narratives, again

Shadi Hamid thinks the Dems need one.

Ezra Klein thinks they don’t—they already have one:

Globalization and its attendant economic forces have destabilized the working class and the corporate welfare state they relied on, so the government should step into the breach and guarantee what employers no longer can.

Welp, back in the day, that was known as socialism. Today, it’s known as statism or, somewhat less politely, the nanny state. And somehow I just don’t think it will do as a successful pitch—it’s more like a rallying cry for Republicans to do what they do best: build a massive wall of resistance against “tax and spend” Dems and then bury them.

A more somewhat more contemplative discussion of the subject appears in the comments to Hamid’s post. I particularly liked this one by SteveB, who gets the concept of a narrative—i.e., a simple story (not unlike a fairy tale) that relies on popular prejudices (for example: the past was better) and that pits the good guys on your side against the bad guys on the other:

[All] narratives require a narrative arc, and the easiest way to get that arc is to build on the “virtuous past, corrupt present” theme. Thus “Government was efficient until Bush and his cronies screwed it up”, or “The poor were thrifty and virtuous until welfare made them lazy and dangerous.” This sort of narrative naturally comes easier to a conservative who wants to turn back the clock than to a progressive who wants, you know, progress.

But there are ways to turn this theme to a progressive purpose. For example, here’s a narrative promoting national health care:

“Once, health care was about helping people, and not about getting rich. Sure, the local doctor was better off than most, but not outrageously so, and most hospitals were local and non-profit. The for-profit hospital chains, the HMO’s, and the pharmaceutical companies changed all that, and now we pay considerably more per-person that other countries do, and get less for it. We need to get back to the idea that our health care system should be about providing care to anyone who needs it, and get greed out of the system.”

That’s good storytelling—and, yes, the Dems need it. But not more than they need a credible candidate who’s got the “vision thing” and can deploy it consistently, as Bill Clinton did. Obama’s got it (we worship an awesome God in the purple states), but he can’t get traction for it. Edwards (two Americas) is trying. Hillary has nothing except the “responsibility gene” (and the entire Democratic establishment backing her).

Unfortunately for the Dems, Rudy is the one to beat. Folks trying desperately to poke holes in his Mr. 9/11 image are barking up the wrong tree. Rudy’s narrative is powerful because he has spent a lifetime building it, and believing in it. He was, let’s not forget, a Kennedy Democrat once upon a time. That will be a fearsome weapon to wield against his Democratic opponent, once he gets the nod from his party (which I believe he will, and which I predicted a year ago that he would).

Democratic storytellers, unite! You’ve got your work cut out for you.