Unbearable Lightness

Given the interesting comments by several friends of this blog (including Lance Mannion, Russell Arben Fox, and Ezra Klein), a few more comments in re: cultural conservatism of indeterminate contours. First of all, to clarify something I didn’t explain well, I of course do not mean to deny that cultural conservatives are addressing real problems and fears of parents. When Amy Sullivan writes that parents “worry about whether their kid is going to use drugs or start having sex early or become a victim of violence,” she is self-evidently correct. The problem arises from the rather large amount of bootstrapping that proceeds from this truism. It is much less clear, first of all, that popular culture is the focal point of these fears, at least in a way that is politically salient. And even if this perception truns out to be accurate, I insist that we need to know of this set of priorities is a)rational, and b)immutable. As Matt tried to argue in his first post, I think it is quite clear that the priority placed on pop culture’s relationship with genuine problems such as teen pregnancy, violence, and drug use is basically irrational; there’s little evidence for it domestically and even less comparatively. And if these priorities are irrational, Liebermanesque pandering is not merely useless but counterproductive, making it harder to focus on genuine solutions like effective sex education, good schools, and flexible work schedules and support for parents. And yet Sullivan not only doesn’t provide evidence for her crucial assumptions, she believes that such evidence is beside the point. I really can’t disagree more. The particular priorities she ascribes to parents are both empirically questionable and, if valid, don’t arise in a vacuum. Encouraging people to blame Desperate Housewives for the effects of structural economic inequities and anti-scientific sex ed. is not a good strategy. The multiple layers of question-begging in her chain of reasoning inhibit both clear thinking about the problem and useful political solutions.

To move to policy for a second, I think Digby (who I notice in going back to the post has kind words for my earlier argument, for which I am grateful) raises a good point:

Everytime we try to move in this “moderate” cultural direction that we think people will choose over the GOP vision, the more we appear to be a large puddle of lukewarm water. Because, let’s face it. If you really think that the government should do something about popular culture because it’s harmful then you really should step up to the plate and admit that you think censorship in some form or another would be a good thing. Because that’s the only thing that government can really do to make a difference — compel people to stop saying and selling and watching and buying.

And that’s what the conservatives have to offer. Clear, simple, straightforward. They believe that this swill is harming society and they want it taken care of. They don’t play around with studies and “oh I understand what you are going through.” They offer a real solution. Censor the garbage. Impeach the judges. Fix the damn problem. The bully in their pulpit sounds a hell of a lot more competent than ours.

I think Digby’s right on the politics here, as I will argue later. But it also raises an interesting normative question. I take Sullivan and Lieberman at their word when they say they doesn’t want censorship. But here’s a question: why not? If pop culture is as serious a problem as is being asserted, shouldn’t it be considered? Asserting the First Amendment doesn’t really work; even the relatively libertarian-on-speech Rehnquist Court allows some leeway where children, obscenity, and public airwaves are involved. In addition, there are also various forms of indirect censorship, which kept nudity and some forms of violence out of movies for many decades without direct legislation. Michael Medved, to his credit on this issue, is willing to say that he thought the Hays Office and the Legion of Decency were a good thing–and if you believe what he does, he’s probably right. I respectfully disagree with Ezra that these arguments can be easily saved by coming up with some policies later. The unwillingness of people like Sullivan and other DLC types to propose anything other than moralizing speeches bespeaks a fundamental unseriousness in their underlying arguments. If they don’t take their arguments seriously enough to propose obvious policy solutions, I’m not sure why I should–in all candor, I don’t really think that seeing Janet Jackson’s nipple or hearing a snippet of Howard Stern will have dire effects on anybody. In addition to the conflation of normative and empirical claims, the failure to advocate serious policy alternatives undermines their underlying claims. (Compare with Russell, who is willing to make recommendations commensurate with his beliefs; I disagree with his conclusions, but these arguments are serious and deserve a hearing from thoughtful progressives.)

And, as Digby says, I think voters can tell–they are, for the most part, not idiots. “Popular culture is an incredibly serious problem that is destroying our children’s lives and…er, we’re not going to do anything about it” is not going to win you any votes. The Democrats need to stop too-clever-by-half attempts to play on the Republican field and start addressing connecting progressive policies with the legitimate concerns of parents. Hillary Clinton’s recent arguments about abortion are indeed the model, but have often been misinterpreted. She was not–unlike Kerry on abortion–going from the cowering position recommended by DLC received wisdom. Her explanation of policies that could reduce abortions without criminalizing them will indeed appeal to moderates. But she wasn’t being defensive; far from being obsequious toward the High Moral Values of pro-lifers, she was exposing the contradictions in the Republican position. The brilliance of her strategy is to make clear–but not in the alienating way I would make the argument–that the GOP obsession with abortion is about the social control of sexuality much more than fetal life, that many Republican “pro-lifers” lose any interest in protecting fetal life if there isn’t any patriarchy or atavistic regulation in it for them. Kerry, in contrast, did nothing but play defense. He has the golden opportunity of the fact that the Republican platform calls for a Constitutional amendment banning abortion; this plank should have been an anchor tied to Bush’s feet. Every time abortion came up Kerry should have said “The Republican platform calls for abortion being made first degree murder in all 50 states. Does President Bush agree with this?”, leaving him with the choice of alienating the public, or his base. But while Bush did this masterfully, attacking Democratic soft spots while ignoring his own party’s stated position, Kerry, playing to bad advice of so many pundits, didn’t. (Both Republican and Democratic advisors seem convinced that their position on abortion is unpopular; the former gain the advantage from the fact that they’re actually right.)

Hillary Clinton understands this, and it’s that kind of thinking we need on cultural issues. But one thing I do know: agreeing with the Republican analysis of culture while disdaining the logical solutions is both intellectually incoherent and politically ineffectual. It’s a dead end. As any good coach will tell you, if you play merely not to lose, you will.