Individualism

The Center for Community Change's Sally Kohn has an op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor about Millenial activism. Her main point is that they need to build face to face activist communities in addition to the substantial online communities that already exist. She bases her argument on the supposition that online activism is more individualistic than it is offline, and that individualism must be categorically denied.

The former point is debatable (see this rebuttal at DailyKos for more). And the adversarial approach to combating individualism has its shortcomings, I think. Take this section of the op-ed:

Millennials are poised to lead us all to reject the hyperindividualism and isolation that has dominated our recent past and recognize the deep interconnectedness and mutual responsibility that is our present and future.

The lone cowboy story was a myth. Our greatest accomplishments, as individuals and as a nation, have almost always come from hitching our wagons to others and working together, not just in going it alone.

One of the interesting findings from the communications literature is that Americans tend to believe the lone cowboy story AND the story of collective action being pitched here. I'm not exactly sure how people resolve this contradiction, but nonetheless, they believe both. So while I couldn't agree more with the spirit of the op-ed, it's a losing battle to try to marginalize individualism in public and private life. To call the lone cowboy story a myth turns friends into enemies, makes people defensive, and could lead to the wrong conversation.

What's more, it's not necessary to use the rhetoric of dominance. You can argue more constructively for a change in the emphasis and role given to individualism. FDR, for instance, said "in our personal ambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up, or else we all go down, as one people." Sen. Obama also seems to take this approach. At the end of many of his recent speeches, he makes fairly positive statements about both individual and collective responsibility, while coming down on the side of emphasizing a public role for collective action. From his speech yesterday about his economic agenda:

You know, the Americans I’ve met over the last sixteen months in town halls and living rooms; on farms and front porches – they may come from different places and have different backgrounds, but they hold common hopes and dream the same simple dreams. They know government can’t solve all their problems, and they don’t expect it to. They believe in personal responsibility, and hard work, and self-reliance. They don’t like seeing their tax dollars wasted.

But we also believe in fairness and opportunity – in an America where jobs are there for the willing; where hard work is rewarded with a decent living; where no matter how much you start with or where you come from or who your parents are, you can not just get by, but actually get ahead. That’s the promise of this country, and I believe we can keep that promise together if we change course and get to work in the months and years ahead. Thank you.

This isn't to say that the CCC needs to go around extolling the virtues of personal responsibility, as Sen. Obama does somewhat excessively. If it's an enemy progressives need, it's hyperindivualism, not individualism- the sort of adversarial individualism that rules out collective action in the public sphere. Sen. Obama doesn't do enough of this. He has yet to find his own version of FDR's "economic royalists." A more constructive vent for the last 30 years of conservative domination could be to draw the outlines of this villain.

The New Republic's John Judis has an instructive piece on race in American politics today. This part about how Obama can overcome racial resentment has some bearing on the poverty and inequality debate.

Can Obama surmount these obstacles? If the strong version of Mendelberg's thesis is correct, then the very fact that Obama is African American will undercut any appeals to racial fears or resentments. And, if elections were held in the manner of the Iowa caucus, where voters publicly debate their positions and where Obama won substantial white working class support, then Mendelberg's stronger thesis might well prove true. But elections are held in the privacy of a voting booth, where a voter can give voice to fears and resentments without danger of being heard. Obama may be able to sway some white voters to his side by drawing attention to race, but probably not enough to fully compensate for the disadvantage he faces.

If addressing racial resentments directly is not the answer, what is? As Mendelberg also suggests, it's changing the subject--doing what the Republicans of the 1870s and the Democrats of the 1990s did. This year, that means diverting voters' attention from the politics of race to the plight of the economy and the continuing quagmire in Iraq.

In the end, the lesson of political psychology for Democrats is not to avoid nominating black candidates. It is simply to understand that America's racial history continues to influence the calculations of voters--sometimes near the forefronts of their minds, sometimes in the deep recesses of their unconscious. For liberals, acknowledging these obstacles is the first step to blunting them.

Similarly, just having the discussion about "the poor" and what their obligations are is a minefield. Like clockwork the conversation turns to how to motivate poor people to become less dependent. Government programs are put on defense. Why? The reality is, a huge population believes in the racist and individualistic idea that the poor are shiftless, and there are limits to the utility of calling out racism and selfishness for what it is. Changing the subject to the economy, opportunity and security for all, and/or national solidarity are necessary and complimentary ways to go.

There are justifiable fears that those frames, however, are too narrow. Every frame should be examined for what it includes and excludes. If it excludes policy that's desired and viable, it's not worth it. But what viable policies would be excluded? Policies that are perceived as too targeted might not fit, but these are the same policies that frames being used now have failed to move on the national stage.

I would concede that the poverty frame is more inclusive behind the scenes. Targeted programs are viable if the action stays where a poverty frame may still do some good. Indeed, many targeted programs by their very nature are small enough to not require national mobiliatization and persuasion. This is where the anti-poverty world is at its best- this is what it was built to do.

Certain popular programs also don't seem to need to be reframed. SCHIP and the minimum wage, for example, can receive national attention and be extremely popular. Last year, when these policies were more or less the Democratic domestic agenda, no real attempt to reframe the debate proved necessary.

But in general, the poverty frame is far more exclusive on the national stage. Policy will not reach scale unless inequality and poverty become national issues once again. But if we bring social problems into the light of day, we have to grapple with the racial divide and American individualism- two extremely powerful ideas that militate towards retrenchment and perserving the status quo, and that the poverty frame reinforces.

Like Obama on race, we will have to change the subject so we're not talking about individualism or race. It's probably no secret that I like FDR and Obama's language the best but there are many other options.