Matt Bai is a columnist for the New York Times. His latest book, The Argument, discusses the Democratic Party and its politics.
Harvard Political Review: What prompted you to write The Argument?
Matt Bai: It’s pretty straightforward. Sometime in 2003, Democrats were so down and out, and liberalism as an ideology so beaten down, that serious people talked about whether the party was viable long-term. Meanwhile, everybody was writing about the Bush administration and nobody was looking at the Democrats. By the end of 2004, I had a preliminary work on what was happening in Democratic politics, and how technology was reshaping the landscape.
HPR: Do you see similar problems in the Democratic Party today in lacking a unified vision and it impacting the election? Or do you think things have changed?
MB: Honestly, things do change. Parties and politics are cyclical. By 2009, Republicans looked barely viable and Democrats were talking about a 50 year realignment, which I thought was silly because now power changes hands much more frequently, and it’s going to be volatile with cultural changes around politics. However, I think Democrats are stronger now because they have President Obama, and they did rally around a legislative agenda when they controlled Congress. But, the question I would ask is whether they have an argument for what the 21st century’s government ought to look like versus the 20th century’s. Democrats had built this incredible architecture of legislation last century, but while defending that legislation, failed to adapt that vision to a different economy, technology, culture, and set of challenges. This problem has not been solved by either party.
HPR: You mentioned the different political culture now that may cause electoral politics to be more volatile. What are the origins of this new political dynamic?
MB: I personally have gravitated toward the generational and cultural issues involved. I’m not suggesting that stuff like redistricting, ruthless strategists, and money didn’t contribute to the perversion of our politics. But, we had a failed generation across the ideological spectrum. The obsession with very narrowly defined character, moralizing, personal lives, and re-litigating old policy debates prevented the country from adapting to new circumstances and reaching consensus about the future. The challenges aren’t new. Gary Hart was talking in the early 1980s about stateless terrorism, the dangers of dependence on foreign oil, the coming information economy, and the end of manufacturing as a primary driver in the economy. This generation of leaders had decades to adapt to these challenges. They don’t necessarily share the blame in equal measure, but across the ideological spectrum there has been a focus on triviality and the past that made people very cynical about politics, and we can do better than that.
HPR: As a political analyst and writer, what are the challenges and opportunities for more honest or forward-looking political discourse? How do you think political analysis and journalism can contribute to this?
MB: In this universe of instant analysis and punditry, there is no substitute for the in-depth reporting a magazine does. I’ve heard it said that reporting is how you break through this din of constant chatter around politics. There’s so much hammering, bravado, self-congratulation, and ignorant speculation out there meant to gratify one side or the other, that political writers should bring information to the table and analyze it because politics ought to be engaging and tell you something new. It’s possible to think that everything is is already known and the only point of reading is getting a thousand half-baked viewpoints. However, I feel that what people really want from journalism, and what they really respond to, is hearing stories about people and events that they didn’t know about before. Actual information and storytelling is the core of what we do, and what people positively respond to.