after I read that book, I added Andrei Cherny’s The Next Deal to my Amazon wishlist, and shortly after that I received it as a gift. And on Friday, I finally read it.

Although the book is subtitled (at least in some editions) “The Future of Public Life in the Information Age”, more than half of it is devoted to tracing the historical origins of the Progressive movement, and only introduces proposals for the future in the last third or so of the book. That’s okay. I’m no expert in American political history, but I was already fairly familiar with most of what Cherny recounts. Even so, I found Cherny’s take fascinating, particularly the parallels he draws between the rise of the Progressive movement in response to the Industrial Revolution, and the needed rise for a new movement in response to the Information Revolution.

The book is a few years old, and was written prior to the 2000 election (I believe it was published in December 2000), so it’s maybe a whole lot more optimistic than it would be were it written today. Nonetheless, although we’re no longer in the euphoria of a balanced budget or an administration clearly trying to move the country forward, I was reminded that the fundamental underpinnings of our society are not so different from what they were five and a half years ago. While terrorism and national security and Iraq will always be part of the discussion in ways they weren’t in 2000, our key domestic issues remain largely unchanged — despite the fact that politicians continue to ignore them.

When Cherny does talk about contemporary politics, his emphasis is on citizen and choice-centered policies — and then adds an interesting twist and proposes mandatory service, either civilian or military, of all 18ish year-olds. With the exception of the last idea — which I’m having trouble wrapping my brain around enough to even be able to seriously consider — Cherny’s proposals about education, Social Security, and healthcare are, I think, all moving in the right direction. The specific proposals, though, are not the main reason I’d recommend reading the book. Rather, I recommend reading it for the history lesson, and for the reminder that we should be evaluating 2008 candidates on more than their stance on Iraq and abortion.

Which brings me to my next topic: Unity08. From their website:

We’re a movement to take our country back from polarizing politics. In 2008, we’ll select and elect a Unity Ticket to the White House— one Democrat, one Republican, in whatever order, or independents committed to a Unity team.

The idea, as I understand it, is to force the major parties to focus on those issues that actually matter most to Americans, rather than pandering to the extremes of both sides. Also from their website:

Unity08 divides issues facing the country into two categories: Crucial Issues – on which America’s future safety and welfare depend; and Important Issues – which, while vital to some, will not, in our judgment, determine the fate or future of the United States.

In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.

By contrast, we consider gun control, abortion and gay marriage important issues, worthy of debate and discussion in a free society, but not issues that should dominate or even crowd our national agenda.

In our opinion – since the disintegration of the Soviet Union – our political system seems to have focused more attention on the “important issues” than the “crucial issues.” One result: The political parties have been built to address the interests of their “base” but have failed to address the realities that impact most Americans.

Will this work? Who knows. But it is getting plenty of coverage in both mainstream outlets and the blogosphere. And as Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter points out, “With an issue as eye-glazing as the deficit, a wacky, jug-eared Texan named Ross Perot received 19 percent of the vote in 1992 and 7 percent in 1996. He did it with “Larry King Live” and an 800 number.”