Leftnecks, Get Local

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted November 12, 2004.

A week of hand wringing has produced a remarkably clear narrative of the 2004 election. The answer for Democrats – according to the pundits' blather – is that they need to close the God gap. Only by framing progressive issues in terms of pious morality can the heartland be brought around to vote for their own economic interests at long last.

But that's simplistic – and not just a little condescending. The notion that the problem for Democrats' – and the liberals who continue to believe in them – can be boiled down to "God, gays and guns" doesn't address the way social issues have provided an infrastructure for the rise of conservative populism during the last 30 years.

What has driven the right's anger – and activism – is that on many issues of concern to social conservatives, liberals have fought hard against the will of a majority of the people with whom they interact every day in their communities. We may consider some of those issues to be contrived, but we dismiss them at our peril.

Instead, liberals should start separating substantive policy issues from the symbolic aspects of public life. We should be fighting on the substance and figuring out a way to render the symbolic issues moot on the national level. The answer, I believe, is in a long-held conservative position: states' rights and local self-determination. Savvy Democrats could shift the terms of the national debate away from vaguely defined "values" by consistently stressing that our communities should reflect local values, not those of either party in Washington. If conservatives were to oppose that ideal, their intolerance would be brought into sharp relief.

Historically, liberals have resisted states' rights arguments, and with good reason. The last big battle like the culture wars we see today came during the civil rights movement. Then, as now, liberals were portrayed as using "judicial tyranny" and the federal apparatus to run roughshod over popular and democratically enacted Jim Crow laws. It was the George Wallaces and Strom Thurmonds who argued for state sovereignty.

While history has redeemed that liberal project, the cultural battles of the day are more complex. Fighting for civil rights was a necessary crusade, even when it ran counter to the majoritarian principles upon which democracies are based. Today, social conservatives feel put upon by the left for the same reasons we feel put upon by them. Just as I don't want my kids to have to pray at school in California, the people in Mississippi care more about their public institutions reflecting their culture than what happens in Seattle or New York.

Which leaves us an exit from the culture wars. The key to taking these issues off the national table is to argue – clearly and consistently – that Alabamans shouldn't legislate in Vermont and Minnesotans shouldn't dictate to Georgia. States' rights is an idea that progressives can afford to embrace for the simple reason that we've won the biggest federalist fights – the battles over race, the legality of abortion and, more recently, the decriminalization of homosexuality.

That means we have the luxury of leaving many (not all) of the "wedge" issues to local activists and taking them off the national stage. State legislatures would still be constrained by the constitution; they could bring a moment of prayer back to schools but couldn't make it a Christian prayer. And so long as our essential protections are safe, it doesn't bother me if courts in Alabama have the Ten Commandments hanging in the lobby. If I ever find myself in an Alabama courthouse, I suspect the decor will be the least of my problems.

Localism would also set liberals free to pursue truly progressive agendas in their communities without risking a nationwide backlash. Recall that some gay rights activists feared just such an outcome when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom allowed gay marriages in his city. Barney Frank (D-Mass), the only openly gay member of Congress, told the Boston Globe that he feared it was a "distraction" that could hurt gay rights activists nationally. "I was sorry to see the San Francisco thing go forward," he said.

Frank was right to be concerned, as candidates on the national stage were painted with the broad brush of the "tyrannical" left with its activist judges. States' rights would allow national candidates to respond that what happens in San Francisco is an issue that only Californians need to decide.

Joshua Holland is a fair trade activist, a student of international relations at the University of Southern California and editor in chief of the Trojan Horse, USC's lefty muckraker.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2004! Sign up now »