THINGS TO DO
IN THE BAD TIMES
by Sam Smith

Since 1989, when the first Bush was inaugurated, the Review has offered suggestions to progressives on how to survive the forthcoming administration. Our suggestions for dealing with Bush II will be added here from time to time

BE NICE TO SMALL BUSINESS

Few in politics, at either the national or local level, pay much attention to small business. That goes for Republicans, Democrats and Greens. The problem is that small businesses put too little into campaign coffers. But small business is the big job creator, it's the hardest part of the economy to outsource, and its about the only part of the business world that can honestly talk about being in a free market. Further, small business people are important community leaders and useful viral marketers of opinion. Be nice to them and it will pay off.

DEVOLVE

LIBERALS ARE AFRAID to criticize big government because they think it makes them sound like Republicans. In fact, the idea of devolution -- having government carried out at the lowest practical level -- dates back at least to that good Democrat, Thomas Jefferson. Even FDR managed to fight the depression with a staff smaller than Hillary Clinton's and World War II with one smaller than Al Gore's. And conservative columnist William Safire admits that "in a general sense, devolution is a synonym for 'power sharing,' a movement that grew popular in the sixties and seventies as charges of 'bureaucracy' were often leveled at centralized authority."

The modern liberals' embrace of centralized authority makes them vulnerable to the charge that their politics is one of intentions rather than results -- symbolized by huge agencies like the Department of Housing & Urban Development that fail miserably to produce policies worthy of their name.

Conservatives, on the other hand, often confuse the devolution of government with its destruction. Thus while the liberals are underachieving, the conservatives are undermining.

The liberal biasd against state and local action is often unfounded. In 1992, for example, the one hundred largest localities in America pursued an estimated 1,700 environmental crime prosecutions, more than twice the number of such cases brought by the federal government in the previous decade. Similarly, as Washington was vainly struggling to get a handle on the tobacco industry, 750 communities passed indoor no-smoking laws. Meanwhile, considerable misery has been caused by Washington politicians running roughshod over the 10th Amendment that gives the states authority for any matters not specifically covered in the Constitution. No Child Left Behind is a current egregious example. At present, neither of the two major parties is interested in devolution, but the American public is and would be happy to support a serious program to bring politics home.

The question must be repeatedly asked of new and present policies: how can these programs be brought close to the supposed beneficiaries, the citizens? And how can government money go where it's supposed to go?

Because such questions are not asked often enough, we find huge disparities in the effectiveness of federal programs. For example, both social security and the earned income tax credit function well with little overhead. In such programs, the government serves primarily as a redistribution center for tax revenues.

On the other hand, an environmentalist who ran a weatherization program figures it cost $30,000 in federal and local overhead for each $1600 in weather-proofing provided a low income home.

Similarly, a study of Milwaukee County in 1988 found government agencies spending more than $1 billion annually on fighting poverty. If this money had been given in cash to the poor, it would have meant more than $33,000 for each low income family -- well above the poverty level.

The newsletter Neighborhood Works quoted Art Lyons, director of the Center for Economic Policy Analysis, on what goes wrong: "Salaries of social service professionals are spent back in wealthy communities. The building rent goes to the landlord, who probably doesn't live in the neighborhood. So the system creates a self-contained prophesy of poverty and deprivation."

Even when you don't want to devolve power out of the federal government -- and in many cases you don't -- the programs themselves can be brought closer to people. Some agencies already are quite decentralized, including US Attorney offices, the Coast Guard, the National Park Service and the delivery of mail. In such cases, the federal government is represented by a small unit (or even an individual such as your postal carrier) with considerable autonomy within a defined turf.

The principle could be applied to other agencies. Why not, for example, have 50 state directors for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, each (as with US Attorneys) approved by the state's senators and each given a budget, a menu of programs, and considerable autonomy in how to handle them? There would probably be at least two results: (1) citizens would have a better idea of what was going on in federal housing programs and (2) the programs would get better. . .

GET READY FOR THE POST-BUSH ERA

A GREAT DEAL OF energy is being given some quarters to the possible impeachment of the President. Unfortunately, absent a GOP House of Representatives, this effort won't work. There is, however, an area of legal reparations that does deserve deep looking into by progressive attorneys and others: what remedies are available to bring members of the Bush mob to account following their term of office?

