According to Lilla this pseudo-politics, as he pointedly puts it, is a self-indulgent betrayal of the American liberal and progressive agenda. Worse still, it’s electoral toxicity is downright dangerous.
It has allowed the Republicans to successfully persuade much of the American public that they are the party of Joe Sixpack while the Democrats represent Jessica Yogamat.
But make no mistake this isn’t a gleeful attack on modern liberals. Lilla believes that Trump is a demagogue, unfit to hold high office, and now liberals need to fight back. It is this rallying call which sets this book apart from those which simply sneer at millennials.
Naturally, there are a few jibes at campus liberals and the odd incendiary phrase, “Identity is Reaganism for lefties” being just one.
Lilla is fed up of marches not because he doesn’t value the contribution of movement politics to America’s history, he cites the important contribution of the Civil Rights Movement for example, but because right now it’s not doing the Democrats any good. Lilla wants to see more Democrat mayors not marchers. More Democrat governors and state legislators, for that matter, and in every part of the United States, representing all of the country’s citizens.
In this spirit, the book is prefaced with a quote from Senator Edward Kennedy:
“We must understand that there is a difference between being a party that cares about labor and being a labor party. There is a difference between being a party that cares about women and being the women’s party. And we can and must be a party that cares about minorities without becoming a minority party. We are citizens first.” (1985)
The idea of citizenship is key to Lilla’s response. Liberals, he argues, need to forge a grand narrative for all citizens - a story about what America is and what duties are bestowed by being an American.
This is something which technocratic policy wonks cannot deliver. Nor can identity or movement politics. Lilla believes a new dispensation is needed to replace the Reaganite narrative which has prevailed since the 1980s. However, this new dispensation cannot fall back on the New Deal agenda which preceded Reaganism, the times have moved on he acknowledges.
Yet this is not to say nothing can be learnt from the past. Lilla channels the ethos embodied by FDR and subsequent Democratic leaders. As he puts it, what ever happened to JFK’s challenge to the sixties generation: “ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country”.
Today, according to Lilla, we have ended up with a liberal ethos of: What does my country owe me by virtue of my identity? Worse still this identity politics has placed self-expression over persuasion whereby preaching purity is prioritised over coalition building.
Lilla cites the example of religious feminist groups being disinvited from the 2017 Women’s March, because of their anti-abortion stance, as another bridge unnecessarily burnt. Better to keep them on side by civilly agreeing to disagree and by making a few compromises, than drive them into the hands of the radical right he argues. Who could disagree?
Yet it is not as simple as Lilla suggests. Even those who prefer big-tent, pragmatic politics must acknowledge a commitment to civility and inclusivity raise a number of challenges.
How inclusive should liberals be? Naturally, there has to be limits to who you make alliances with, some groups will be morally beyond the pale or will have too many differences to make cooperation practical.
When and how should you speak out over differences? Most people would agree that fiery condemnation is unnecessary but divisions cannot simply be ignored. Additionally, including a group you have disagreements with in a march, or giving them a platform at a conference, is all well and good but involving them in the policy making process is different thing all together.
More importantly, what compromises? Take for example Lilla’s abortion case, as a self-declared pro-choice absolutist what restrictions could he actually agree on in order to keep his political coalition together. Will his strategy work, and keep pro-lifers in the liberal tent and supporting other liberal causes? And even if it did is it morally justifiable?
No one set of concrete guidelines can be established. Each issue will have its own unique set of circumstances, but going forward liberals will need to set out some rules of engagement.
Lilla does not believe that this is his job. In public book talks he has put on record his reluctance to write the book’s last chapter on the way forward. He wanted to diagnose a problem not write a manifesto. He therefore admits what he provides is a rough sketch and that it is the task of liberals, if they choose to take his advice, to build on it and flesh out an election winning program.
Review of The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics by Mark Lilla (London, C.Hurst & Co. Ltd., 2018).