what can and cannot be compromised

I imagine they are waiting for a politics with the maturity to balance idealism andrealism, to distinguish between what can and cannot be compromised, to admit thepossibility that the other side might sometimes have a point. They don’t alwaysunderstand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal, but theyrecognize the difference between dogma and common sense, responsibility andirresponsibility, between those things that last and those that are fleeting. 　　They are out there, waiting for Republicans and Democrats to catch up with them. Chapter 2 Values THE FIRST TIME I saw the White House was in 1984. I had just graduated fromcollege and was working as a community organizer out of the Harlem campus of theCity College of New York. President Reagan was proposing a round of student aid cutsat the time, and so I worked with a group of student leaders—most of them black,Puerto Rican, or of Eastern European descent, almost all of them the first in theirfamilies to attend college—to round up petitions opposing the cuts and then deliverthem to the New York congressional delegation. 　　It was a brief trip, spent mostly navigating the endless corridors of the RayburnBuilding, getting polite but cursory audiences with Hill staffers not much older than Iwas. But at the end of the day, the students and I took the time to walk down to the Malland the Washington Monument, and then spent a few minutes gazing at the WhiteHouse. Standing on Pennsylvania Avenue, a few feet away from the Marine guardstation at the main entrance, with pedestrians weaving along the sidewalk and trafficwhizzing behind us, I marveled not at the White House’s elegant sweep, but rather atthe fact that it was so exposed to the hustle and bustle of the city; that we were allowedto stand so close to the gate, and could later circle to the other side of the building topeer at the Rose Garden and the residence beyond. The openness of the White Housesaid something about our confidence as a democracy, I thought. It embodied the notionthat our leaders were not so different from us; that they remained subject to laws andour collective consent. 　　Twenty years later, getting close to the White House wasn’t so simple. Checkpoints,armed guards, vans, mirrors, dogs, and retractable barricades now sealed off a two-block perimeter around the White House. Unauthorized cars no longer traveledPennsylvania Avenue. On a cold January afternoon, the day before my swearing in tothe Senate, Lafayette Park was mostly empty, and as my car was waved through theWhite House gates and up the driveway, I felt a glancing sadness at what had been lost.

Others thought that I was being

I made this same argument in a letter I sent to the left-leaning blog Daily Kos inSeptember 2005, after a number of advocacy groups and activists had attacked some ofmy Democratic colleagues for voting to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts. My staffwas a little nervous about the idea; since I had voted against Roberts’s confirmation,they saw no reason for me to agitate such a vocal part of the Democratic base. But I hadcome to appreciate the give-and-take that the blogs afforded, and in the days followingthe posting of my letter, in true democratic fashion, more than six hundred peopleposted their comments. Some agreed with me. Others thought that I was being tooidealistic—that the kind of politics I was suggesting could not work in the face of theRepublican PR machine. A sizable contingent thought that I had been “sent” byWashington elites to quell dissent in the ranks, and/or had been in Washington too longand was losing touch with the American people, and/or was—as one blogger later putit—simply an “idiot.” 　　Maybe the critics are right. Maybe there’s no escaping our great political divide, anendless clash of armies, and any attempts to alter the rules of engagement are futile. Ormaybe the trivialization of politics has reached a point of no return, so that most peoplesee it as just one more diversion, a sport, with politicians our paunch-bellied gladiatorsand those who bother to pay attention just fans on the sidelines: We paint our faces redor blue and cheer our side and boo their side, and if it takes a late hit or cheap shot tobeat the other team, so be it, for winning is all that matters. 　　But I don’t think so. They are out there, I think to myself, those ordinary citizens whohave grown up in the midst of all the political and cultural battles, but who have found away—in their own lives, at least—to make peace with their neighbors, and themselves. 　　I imagine the white Southerner who growing up heard his dad talk about niggers thisand niggers that but who has struck up a friendship with the black guys at the office andis trying to teach his own son different, who thinks discrimination is wrong but doesn’tsee why the son of a black doctor should get admitted into law school ahead of his ownson. Or the former Black Panther who decided to go into real estate, bought a fewbuildings in the neighborhood, and is just as tired of the drug dealers in front of thosebuildings as he is of the bankers who won’t give him a loan to expand his business. 　　There’s the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion, and the Christianwoman who paid for her teenager’s abortion, and the millions of waitresses and tempsecretaries and nurse’s assistants and Wal-Mart associates who hold their breath everysingle month in the hope that they’ll have enough money to support the children thatthey did bring into the world.

