I�€™m not quite sure what to make of Paul Starr�€™s op-ed in yesterday�€™s NYT. His argument is a familiar one. Because liberals have relied too heavily on the legal system (and certain controversial cases in particular), they have allowed their political muscles to atrophy - and that�€™s why they�€™re losing. That argument is half-right, but it needs to broken down into smaller parts. First, I completely agree that progressives have allowed their political muscles (grass roots, persuasion, etc.) to atrophy. But it simply does not follow that legal decisions have been the source of this atrophy. But anyway, my main problem with Starr�€™s op-ed is not that he�€™s wrong about the source of atrophy. The more troubling aspect of this column is one that I see too often, especially among national Democrats. And that problem is that Starr is operating within what I call the Reagan paradigm. In Starr�€™s view, everything is a linear right-to-left spectrum. By moving a few points to the right along this line, Starr thinks Democrats can win. Today, I want to explain why that�€™s wrong. But before I do, let me briefly return to this bit about atrophy.

I agree with Starr that progressives need to strengthen their political muscles. And I think we�€™ve seen some very promising developments at the grass-roots level over the past two years. But Starr is extrapolating too much from Roe. I agree that Roe has made us lazy about articulating why we believe anti-criminalization (i.e., the pro-choice position) is correct. But you can�€™t make such sweeping generalizations about the party’s national losses from one or two court cases.

In my opinion, the reason progressives have become lazy is that they�€™ve been so overwhelmingly successful over the past 100 years. Kevin Drum had an excellent post on this subject back in November.

[I]n broad terms, Democrats have already accomplished their goals. What’s left is mostly improving things at the margins, not fundamental changes.

I think that�€™s right. As Kevin pointed out, the liberal agenda has been wildly successful with respect to the big goals �€“ Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, employment regulations, minimum wage, and the progressive income tax. If a businessman from 1890 saw America today, he would think it was a socialist state. With the exception of national health care and gay rights, there are few really big domestic battles left. And it�€™s only a matter of time before we get both of those too.

Conservatives have been more motivated and more active because they have been seeking to change a status quo that is quite favorable to progressive values, especially when you view it from a historical perspective. Discontent is the motor of history. And on the really big issues, and prior to Bush, there wasn�€™t a great deal for progressives to get REALLY discontented about. Now, however, the GOP is pointing its guns at programs like Social Security that had almost become invisible to modern generations who didn�€™t have to fight for them, who didn�€™t see what life was like before they existed, and who never thought anyone in their right mind would try to take down the most successful government program in history. Well, that time is come, and it�€™s time to roll up our sleeves and go fight. I really think that Bush, ever the gambler, is risking a massive backlash, but we have to help make that happen.

But anyway, the point I wanted to stress today was why I think Starr’s focus on legal decisions is misplaced. More precisely, I think he�€™s arguing within the “Reagan paradigm,” in which progressive arguments can never win. Perhaps I�€™m being unfair to his argument, but he seems to be saying that Democrats need to move right on an issue here or there (e.g., Roe, affirmative action) to win back the good graces of those who think the Dems are too liberal. Even if that�€™s not exactly what he�€™s saying, a lot of people think that. Here�€™s what�€™s wrong with that view.

An old rule in politics is that if you can define the terms of the debate, you will always win that debate. The greatest success of the Goldwater/Wallace/Nixon/Reagan movement has been to define the terms of the modern political debate. Under this paradigm, everyone conceptualizes American political opinion as being neatly divided into �€œleft�€� and �€œright�€� along a linear left-to-right spectrum. Everyone is either a �€œliberal,�€� a �€œconservative,�€� or a �€œcentrist.�€� Linguistics is powerful and you can see why �€“ all three terms implicitly assume the existence of some linear spectrum.

The error that many progressives make is that they think they can win by moving �€œright�€� along the spectrum, especially by surrendering on certain issues here and there. For example, Starr seems to think that Democrats could move to the center and win by abandoning court cases legalizing abortion and affirmative action. What these people don�€™t realize, however, is that they are still battling within the Reagan paradigm so long as they�€™re seeking to move linearly. National Democrats need to understand that there is nothing that can save them from being called �€œliberal�€� or �€œleft-wing.�€� Just ask Brad Carson. It�€™s merely a template imposed on all those with (D)s beside their name. Lieberman would have been attacked as a liberal if had been nominated. The point is, if you surrender on one issue, they�€™ll merely shift the attack to a different one. Left-wingness can only be reallocated, it cannot be reduced so long as people conceptualize politics as �€œleft�€� versus �€œright.�€�

To defeat the Reagan paradigm, you have to ignore it, or transcend it. In other words, you have to move beyond the spectrum. Progressives need to develop an alternative set of policies, narrative, and a vision that defies the old labels. If we figure out what we�€™re for, the labels will re-adapt in a more favorable way. Let me be clear - this is not a matter of moving “left.” If you’re moving linearly in any direction, you’re losing. That’s because you’re still in the world of Reagan binaries. As long as Americans think of politics in terms of left or right, Democrats will lose.

I did a post a few months ago based on David Sirota�€™s article on the Democratic governor of Montana called �€œMontana�€™s Jackson Pollock�€� that provides more detail on this subject. Briefly, my point was that we need to move beyond left and right and center. For example, the governor ran on protecting the environment in order to preserve land for gun-loving hunters and fishers. Is that �€œliberal�€� or �€œconservative�€�? The labels don’t really work, do they? Slate recently linked to an NPR story about how some neocons are embracing the environmental movement because of national security needs. Specifically, they are coming around on the need for energy-efficient cars in order to free ourselves from foreign oil and Middle East tyrants. Is that �€œleft�€� or �€œright�€�?

I think Clinton understood this principle well. It wasn�€™t so much that Clinton was a centrist, or that he was left on some issues and right on others. He defied the boxes. He and Blair�€™s “Third Way” used market principles to support liberal causes. He was strong on crime, and on anti-criminalization (i.e., choice). In short, he didn�€™t fit neatly into either box. He presented a compelling, refreshing alternative - and he won.

We�€™ll never win by trying to move to the center or the right. We also won�€™t win by trying to move self-consciously �€œleft.�€� All of those terms trap us within the Reagan paradigm. To win, we need to create an �€œoutside-the-box�€� alternative and let the labels fall where they may. We need to be Reality-makers. As Matthew Yglesias likes to say, there is no spoon.