The Reciprocity Society in Action

In 2004, Democrats must answer the GOP assault on national unity with a program based on reciprocity, responsibility and opportunity that calls on the best in Americans and their government.

On national security, Democrats must not only pass the threshold of credibility, they must demonstrate clear leadership compared to the GOP. There is no better way to do this, substantively and symbolically, than through national service. While the volunteer army currently seems sufficient to fight foes abroad such as Afghanistan and Iraq, the same cannot be said of domestic security at home. The Federal government should create a Home Guard, drafting at least 250,000 Americans between the ages of 19 and 22 for homeland defense. Funded and managed by the Department of Homeland Security and assigned to relevant federal and state agencies (such as the Coast Guard, Transportation Safety Administration, Immigration, and Border Patrol), the members of the Home Guard would police borders, guard ports, staff airport checkpoints (replacing the TSA personnel), and monitor major events, energy facilities and transportation hubs. Home Guard members assigned to police or paramilitary roles would serve one year; those opting for non-frontline or non-first responder positions (such as teaching, health care, computer or communications) would serve two.

The Home Guard would not only greatly enhance domestic security by relieving the Pentagon and the states of the expenses of manpower and logistics. It would also help create an ethos of national service and shared sacrifice among younger Americans, men and women alike. It would provide, as Robert Putnam describes in Bowling Alone, "bridging social capital" that cuts across racial, ethnic, economic and religious lines. With parental status perhaps the only exemption, the wealthy and the working class would meet in service to their country. The price tag would be non-trivial, perhaps 10 to 20 billion dollars a year (with some savings as the 55,000 TSA airport screeners are replaced by draftees).

Energy policy presents the Democrats with a major opportunity to differentiate themselves from the GOP with a program centered on national security, rather than environmental, goals. A USA Energy Act would focus on energy independence to both limit the U.S. vulnerability to economic dislocations due to OPEC action and provide greater freedom of action in foreign policy in the Middle East. A centerpiece would be federal subsidies for alternative energy sources, potentially taking the form of a venture capital fund to help draw private sector investors to wind, solar, hydro and other options. (President Bush's support for hydrogen-powered cars, though another cynical political move, is not without merit.)

Conservation must be an essential component as well of a USA Energy Act. An "energy conservation credit" would allow businesses to claim tax benefits for achieving targeted year-over-year reductions in energy consumption. A "gasoline price floor" would enable the federal government to add taxes when the average national market price of gasoline dropped below a target level (say, $1.50 a gallon). Perhaps most controversial for consumers and the auto industry would be a Federal "auto fuel consumption surcharge" of (or starting at $500) on purchases of new vehicles failing to meet a target level for fuel efficiency. Consumers would still have the freedom of choice to own gas-guzzling SUVs; they would just have to pay their fellow Americans for the privilege. It's a classic case of doing good by doing bad.

A national security energy policy would provide a stark contrast to the market deregulation approach of the Republicans and the at times rigid, irrelevant environmentalism of the Democrats. Obtaining secure, affordable energy sources is not an outcome that can be assured by the market; the disaster of GOP energy deregulation in California and the Enron fiasco should make that clear to all. But at a time of war, opposition to oil drilling in ANWR or the president's policies for air pollution standards does not constitute an energy program. Of the 2004 Democratic candidates, only Joe Lieberman's "Declaration of Energy Independence" program seemed to reflect the political and security considerations in play here.

To fund these and other programs, Democrats will need a plan for economic growth and sustaining federal government tax revenues. For starters, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 must be reversed; their $2 trillion price tag is neither affordable nor justified. Deficits during a time of war are to be expected; tax cuts are almost unheard of at best and dangerous at worst. A means-tested or one-time tax rebate capped by income 2003 might make sense for small-scale stimulus. In addition, Washington should expand the incentives for both pure R&D and new business start up by making the federal research and development tax credit permanent and loosening the intellectual property rules governing the commercialization of university research. Tax credits for information technology purchases of up to 20% (also suggested by Senator Lieberman) could help boost the growth of a stalled "new economy."

Central to any plan for economic growth is the development of America's human resources. Day care is essential for America's working families; it constitutes not only a major financial burden but limits the flexibility of parents to seek a broader range of jobs. A "Children First" program of means-tested day care vouchers could replace the new $1000 a year per child tax credit. These vouchers, perhaps $1,000 to $2,000 a year, could be applied for children under age five to any accredited day care provider, whether public, private or even religious in nature. In addition, "Continuing Education Accounts" would allow Americans to receive either a tax deduction for higher education and retraining (up to $10,000 a year), or annual tax credits for contributions to a tax-deferred "personal education account."