the notion that we can haveonly

Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it’s precisely the pursuit ofideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our currentpolitical debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face asa country. It’s what keeps us locked in “either/or” thinking: the notion that we can haveonly big government or no government; the assumption that we must either tolerateforty-six million without health insurance or embrace “socialized medicine.” 　　It is such doctrinaire thinking and stark partisanship that have turned Americans off ofpolitics. This is not a problem for the right; a polarized electorate—or one that easilydismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate—worksperfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government. After all,a cynical electorate is a self-centered electorate. 　　But for those of us who believe that government has a role to play in promotingopportunity and prosperity for all Americans, a polarized electorate isn’t good enough. 　　Eking out a bare Democratic majority isn’t good enough. What’s needed is a broadmajority of Americans—Democrats, Republicans, and independents of goodwill—whoare reengaged in the project of national renewal, and who see their own self-interest asinextricably linked to the interests of others. 　　I’m under no illusion that the task of building such a working majority will be easy. Butit’s what we must do, precisely because the task of solving America’s problems will behard. It will require tough choices, and it will require sacrifice. Unless political leadersare open to new ideas and not just new packaging, we won’t change enough hearts andminds to initiate a serious energy policy or tame the deficit. We won’t have the popularsupport to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorismwithout resorting to isolationism or eroding civil liberties. We won’t have a mandate tooverhaul America’s broken health-care system. And we won’t have the broad politicalsupport or the effective strategies needed to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens outof poverty.

a constant game of defense

There are those who still champion theold-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program fromRepublican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100 percent from the liberal interestgroups. But these efforts seem exhausted, a constant game of defense, bereft of theenergy and new ideas needed to address the changing circumstances of globalization ora stubbornly isolated inner city. Others pursue a more “centrist” approach, figuring thatso long as they split the difference with the conservative leadership, they must be actingreasonably—and failing to notice that with each passing year they are giving up moreand more ground. Individually, Democratic legislators and candidates propose a host ofsensible if incremental ideas, on energy and education, health care and homelandsecurity, hoping that it all adds up to something resembling a governing philosophy. 　　Mainly, though, the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction. In reaction to awar that is ill conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action. In reaction to thosewho proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles totackle pressing problems. In reaction to religious overreach, we equate tolerance withsecularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our policies with alarger meaning. We lose elections and hope for the courts to foil Republican plans. Welose the courts and wait for a White House scandal. 　　And increasingly we feel the need to match the Republican right in stridency andhardball tactics. The accepted wisdom that drives many advocacy groups andDemocratic activists these days goes something like this: The Republican Party hasbeen able to consistently win elections not by expanding its base but by vilifyingDemocrats, driving wedges into the electorate, energizing its right wing, anddisciplining those who stray from the party line. If the Democrats ever want to get backinto power, then they will have to take up the same approach. 　　I understand the frustration of these activists. The ability of Republicans to repeatedlywin on the basis of polarizing campaigns is indeed impressive. I recognize the dangersof subtlety and nuance in the face of the conservative movement’s passionate intensity. 　　And in my mind, at least, there are a host of Bush Administration policies that justifyrighteous indignation. 　　Ultimately, though, I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharplypartisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we’re in. I am convincedthat whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose.

no safety net—indeed

But these Republicans are not the ones who have driven the debate over the past sixyears. Instead of the “compassionate conservatism” that George Bush promised in his2000 campaign, what has characterized the ideological core of today’s GOP isabsolutism, not conservatism. There is the absolutism of the free market, an ideology ofno taxes, no regulation, no safety net—indeed, no government beyond what’s requiredto protect private property and provide for the national defense. 　　There’s the religious absolutism of the Christian right, a movement that gained tractionon the undeniably difficult issue of abortion, but which soon flowered into somethingmuch broader; a movement that insists not only that Christianity is America’s dominantfaith, but that a particular, fundamentalist brand of that faith should drive public policy,overriding any alternative source of understanding, whether the writings of liberaltheologians, the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, or the words of ThomasJefferson. 　　And there is the absolute belief in the authority of majority will, or at least those whoclaim power in the name of the majority—a disdain for those institutional checks (thecourts, the Constitution, the press, the Geneva Conventions, the rules of the Senate, orthe traditions governing redistricting) that might slow our inexorable march toward theNew Jerusalem. 　　Of course, there are those within the Democratic Party who tend toward similarzealotry. But those who do have never come close to possessing the power of a Rove ora DeLay, the power to take over the party, fill it with loyalists, and enshrine some oftheir more radical ideas into law. The prevalence of regional, ethnic, and economicdifferences within the party, the electoral map and the structure of the Senate, the needto raise money from economic elites to finance elections—all these things tend toprevent those Democrats in office from straying too far from the center. In fact, I knowvery few elected Democrats who neatly fit the liberal caricature; the last I checked, JohnKerry believes in maintaining the superiority of the U.S. military, Hillary Clintonbelieves in the virtues of capitalism, and just about every member of the CongressionalBlack Caucus believes Jesus Christ died for his or her sins. 　　Instead, we Democrats are just, well, confused.

