I think I’m turning liberal… I really think so

I was watching a remembrance of the Watergate affair on the Discovery Channel the other night.  It was a great show incorporating newsreels, interviews and film clips from “All the President’s Men”.  Among the commentators was Rachel Maddow who speculates that Richard Nixon would be considered a conservative Democrat by today’s standards.  It was Nixon, after all, who signed the EPA into existence.  Imagine a Republican doing that today. I think it may be fair to say that the country has become more conservative since Tricky Dick exited the national stage.

But, the reelection of Barack Obama suggests a counter trend.  Republicans and pundits offered lots of explanations (read excuses) of why Democrats held their ground in the last election, ranging from the Hispanic vote to women’s issues to gay marriage.  If you’re into statistics, you could use any of these examples to make that case.

However, I think a better explanation can be found in a demographic trend.  As of 2011, more than250 million Americans (nearly 80%) live in or near a major city. And, nearly all major cities, including four in Texas, voted Democratic in the last election.

So, do liberals move to the city or do cities make people liberal?  I am inclined to believe the latter.  As Josh Kron wrote in Atlantic magazine, “The difference is [not where but] how people live: in spread-out, open, low-density privacy -- or … in-your-face population density and diverse communities …”.  In simple terms, if you live and work in a diverse environment you learn that we all have the same basic needs, the same joys and sorrows and the same desire to connect with our community.  It doesn’t really matter what color our skin is, where we come from or who we sleep with.

The urban environment tends to open you up.  So, the hard right dialog (about immigration, gay rights, birth control) that dominates today’s conservative politics drives urbanites and suburbanites into the arms of the Democrat Party. 

Liberal vs. liberal

There is a difference between the definition of the word liberal -- which can simplistically be defined as open to new ideas and willing to set aside traditional values – and Liberal as it describes a contemporary political philosophy. 

The model of Liberal government embraced by today’s Washington Democrats still reflects the 1930s New Deal and the 1960s Great Society.  Liberals are supposed to be progressive – forward looking.  So, why do they continue to embrace an 8-decade-old political philosophy?

Today’s urban young professionals are joining small, entrepreneurial companies.  The organizations are unstructured; the jobs require creative energy; and, success is based on either first mover advantage or superior execution. 

Contrast that with the early experiences of the Baby Boom generation.  We found job opportunities in large companies whose organizations were modeled on a military hierarchy that was embedded in our elders’ experience in WWII. 

Graduate schools of business reflect this transition as well.  If you went to the top B schools in the 60s, 70s and 80s, you were well prepared to work in the marketing department of Proctor & Gamble, the product planning group in one of Detroit’s Big 3 or the finance group of a big bank.

Today, nearly every top B school has a program that fosters entrepreneurship. 

What’s that got to do with liberalism?   Liberalism morphed into its 20^th Century form driven by the abuses of large companies.  The movement gave rise to trade unions, a social safety net and government regulation.  Today’s hip, urban, liberal Millennial generation scoffs at the idea that the safety net will be there for them in their senior years and small entrepreneurial companies are unaffected by trade unions… and, they certainly don’t want to be regulated.

The 21^st Century economy will drive changes to how we are governed.  Today’s urban youth will continue to be socially liberal.  But, they are unlikely to tolerate the downsides of an unsustainable model that has its roots in the experience of their great grandparents.  A generation of Americans that grew up with the Internet isn’t going to tolerate public institutions that operate on a 19^th Century bureaucratic model. Nor will they tolerate a healthcare system that absorbs more and more of our national income without improving outcomes, a social safety net that will collapse of its own weight or an education system that doesn’t match graduates with jobs and careers.

Going forward, the national debate won’t be about spendthrift compassion vs. cold-hearted austerity.  It will be about developing a healthcare system that can care for our poor and elderly without bankrupting the country, restructuring education to deliver globally competitive graduates and ordered liberty that provides equal opportunity to all.

When that happens, I’ll be a liberal.

WHO WILL LEAD?

Guns, Cars and Gabby Giffords

Once upon a time, I had my driver’s license suspended.  I was in my 20’s; I was going through a  divorce; and, I was a bit off my game.  The judge allowed me to drive to and from work; but for two months I couldn’t go anywhere else.  I had been trained and licensed to drive but it was made clear up front that driving was a privilege not a right.  I was acting irresponsibly so I lost my privileges.

In Port St. Lucie, Florida last week, a road rage incident led to a white man, Dean Bair, threatening his momentary nemesis, a black man whose two children were in the car, with a gun.  Racial epithets were hurled.  The gun wasn’t used but there was a fistfight.  Police searched Bair’s vehicle and found not only the 9 mm handgun that he was brandishing but also an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle, loaded with the safety off.   He was charged with aggravated assault and arrested.  He was also charged with carrying a concealed weapon and using a firearm during the commission of a felony.

Was he mentally deranged or just a stupid redneck?   I don’t know.

The public is split over gun rights but nearly everyone agrees that we need to keep firearms away from deranged people.  People like James Holmes who is accused of the Aurora, CO shooting, Adam Lanza who killed 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown, CT and Seung-Hui Cho who killed 32 at Virginia Tech in 2007.

So, why did the US Senate kill a bill that would have closed the gun show loophole and require background checks for all gun purchasers?

The answer is complicated, of course.  Nothing is simple in Washington.  The bill also contained provisions that limited rights to own semi-automatic weapons.  The NRA campaigned against it.  So, down it went.

And, you have to ask yourself…  if you were a resident of Watertown, MA, would you have wanted to have a gun in your house this week?  What would you do if a panicked Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were pounding your door?  Would you have been better off if you had a gun?

Moreover, advocates of gun rights point out that nothing in the proposed law would have prevented the tragedy in Newtown.  And, they are right about that. The only way to prevent a mother from giving guns to their mentally deranged children is to infringe on her right to own a gun in the first place.

There are those who would opt for that approach – taking guns away from everyone.  But, it seems very clear to me that advocates of gun rights are a good deal more passionate about what they view as their basic rights.   So, it’s not going to happen.

Following the vote, the president made an impassioned speech with former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords at his side.  Ms. Giffords didn’t speak as she still has difficulty doing so.  She saved her words for an Op-Ed in the New York Times titled “A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip”.  She expressed the views of many when she said of the 45 Senators who brought the legislation down, “They looked at these most benign and practical of solutions, offered by moderates from each party, and then they looked over their shoulder at the powerful, shadowy gun lobby — and brought shame on themselves and our government itself by choosing to do nothing”.

I suppose they might still do something.  There are ways they might prevent the mentally ill and convicted felons from owning guns.  It won’t be foolproof and there will be exceptions.  It wouldn’t have stopped the bombers in Boston, the terrorists on 9/11 or Adam Lanza’s mother from her folly.  

On Thursday, the Senate voted for cloture by a vote of 68-31.  So, the Congressional debate will continue.

Meanwhile, in Port St. Lucie, if Dean Bair is convicted of a felony, he will lose his right to carry a firearm -- in Florida.  His guns aren't registered.  He still may be able to buy a firearm at a gun show.  Unlike driving, which is a privilege not a right, he wasn’t trained or licensed and his guns weren’t registered or insured. 

WHO WILL LEAD?