Interesting People mailing list archives
another view of PFF meeting
From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 15:37:57 -0500
From: jleibovi () sas upenn edu (John Leibovitz) Professor Farber, This is my response to the PFF conference. Perhaps because I had never attended such a conference before (as a reminder, I am in my senior year at Penn) and also because it resonated so strongly with my studies in intellectual history and political philosophy I found I had much to say (hence the length). I would be very interested to hear feedback on my (impressionistic) assessment of the emerging ideological debate. - John * * * * * * THE GINGRICH REVOLUTION: A SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT OR GOVERNMENT BY FOOTNOTE? What struck me most about the Progress and Freedom Foundation conference on "Democracy in Virtual America" was its historicist emphasis. History entered into many Panelists' rhetoric in two ways. First, the Third Wavers claim to have a fundamental understanding of historical forces, which they articulate in their taxonomic scheme. (As a note, the precision with which this view was thrown around seemed inversely related to the pompousness of the speakers: compare Alvin Toffler's self-consistent empirical approach with Vlahos haughty, elitist description of "brain lords.") Historicism entered in another way as the speakers (especially Gingrich) identified themselves with figures from the American and Scottish Enlightenments. While this comparison (especially with the Founding Fathers) has obvious political value, I think it may also have some element of truth. The Scots, for instance, offered their own stadial theories of history that culminated in the brave new world they saw unfolding before them, specifically, the world of commerce. Extending this metaphor we can equate the Tofflers with Adam Smith and Newt with Pitt the Younger (to use his own example). The historical parallel is further amplified by the panelists' concern with Civil Society, a concept that seems to be experiencing an intellectual rebirth. Again, this was a central concern of Scots such as Adam Smith and particularly Adam Ferguson (whose most famous work is _The History of Civil Society_), and the Founding Fathers who read their books. Many of the panelists contended that the private/public distinction is a Second Wave construct reflecting the encroachment of the bureaucratic governmental "machine" on the civil institutions such as churches, charities, etc. that traditionally provided services to society's least well off. With the "demassification" of society we will see a devolution of government. New technologies will empower individuals and reestablish the ability of civil institutions to carry the burden of the needy in a more compassionate (and less costly) manner than "big government." The strength with which these ideas resonate with Newt's audience seems to reflect the artfulness with which he combines traditional concepts of the American Constitutional order with (for the most part) realistic observations of changes in contemporary civilization. In my opinion, the Democrats would do well to get on the same rhetorical wavelength. While Heidi Toffler's comments about including minorities and women in the political dialogue seemed tangential at times (and visibly annoyed the panel moderator), I think they hinted at the important issue of virtual representation. In my question, I tried to get Newt to respond to this issue in a meaningful way. The Constitution, I pointed out, while containing lasting values, is a Second Wave document. Its representational scheme is geographically based. If, as the Tofflers say, time will replace space as the chief limitation on all kinds of human activity in the Third Wave, isn't our current system becoming obsolete? (In other words, if America is becoming virtual, why should "Democracy in Virtual America" be based on *geographical* representation?) I rephrased the question after Newt failed to answer the first time and got some mumbo-jumbo about how human nature has not changed since the Framers' time, as evidenced by the behavior of chimpanzees. If Newt understood my question (and I suspect he did), he was obviously reluctant to cede the *possibility* of virtual representation for fear of sounding like Lani Guinier. Of course, I would not expect any mainstream politician these days, especially one on the right, to acknowledge even the possibility of a new representative theory (although he might find a better response in _The Federalist_ numbers 38 and 51 than in chimp psychology). However, I want to point out that Alvin Toffler told me during one of the breaks that he believed the current system will have to change eventually. I would argue that in the absence of any reasonable counter-argument, this line is consistent with Third Wave theory. Contrary to many panelists' claims that Newt is on the leading edge of a political movement making traditional distinctions between "conservative" and "liberal" obsolete, Newt's categorical refusal to consider the question seriously reveals him to be what we knew he was all along: a Republican in Third Wave clothing. His philosophy is a semi-consistent hodge-podge of futuristic rhetoric and traditional Conservative politics. And when you push him, he responds with references to chimpanzee behavior. In a sense, it is government by footnote. My impression is that we are entering an interesting period of political discourse. Certain "Third Wave" elements will become articles of faith on both sides. (Rejuvenated) "new" Democrats and Republicans alike will share goals of decentralization, moving social welfare to civil society, competition in education, etc. Democrats, however, will be able to differentiate themselves on at least two key points. The first is the separation of church and state. When Arianna Huffington thinks of civil society, she thinks of religious charities and the like. Someone raised the point that the Governor of Mississippi, fed up with the ineffectiveness of state welfare organizations, wants to give state money to religious organizations. Such a policy raises Constitutional questions, to say the least. This issue could be sidestepped, perhaps, by increasing deductions for charitable giving. More important is the issue raised, in different ways, by the inspiring triumvirate of Kapor, Barlow, and Marshall, namely, social justice. Even if the administration of social welfare programs was left to civil institutions and compassionate volunteers ("a thousand points of light"), costs would still be incurred. Who will pay? Bill Myers pointed out that decreases in taxes during the Reagan years did not lead to increases in charitable giving. Democrats could position themselves to take a principled stand in the rights of all citizens to certain goods (at the very least the goods of education and access to the net) upon which the entire scheme of rational virtual civic involvement is predicated. Even if these goods were not provided by government, they could be paid for (at least partially) through tax money in the form of vouchers or some similar mechanism. Somehow, I doubt Huffington would agree to this commitment to redistributive justice. I find Newt's commitment to a theoretical vision refreshing in a society that sometimes lacks confidence in the power of the human mind to overcome deep-seated social problems. While I do not share this vision in its entirety, I am hoping that it will force the Democrats to construct a new, intellectually coherent ideology that takes account of our changing civilization while remaining true to traditional liberal principles of justice. No matter how the debate breaks down, American politics are going to become more and more interesting to watch.
Current thread:
- another view of PFF meeting David Farber (Jan 13)