The election victory by Donald Trump and his Republican Party was a rebuke of a Democratic Party that has positioned itself as protector of a despised status quo, rendering it unable to connect with an electorate desperate for change. Defeating Mr. Trump in the future will require liberals, progressives and others on the left to articulate a positive vision that can capture the imagination of a broad majority of Americans.
But where can they find the inspiration for such a vision?
The answer lies in the work of the towering 20th century political philosopher John Rawls.
In his epoch-defining treatise “A Theory of Justice,” published in 1971, Rawls set out a humane and egalitarian vision of a liberal society, an alternative both to the toxic blend of neoliberal economics and identity politics that has dominated Democratic thinking in recent decades and the pessimistic anti-liberalism that holds sway among some more radical parts of the left. In this time of crisis for liberalism, it offers an unparalleled, and as yet largely untapped, resource for shaping a broad-based and genuinely transformational progressive politics — not just for Democrats but for center-left parties internationally.
The philosophy of Rawls, who died in 2002, is grounded not in self-interest and competition, but in reciprocity and cooperation. His most famous idea is a thought experiment: If you want to conceive of a fair society, put on a “veil of ignorance.” That is, consider a way to organize it if you didn’t know your position — your race, religion or economic status.
It’s an intuitive idea, similar to the classic scenario of how you might cut a cake more fairly if you didn’t know which slice you would end up getting. The idea resonates widely, since it is, in effect, a political version of the Golden Rule — “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” — that in some form is found across cultural and religious traditions.
Rawls argued that we should choose two guiding principles for how we design society’s core political and economic institutions, it’s “basic structure.” First, all citizens should be free to live according to their own beliefs and to participate in politics as genuine equals. Second, we should organize our economy to achieve equal opportunities and widely shared prosperity, only tolerating inequalities where they improve the life prospects of the least advantaged.
Such lofty principles might seem detached from reality, and given their high level of abstraction, it’s no wonder that liberals, conservatives and socialists have at times cited Rawls or even claimed him as one of their own. While it’s not immediately obvious how to put his ideas into practice, this is starting to change, as a growing number of progressive economists, including Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty, are looking to Rawls for inspiration.
While Rawls was an idealist, he was also a realist, arguing that a society organized according to his principles would be not only fair but also stable. His 1971 book contains a remarkably prescient warning that a deeply unequal society like modern-day America, where economic success is equated with individual worth, would lead to a politics of resentment that could threaten the survival of liberal democracy itself. The solution is not simply greater material equality, but to secure the dignity and self-respect of the least well-off.
Such a vision has eluded not just the Democrats but also mainstream progressive parties across the developed world — the British Labour Party, the French Socialist Party, the German Social Democrats, the Australian Labor Party. These parties largely accommodated the rise of neoliberalism and its philosophy of individualism and unfettered markets in the 1980s, alienating much of their working-class base. And they have typically responded to the rise of right-wing populism with a combination of disdain and technocratic pragmatism.
The Nov. 5 election has been widely characterized as pitting a Democratic Party committed to defending American institutions against Mr. Trump and the MAGA movement, which appear to want to overthrow them altogether. The reality, of course, is that most Americans seem to want something in between: a political vision that recognizes the value of democracy and a market economy and the need for far-reaching reform of America’s political and economic structures.
It’s here that Rawls’s ideas come into their own, offering the kind of animating vision that could rejuvenate the Democrats — and other center-left parties around the world. A political party inspired by Rawls would stand up for an inclusive and tolerant society, a vibrant democracy, equality of opportunity and fair outcomes. But it would also be honest about just how far America falls short of these ideals and embrace the task of responsible but radical reform.
Rather than simply seeking to protect America’s ailing constitutional democracy from Mr. Trump’s inevitable attacks, a party committed to Rawls’s first principle — that citizens should be able to participate in politics as genuine equals — would harness popular frustrations in support of a bold agenda to break the grip of private money on American politics, for instance through public funding for political parties, strong limits on private donations and depoliticizing the judiciary through an independent commission for appointing Supreme Court justices.
On the economy, Rawls has frequently been misunderstood as advocating a familiar politics of redistribution, where society seeks to maximize growth and compensate the “losers” through welfare payments. But in fact he was one of the first champions of what we would now call “pre-distribution,” and his ideas point toward an economic agenda that would tackle inequality at its source by promoting good jobs, a fair distribution of wealth and greater democracy in the workplace.
In practical terms for a modern political party, this would mean going all out for a pro-worker agenda to address the long-neglected concerns of non-college-educated voters — not simply for higher incomes, but for meaning, community and a chance to contribute to society. Democrats must continue to call out Mr. Trump’s economic policies of almost certainly inflationary tariffs, tax cuts for the rich and attacks on unions for what they are, a dangerous con, and instead present big ideas that would actually advance the interests of working people. They would include huge investment in vocational education and left-behind places, forming an effective industrial strategy to create good jobs and giving workers more of a say in how companies are run.
Critics will no doubt denounce these ideas as interfering with economic liberty, as Rawls’s libertarian colleague Robert Nozick did. But they are perfectly compatible with the dynamic market economy that is so vital for both individual freedom and economic prosperity. The aim is not to control outcomes but to create rules of the game that work for everyone.
Justice for women and minority groups would be integral to this vision, but it would be tied to universal values of justice and fairness rather than identity politics and pursued, wherever possible, through universal rather than group-based programs for education, health care, housing and welfare.
It’s hard to feel hopeful right now. But for all the talk of a generational realignment, there continues to be a clear majority in favor of a tolerant and inclusive politics — nearly 60 percent of Americans surveyed last year thought “increasing racial and ethnic diversity” was a good thing for American society. And there is an enormous appetite for change: A survey conducted in 2021 found that 66 percent thought America’s economic system needed to be completely reformed or needed major changes, while 85 percent said the same about its political system. Democrats must harness this energy, rather than wish it away.
In the end, it is through politics, not philosophy, that America and other democracies must find a way forward. Yet the challenge facing the Democrats and their counterparts elsewhere is not simply to win votes but to change minds. In Rawls’s ideas, they can find a big-picture vision that is rooted in the best of the liberal tradition and can show the way toward a much-needed period of reconciliation and renewal.
The post The Democrats Are in Trouble. This Man Can Save Them. appeared first on New York Times.