There is no simple answer to this because it involves numerous points of attack as well as uncharted legal waters. For example, what civil remedies are available? Class actions? Criminal cases? What is the best approach for dealing with international crimes? Can we get other countries involved so that Bush & Co. - like Kissinger - will have their travel limited? Are the lawyers in the crowd susceptible to professional discipline as was Bill Clinton?

The downside of this is that the media - as demonstrated with former presidential miscreants like Nixon and Clinton - is inclined to forgive quickly all past sins in favor of a Mount Rushmorian mythology, but a sufficiently broad-based legal assault on the unattended crimes of the Bush administration could change perceptions.

REMEMBER THAT DIVERSITY INCLUDES DIVERSITY YOU DON'T LIKE

Both the absolute rights of a libertarian and those rights derived from a liberal government falter on the issue of what to do when presumed rights are in conflict. A good way to deal with this is think of liberty as reciprocal, which is to say that I can't have my liberty unless you have yours. To retain both our liberties, we must engage in constant negotiation rather than a battle to the death over our philosophies. Let's talk more about consensual rather than majoritarian democracy, a democracy in which everyone wins instead of one in which only approximately half do. Preferential voting and proportional representation are good issues for starters.

BUILD CROSS-CULTURAL COALITIONS

Build cross-cultural coalitions quietly on issues, not noisily on guilt. One of the best ways to build a cross-cultural coalition is to work on campaigns and projects together and in so doing build cooperation and trust from successful experience rather than on good intentions. There have been far too many noble words about racism even as opportunities for multi-ethnic cooperation pass unnoticed. There is a tendency for white progressives to become involved in symbolic and celebrated multi-cultural issues, while ignoring the potential and necessity of more consistent, more local, and less flashy support of the interests and causes of those still seeking a fair share of America.

BE NICE TO WHITE MEN

SAM SMITH - One of the besetting sins of many in the progressive movement is that they have made white men the enemy. In fact, no ethnic group in history has given up so much power so quickly and so peacefully. Every social movement of the past 40 years has depended on either the acquiescence or active participation of large numbers of white men. To bash them is both bad politics and bad philosophy, tossing out constituency and logic at the same time. One of the basic reasons for the Democrats' current problems is that they have implicitly treated minorities and women, on the one hand, and white males, on the other, as mutually exclusive groups. This perception has helped to drive white males to the Republicans.

While it is obvious that white men have been responsible for most of the horrendous political and ecological policies that have left us in our current situation, it should be similarly obvious that most white men have also been among their victims -- in everything from war to black lung disease to economic exploitation. For example, the two groups doing least well in the rightwing economy are young white and young black males without a college education. The potential for mobilizing white males in a positive direction is considerable if progressives would simply rediscover the populist gestalt that surrounded the New Deal and the Great Society.

BE FRUGAL

Both liberals and conservatives spend too much money on the wrong things as soon as they are in office. But progressives get 99% of the rap for it. Here is another case of the left stipulating to a conservative stereotype. Frugality, at the moment, is an untouched political cause. Progressives need to shuck the assumption that spending money in the name of something is the same as spending money for something. Billions are spent in Washington in the name of good causes; far less actually serves those causes. A number of states have dealt with this problem as it exists in charities by placing a limit on the bureaucratic overhead a non-profit can have and still claim tax-exemption. Progressives should seek a similar standard for government.

For example, the Departments of Agriculture and Housing & Urban Development are far larger than they should be given the work they actually do. Far better that money spent on government bureaucracies be spent on direct benefits those bureaucracies are meant to help. Some of the best programs of the government - such as Social Security and Medicare - do this well.

Few things would change more the popular impression of progressives than if they began to concern themselves with the efficient use of the taxpayers' dollars.

THINK GREEN

A progressive movement that is going to make a difference is going to be also a green movement. It can't be just a bunch of covert Republicans who happen to support abortion. This doesn't mean that everyone joins the Green Party, but it means, for example, a powerful green wing within the Democratic Party and an end to the anti-Green Party nastiness by Democratic liberals.

DON'T BE TOO PURE

It's okay to be a saint but don't expect many others to follow you into self-deprivation, moral perfection, supererogation or martyrdom. Be happy if someone votes the right way, writes the letter you want or shows up for the meeting. And if you find among them some anti-abortionists who are also against our policy in Iraq, don't knock them; put them on a committee. Progressives need a constituency, not disciples. Besides, most people aren't as interested in this stuff as you are. They're more like Oscar Wilde who said he could never become a socialist because he liked to keep his evenings free.