and gave a disdainful shrug as she

  "I am sorry you have so low an opinion of women. There was a time when you believed in them sincerely."    "I do still, upon my word I do! They haven't a more devoted admirer and slave in the world than I am. Just try me and see," cried Charlie, gallantly kissing his hand to the sex in general.    But Rose was not appeased, and gave a disdainful shrug as she answered with a look in her eyes that his lordship did not like, "Thank you. I don't want admirers or slaves, but friends and helpers. I've lived so long with a wise, good man that I am rather hard to suit, perhaps, but I don't intend to lower my standard, and anyone who cares for my regard must at least try to live up to it."    "Whew! Here's a wrathful dove! Come and smooth her ruffled plumage, Mac. I'll dodge before I do further mischief," and Charlie strolled away into the other room, privately lamenting that Uncle Alec had spoiled a fine girl by making her strong-minded.    He wished himself back again in five minutes, for Mac said something that produced a gale of laughter, and when he took a look over his shoulder the "wrathful dove" was cooing so peacefully and pleasantly he was sorely tempted to return and share the fun. But Charlie had been spoiled by too much indulgence, and it was hard for him to own himself in the wrong even when he knew it. He always got what he wanted sooner or later, and having long ago made up his mind that Rose and her fortune were to be his, he was secretly displeased at the new plans and beliefs of the young lady, but flattered himself that they would soon be changed when she saw how unfashionable and inconvenient they were.    Musing over the delightful future he had laid out, he made himself comfortable in the sofa corner near his mother till the appearance of a slight refection caused both groups to melt into one. Aunt Plenty believed in eating and drinking, so the slightest excuse for festivity delighted her hospitable soul, and on this joyful occasion she surpassed herself.    It was during this informal banquet that Rose, roaming about from one admiring relative to another, came upon the three younger lads, who were having a quiet little scuffle in a secluded corner.    "Come out here and let me have a look at you," she said enticingly, for she predicted an explosion and public disgrace if peace was not speedily restored.

it will be more blest than if

   "You are fitted for anything that is generous and good, and I'll stand by you, no matter what you've chosen," cried Mac heartily, for this was a new style of talk from a girl's lips, and he liked it immensely.    "Philanthropy is a generous, good, and beautiful profession, and I've chosen it for mine because I have much to give. I'm only the steward of the fortune Papa left me, and I think, if I use it wisely for the happiness of others, it will be more blest than if I keep it all for myself."    Very sweetly and simply was this said, but it was curious to see how differently the various hearers received it.    Charlie shot a quick look at his mother, who exclaimed, as if in spite of herself,-    "Now, Alec, are you going to let that girl squander a fine fortune on all sorts of charitable nonsense and wild schemes for the prevention of pauperism and crime?"    " 'They who give to the poor lend to the Lord,' and practical Christianity is the kind He loves the best," was all Dr. Alec answered, but it silenced the aunts and caused even prudent Uncle Mac to think with sudden satisfaction of certain secret investments he had made which paid him no interest but the thanks of the poor.    Archie and Mac looked well pleased and promised their advice and assistance with the enthusiasm of generous young hearts. Steve shook his head, but said nothing, and the lads on the rug at once proposed founding a hospital for invalid dogs and horses, white mice, and wounded heroes.    "Don't you think that will be a better way for a woman to spend her life than in dancing, dressing, and husband-hunting, Charlie?" asked Rose, observing his silence and anxious for his approval.    "Very pretty for a little while, and very effective too, for I don't know anything more captivating than a sweet girl in a meek little bonnet going on charitable errands and glorifying poor people's houses with a delightful mixture of beauty and benevolence. Fortunately, the dear souls soon tire of it, but it's heavenly while it lasts."    Charlie spoke in a tone of mingled admiration and contempt, and smiled a superior sort of smile, as if he understood all the innocent delusions as well as the artful devices of the sex and expected nothing more from them. It both surprised and grieved Rose, for it did not sound like the Charlie she had left two years ago. But she only said, with a reproachful look and a proud little gesture of head and hand, as if she put the subject aside since it was not treated with respect,-