The crisis of rising health care costs and woefully inadequate coverage can also be addressed in a new American Bargain. As described above, the Opt Out approach offered by President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union by way of Medicare privatization, medical savings accounts and association health plans (AHPs), will only make the situation worse. The two pillars of a Democrat health care program should be child coverage and aggregate buying power. First, the repeal of the Bush tax cuts should allow Washington to fund "Healthy Children", a successor program to CHIPS ensuring all American children under age 18 are covered by health insurance. Just as important, Washington should allow private employers and individuals to leverage the buying power and scale of the Federal government by purchasing insurance through the same plans offered to federal employees. Democrats should also tilt the balance of power from suppliers to buyers of prescription drugs by encouraging state, regional or even national "Drug Coops" along the lines of the program now being implemented in Maine (focusing on 300,000 uncovered by Medicare or Medicaid). This would work in much in the same way that Wal Mart virtually dictates the prices it will pay to it suppliers by virtue of its massive scale and buying power. Public interest drug coops would pose a significant counterweight to the pricing power of the pharmaceutical companies and retail drug chains.

As described above, Republican education policy is one of the cornerstones of their Opt Out philosophy. Democrats must respond with a program of reform that cements the American commitment to public schools. First, America must act to ensure the greater resources for urban schools, where per pupil spending should exceed and not merely match statewide averages, given the health, nutrition, safety and social services these schools must provide. This can be accomplished by providing federal funding to the states to help achieve school district funding equalization. In addition, Democrats should encourage teacher "Challenge Bonuses", essentially the equivalent of hazard pay, for those choosing to teach in under performing, often dangerous inner city schools. A "Tomorrow's Teachers" program could also provide loans, grants or tax credits for qualified college students who commit to teaching careers for at least five years following graduation. Last, the federal government should help states achieve dramatically higher levels of school technology infrastructure, including broadband Internet access in all public K12 schools. As the Progressive Policy Institute noted in 2002, Massachusetts, a state with a highly educated workforce, ranks 40th in educational technology.

As Kuttner notes, the market metaphor simply is not appropriate for education, where socially desirable outcomes (producing better American citizens and more tightly knit communities) cannot be merely measured by test scores. If parents want to opt out of public institutions by home schooling their children or sending them to private or parochial schools, that is their right and their choice. Government policy should not reward them for doing so.

A New American Bargain in all of these areas, from education, energy and the economy to health care, national service and tax policy, would be incomplete without a new conception of national identity and a renewal of universal, shared public responsibilities. Democrats must move beyond their endorsement of affirmative action and multi-culturalism to a new "Open Opportunity" program while recognizing the fundamental perceptions of fairness and equity by all Americans. As Gunnar Myrdahl, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. all feared in the 1960s, group preferences would almost surely divide potential partners and prevent a true progressive politics and national unity.

In the New American Bargain, affirmative action would be phased out over time, with preferences in government contracting ending in five years, hiring in 10, and higher education in 15. Ending the affirmative action regime immediately, however, would have socially unacceptable consequences for minority representation, as many institutions, as shown by the California Berkeley law school, would experience a return to de facto segregation. This is all about life chances; as affirmative action is phased out, the hard work of creating opportunity for all Americans would commence with the transition to "Open Opportunity."

An Open Opportunity program begins with expanded outreach to minority and economically distressed communities. From the promotion of educational opportunities, mortgage assistance, small business loans and "Grameen-style" banks (modeled on small, revolving self-employment loan programs in developing nations), the federal and state governments should substantially increase efforts to recruit and evangelize individuals who could potentially benefit. The difficult and expensive work of public education reform described above is also central. Expanded scholarship programs based on need (family income and wealth) would be essential. In every case, Open Opportunity benefits would be class-based, and not contingent on race or ethnicity, helping to ensure their universality and broader public support. As Richard Kahlenberg noted in his book The Remedy, while class is not a true proxy for race and could not assure the same numeric outcomes as today's affirmative action regime, it offers the prospect to bridge the cleavages of group preferences over time. Open Opportunity, would, however, mean the end of the divisive affirmative action calculus Michael Kinsley highlighted in choosing between a black doctor's child and the kid of a white Appalachian coal miner.

In his book A New American Nation, Michael Lind describes an American identity that is not static and unchanging over time, but continuously redefined and almost infinitely adaptable as individuals from different countries, races, classes and ethnicities contribute to an ever-evolving culture. What should be unchanging is the commitment of all Americans to a common set of ideals, to reciprocity of rights and privileges in exchange for shared responsibilities to their nation and each other, to a new American bargain. Republican policies instead encourage us to opt out and go it alone; Democratic orthodoxy sees only group membership. During this dark time of the war against terror, it's worth remembering that we're all in this together.

1. Introducing the Opt Out Society
2. On Your Own: The Opt Out Society in Practice
3. Branding the Opt Out Society
4. Identity Politics and the Threat from the Left
5. A New American Bargain^TM: The Reciprocity Society^TM
6. The Reciprocity Society in Action