SPEAK UNITED STATES

This dictum was repeated by my high school math teacher, Herman Breuniger, whenever we would offer a garbled or jargon-ridden comment. I think of it often these days when so many progressives speak in the tongues of governmentese, poligabble and media jargon. The people we are trying to convince speak United States; it helps to talk the same language.

DON'T LET THE RIGHT REWRITE HISTORY

Since well over half of the country haven't ever seen a liberal president in office, and since the media has generally bought the GOP line on progressive politics it is important to remember what life would be like if it hadn't been for liberals in the White House.

People who complain about liberals are like the man from Virginia who went to college on the GI Bill and bought his first house with a VA loan. When a hurricane struck he got federal disaster aid. When he got sick he was treated at a veteran's hospital. When he was laid off he received unemployment insurance and then got a SBA loan to start his own business. His bank funds were protected under federal deposit insurance laws. Now he's retired and on social security and Medicare. The other day he got into his car, drove the federal interstate to the railroad station, took Amtrak to Washington and went to Capitol Hill to ask his congressman to get the government off his back.

Here are a just a few of the things America would be without were it not for liberals in the White House:

- Regulation of banks and stock brokerage firms cheating their customers
- Protection of your bank account
- Social Security
- A minimum wage
- Legal alcohol
- Regulation of the stock exchanges
- Right of labor to bargain with employers
- Soil Conservation Service and other early environmental programs
- National parks and monuments such as Death Valley, Blue Ridge, Everglades, Boulder Dam, Bull Run, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, Mount Rushmore, Jackson Hole, Grand Teton, Cape Cod, Fire Island, and San Juan Islands just to name a few.
- Tennessee Valley Authority
- Rural electrification
- College educations for innumerable veterans
- Housing loans for innumerable veterans
- FHA housing loans
- The bulk of hospital beds in the country
- Unemployment insurance
- Small Business Administration
- National Endowment for the Arts
- Medicare
- Peace Corps

ROBERT S. MCELVAINE, HISTORY NEWS NETWORK - There are certain things that everyone knows. The rich get richer faster during Republican administrations. Such self-evident "facts" are accepted without reference to evidence. Yet there is evidence available against which to test the belief, which most rich people seem to accept as an article of faith, that Republican administrations are better for the rich.

United States Census Bureau data on mean household income from the beginning of the Nixon Administration through 2002 (the last year for which these data are currently available) show that this almost universally held belief is simply, almost spectacularly, wrong. During that period, Republicans held the White House for 22 years and Democrats for 12 years. In constant 2002 dollars, the average annual gain in income by the richest five percent of American households under Republicans (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the two Bushes) was $1706. Under Democrats (Carter and Clinton), the richest five percent saw their income rise by an annual average of $6,921.

The startling bottom line is that over the last three-plus decades the income of the richest Americans has risen at a rate four times faster under Democrats than under Republicans.

Above that bottom line are other findings that should be sobering to wealthy Americans intoxicated by the ideology and tax cuts preached and practiced by Republicans. A few examples:

- All of the comparatively small cumulative gain in income by the rich under Republicans came during the Reagan years. Under the other four Republican administrations since 1969, the richest five percent of households lost an average of $444 per year.

In nine of the last 34 years, the income of the richest five percent declined. Eight of those nine years of loss for the rich came when a Republican was in the White House. The only year under a Democrat in which the richest Americans did not gain was the last year of Jimmy Carter's presidency, 1980.

- In the eight years under Clinton, the richest five percent gained an annual average of $10,241; in the six years so far calculated under the Bushes, the rich lost an annual average of $1999. It is true that the rich fared well during the Reagan years: an average annual gain of 3.6 percent with his huge tax cuts and massive deficits. Yet under Clinton, with his tax increase on upper income people (which Republicans insisted would cause economic ruin and against which every Republican in Congress voted) and ultimate balancing of the budget, the mean income of the rich increased at the significantly faster annual rate of 4.9 percent.

- A similar story emerges from a look at the stock market, usually seen as another benchmark of how the rich are faring. During the same administrations, from Nixon to the second Bush, the Dow has gained an annual average of 7.1 percent under Republican administrations and 11.1 percent under Democrats.

GO FOR REDEMPTION RATHER THAN RECRIMINATION

Andy Young went to South Africa back in the seventies and was roundly criticized for it. In response, he recalled what Martin Luther King had said about segregationists in the south: you had to work on the assumption that one day you would be friends with the people against whom you were fighting. The south is a much healthier place today because King believed in redemption in politics as well as in religion. Progressives have to fight so hard to win that they sometimes forget that their antagonists are, in the end, just wrong - a universal, if disappointing, human trait. Thinking of those opposed to them as potential converts rather than as certain enemies may increase the former and diminish the latter. The anathematizing of those with whom Democrats disagreed grew sharply under Clinton whose agitprop was based in no small part on defining critics as "haters" or "conspirators." Ironically, this turned liberals into left leaning parodies of the very intolerance they claimed to oppose

GET A PLAN

Many Americans think they know what the Republicans and Democrats stand for. The trouble is that they learned it from the Republicans.

This is because Democrats and progressives have been miserably incapable of stating clearly what they are about. This is not - as some have suggested - a matter of better rhetoric or proper branding; it is a matter of having something you believe in and explaining it well to others.

The Vichy Democrats in control of the party aren't interested in this because it destroys their flexibility to appear to be one thing to their contributors and another thing to their constituents. But clever as this may appear, it has left the left to be defined by the right as being interested primarily in gay marriages and abortions.

In the end, to many it appears the GOP stands for all the good things - patriotism, values, family, the economy, security et al - while the Democrats stand for nothing. Nominating Kerry, of course, merely played into the stereotype.

Liberals have also shown an astounding indifference to some of the assumptions that have grown up about them. Worthy as gay rights and conception choices are, it is helpful to remember, as a political matter, that gays constitute something less than five percent of the electorate and only about 700,000 more women have abortions each year than when Roe v. Wade was handed down. If you want to win a national election, you need broader priorities than these.

But I can hardly remember the last time an average liberal expressed any concern to me over health care, pensions, or jobs. There are, of course, those like Dean Baker who continue to carry the load on classic Democratic issues, but sadly too many liberal activists seem to think they can win based on their collective nobility. Politics doesn't work that way.

There is a need for a progressive platform, preferably one that can be written on a single side of a sheet of paper. Here's a sample:

- A foreign policy that makes America a model of and friend to the rest of the world rather than a bully and a threat.

- The restoration of democracy and constitutional government in the U.S.

- Single payer health care

- A safe and clean natural environment

- Fair working conditions for all including pay, workplace safety, labor rights, and pensions.

- An end to the corruption in the Democratic Party that has done it so much harm

- Electoral reform including instant runoff voting and public campaign financing.

If you don't like that list, then write your own.

But in the end, progressives need to come together and select a handful of issues such as the aforementioned to which they will dedicate their major energies and which will thus finally define them fairly.

Since the sixties there has been a tremendous splintering of progressives into groups specializing in a single issue or around a cluster of single issues. This has produced a high level of expertise on these issues, raised the national consciousness on many of them, and provided a cadre capable of writing and criticizing legislation. The less happy side-effect has been that progressives have forgotten how to work in coalition with one another and seem incapable of providing a holistic vision of that for which they are striving. They have become specialists and technocrats of change rather than leaders and prophets. And far too many fit G. K. Chesterton's description of liberals: they can't lead; they won't follow, and they refuse to cooperate.

This has to change if there is to be any hope for progressive politics.

CLEAN UP YOUR OWN MESS

WHEN YOUR EDITOR was a callow youth he would attempt to deflect criticism by saying things like, "Well, Johnny does it," to which some adult would reply with something like, "If Johnny were to jump off a cliff would you jump, too?" In time I learned the logic of this and stopped using Johnny as an excuse.

Unfortunately the same can not be said of liberals and other Democrats. Beginning in the Clinton years I began to notice that when I wrote something critical of Democrats a frequent liberal reply was along the lines of "Well, the Republicans do worse."

The problem with this argument is that you use as a gauge of morality the views and actions of those you most vigorously oppose. This is poor morality but it's not good politics either. Having a party that is only somewhat less corrupt, undemocratic and unresponsive than the Republicans is hardly a good campaign platform.

The Democrats used to be far more contentious then they are today. There were liberals and conservatives, northerners and southerners, civil rights advocates and segregationists, reformists and the corrupt. As a liberal you learned to fight a two front battle - against the Republicans and against the bad guys in your own party.

With Clinton, liberals packed away their views and their vigor and went along with whatever the top guns of the party - led by the Democratic Abandonship Council - wanted.

One reason this has worked so badly may be that the very contentiousness of the Democrats sent a message to the rest of the country that all sorts of people could feel at home, even if a bit restless, within the party. Everyone knew the Democrats were a crazy conglomerate of America.

Now we have the irony that the Democratic Party has moved far to the right while the Republicans, in one of their more clever lies, have convinced many Americans that it is actually controlled by liberals.

What to do? Build the reform movement in the party that Howard Dean started in the last election. It's not his movement; he just had the guts to give it a try. Call yourselves reform Democrats. Go after the crooks and the right-wingers and offer a platform that emphasizes the needs of large numbers of Americans. Raise hell and have fun.

The K Street Democrats will hate you but don't worry. It was just that sort of fractious excitement that once made people feel that there might be room for them in the Democratic Party.

DON'T BE AFRAID OF POPULAR ISSUES

One of the striking differences between old-style liberals and their descendants is that the former had a knack for finding popular issues such as social security, the minimum wage, and day care funding. Too many contemporary progressives feel almost guilty if they get involved in anything that will take less than years of activism to win general support. This is not to say that unpopular causes should be avoided, but simply to suggest that it is okay to leaven the difficult and the controversial with things people already want.

DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PILFERING & POLICY, CONS & CONCEPTS

MUCH OF WHAT goes in the Bush regime is not politics at all, but rather theft, prevarication, deception, bribery and similar offenses. There is a tendency, particularly in Washington, to turn everything into a policy matter even when it properly belongs on same page as holdups, murders and the like.

Avoid dignifying the despicable with acceptance that it is debatable. In rhetoric, analysis and approach, bear in mind that we're often not dealing with ideology or policy, but with thugs and thieves.

LOOK AT THE RECORD

ONE OF THE GREAT disservices of the media is to perpetuate the notion that American politics rises and sets on the presidency. In fact, the election of a president is the end result of many other decisions and choices made throughout the country that often are of little interest to the press. For example, the makeup of state legislatures strongly effects decennial redistricting; governors often serve as the ward leaders of national politics, and so forth.

Our newly updated charts illustrate what really has happened to the Democratic Party and why, even in the midst of a disastrous foreign policy and bad economic conditions for many Americans, it is doing so poorly.

These charts show a party that has been in general decline over the past four decades. In fact, in the Senate and the House, the peak of Democratic power was way back in 1937. The party has been on a downward trend ever since. More recently, it was the Carter administration - not Reagan's - that accelerated the party's fall followed by the disastrous effect the Clinton years had on the party. The party did worse under Clinton than it had under any incumbent since Grover Cleveland.

None of this is incorporated into the mythology of either the party or the media, both of which persist in blaming party progressives for the Democrats' problems, when in fact it has been those such as Carter and Clinton who so muddled the party's social democratic image that in the end no one quite knew where it stood.

DUMP THE CLINTONS

As the record of Democratic Party losses indicates, Bill Clinton's administration was disastrous for the Democratic Party:

GOP seats gained in the House: 48
GOP seats gained in Senate: 8
GOP governorships gained: 11
GOP state legislative seats gained: 1,254 (as of 1998)
State legislatures taken over by GOP: 9
Democrat officeholders who became Republicans: 439 (as of 1998)

One reason for this failure: Clinton moved the party dramatically away from its populist past towards a low carb Republicanism.

One of the best things Democrats could do is to dump the Clintons and get on with something new. Hillary Clinton not only carries the baggage of the corrupt and cynical Clinton years, she adds huge liabilities of her own, including being the only First Lady to come under criminal investigation. She is the Democrat's Bernie Kerick and there is no Clinton Justice Department to cover things up this time. Remember: the GOP now has access to all the case files.

DON'T BASH THOSE WHOSE VOTES YOU NEED

There has been a stunning increase in class-based arrogance and disparagement by liberals towards large blocs of voters: red staters, fly overs, evangelicals, etc. For a species that prides itself on avoiding stereotypes this is a bit hypocritical. Worse, it is terrible politics. Just a more respectful attitude might have gained some those missing three million votes in the last election.

Martin Luther King reminded his aides that among their goals was that the people they were opposing would one day be their friends. Progressives should take the same approach towards those they now disagree with. Among them, for example, may be the basis of a new coalition when the Bush economy truly begins to fall apart.

So liberals need to cut out the Michael Moore-type bashing and demonstrate respect for all Americans, even ones with whom you disagree. One good way to do this: go after to the big guys - the rightwing pols, hypocritical preachers and so forth - but leave the little guys alone. Remember: if want to win elections rather than merely feel superior, you're going to need their votes.

REDISCOVER POPULISM

Contrary to the myth propagated by the media and the RICO-enabled Democratic Party leadership, populism is not dead. In fact, since the late 1800s it's been the one thing that has repeatedly worked for progressives. The real divide in this country is not between Democrats and Republicans, blue states and red, conservatives and liberals, faith-based and sectarian, or socialists and capitalists, but between little folk and big shots, between ordinary citizens and their leaders. The Democratic elite don't want you thinking about this because it gets its money from the latter even while pretending to represent the former.

American populism has a long past. As early as 1676, the farmers in Virginia were upset enough about high taxes, low prices and the payola given to those close to the governor that they followed Nathaniel Bacon into rebellion. One hundred and ten years later, farmers of Massachusetts complained that however men might have been created, they were not staying equal. Under the leadership of Daniel Shays they took on the new establishment to free themselves high taxes and legal costs, rampant foreclosures, exorbitant salaries for public officials and other abuses.

The populist thread weaves through the administration of Andrew Jackson, an early American populist who recognized the importance of challenging the style as well as the substance of the establishment value system. It was a time when it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a banker to get into the White House, a problem bankers have seldom had since.

It was the end of the nineteenth century, though, that institutionalized populism, and gave it a name. The issues are familiar: economic concentration, unfair taxation, welfare and democracy. Critics are quick to point out that they also included racism and nativism and it has been traditional for liberal historians to emphasize these aspects. On balance, however, populists have done better than liberals in producing real progress.

As a party, the populists were not particularly successful, but it wasn't long before the Democrats bought many of their proposals including the graduated income tax, election of the Senate by direct vote, civil service reform, pensions, and the eight hour workday. It's not a bad list of accomplishments for a party that got just 8.5% of the popular vote in the only presidential election in which it ran.

The New Deal borrowed both populist ideas and populist spirit. Hence, things like Social Security or minimum wage. In fact, the most striking difference between liberals of the Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson eras and post-Reagan liberals is that the former emphasized programs that large numbers of Americans could enjoy, while the latter emphasized the rights of minorities increasingly as though they were incompatible with more heterogeneous progress. There was, of course, nothing inconsistent with, say, civil rights and a war on poverty as Lyndon Johnson easily proved.

Democratic liberals need to face up to their retreat from broadly popular programs as they have become an almost church-like minority rather than a vigorous, populist voice for the majority.

STOP WHINING

PROGRESSIVES wasted nearly four years whining about the 2000 election while failing to come up with policies or a candidate that might have changed things in 2004. Elections are won between elections, not during the campaign season. Get going now.

BUST A FEW STEREOTYPES

THERE'S NOTHING wrong a strong sense of self-identity, but it's not a particularly good way to win votes unless what you identify with is in the majority. What's needed in politics instead is a strong sense of mutual identity. For a number of decades the progressive movement has emphasized the former at the expense of the latter.

A good way to change this is to start thinking about somebody else's problems. Encourage your cause to join worthwhile coalitions even if they seem removed from your cause. You'll make new friends and change others' view of you. Gays against pension cutbacks, women for drug reform, blacks for small business, whatever. . . If enough people make the cause bigger than their own, before you know it will be.

DESCRIBE A FUTURE WORTH FIGHTING FOR

Optimism is deeply ingrained in American culture. Progressives are in a tough spot in this regard, because they tend to bring America the bad news. And America typically kills them for it. We need a lot more skill in motivating people to correct what's wrong without simultaneously casting a pall over their vision of the future. Progressives need not surrender optimism to the conservatives. As Thomas Jefferson said, "My theory has always been that if we are to dream, the flatteries of hope are as cheap, and pleasanter than the gloom of despair." It was the Democrats, after all, who in the runaway election year of 1936 labeled Republicans as "disciples of despair" floundering in a "fountain of fear." Roosevelt himself got considerable mileage from his insupportable assertion that we had nothing to fear but fear itself. And one of the driving characteristics of the sixties was its vibrant, if unrealistic, vision of the future, including the dream of an Age of Aquarius. Today, the Democrats have an excess of whiners, nagging nannies, and contumelious scolds. Did the politics of joy really die with Hubert Humphrey?