What should we expect if the Democrats gain control of the U.S. House in November? If we’re dreaming, we could imagine that they would propose an agenda to renew democracy at home and abroad–one that could also attract a few Republican votes. But there is no sign of that agenda on the House Democratic Leader’s webpage. (Her statements on “issues” are almost completely negative, and virtually all of her proposals involve modest increases in federal spending for existing programs, or tax cuts.) Therefore, if we are realistic, we ought to hope for the following benefits:

1. More competent and efficient administration as a result of Congressional oversight. That assumes, however, that the Democrats will do a good job overseeing.

2. Justice, in the form of investigations that uncover genuine malfeasance in government. Congressional committees are not generally very good at investigating crimes. They are prone to grand-standing, bias, and bad strategy. But it’s better to have imperfect congressional investigations than none at all.

3. Fiscal sanity, if Democrats block further tax cuts and Republicans block big spending increases. The Democrats could also achieve efficiencies by rewriting the prescription benefit. On the other hand, the existing tax cuts will remain in place, protected by the president’s veto. At worst, we will see a bidding war with rival proposals for tax cuts and spending increases. (The House Democrats’ webpage promises “middle class tax cuts” and tax breaks for businesses “to hire the unemployed.”)

4. Generally more “conservative” politics, in the root sense of that word. Republicans will be less likely to achieve radical changes in the social contract, such as partially privatizing Social Security or deporting illegal immigrants. At the same time, all the proposals on Nancy Pelosi’s website are highly incremental, fairly traditionalist–and have low odds of becoming law.

I think that divided government is desirable; and the Democrats’ priorities match mine more closely than the Republicans’ do. However, for anyone who is deeply troubled by our staggering rates of incarceration, the fact that only half of our minority children complete high school, or the threat of global warming, the present Democratic leadership promises relatively little. At best, a Democratic victory in November would be a small step in the right direction. Actual solutions will involve much deeper and longer-term change.

Last week, in bed with the flu, I read four detective novels whose dates of publication ranged from 1938 to 2003. There was stylish writing in all those books: rhythmic, observant, atmospheric–and various, too. For example:

When I thought of Germany I thought of parades, of swastika banners flapping from tall poles, of loud-speakers, of stout field-marshals and goose-stepping men with steel helmets, of concentration camps. When I thought of Russia I thought of dark, stupid Romanoffs, of the Winter Palace, of Cossacks, of crowds streaming in terror, of canopied priests swinging censers, of Lenin and Stalin, of grain rippling in the breeze, of the Lubianka prison. (Eric Ambler, Cause for Alarm, 1938)

The magnificent stones, symbols of courage, cruelty, and betrayal, stood sentinel at the one cleft in the ridge of the Purbeck Hills as they had for a thousand years. As he ate his solitary picnic, Dalgliesh found his eyes constantly drawn to those stark embattled slabs of mutilated ashlar silhouetted high against the gentle sky. (P.D. James, The Black Tower, 1975)

He ordered another scotch and told the guy who came in and sat next to him at the bar he’d won 470 bucks at Spade’s Boardwalk. Just like that, in about three minutes. The guy said, big fucking deal; you want to keep it, get out of town, fast. The guy was a blackjack dealer at Resorts International, across the street. He had been a floorman at Tropicana, but he’d tapped out a dealer for looking away from the cards and it turned out the dealer had more juice than he did, so listen to this, he got fired for doing his job. Politics, man. Who you know. You’d don’t party with the right people, kiss your ass good-bye. (Elmore Leonard, Glitz, 1985)

He turned the radio on and moved the dial to PGC. The Super Funk Regulator was on the air, talking to a woman who had called in from her car.

“Where you at right now?” asked the DJ.

“I’m on Benning Road, heading home from work.”

“Who you goin’ to see?”

“My son Darius,” said the woman giggling, obviously hyped to be on the radio and live. “He’s ten years old.”

“You have a good one,” said the DJ. “Thanks for rolling with a brother.”

“Thanks for lettin’ a sister roll.”

Strange smiled. He did love D.C.

(George Pelecanos, Soul Circus, 2003)

I mailed off a book manuscript yesterday that’s entitled The Future of Democracy: Developing the Next Generation of American Citizens. It was commissioned by University Press of New England, which will now have the fun of editing it. I wrote it within the last twelve months; chunks appeared on this blog when I believed they might be interesting as stand-alone essays. There is a chapter on each of these questions:

What is “civic engagement”?

Why should we want many people to be engaged?

Why does it matter if young people are engaged?

How are young people engaged today?

What are the barriers to civic education?

What works inside schools?

What works in community-based organizations?

What works in colleges and universities?

What broader political reforms do we need to make citizenship worthwhile and rewarding?

Throughout, I explore two basic theories. One assumes that there are problems with young people’s civic skills, knowledge, confidence, and values. These problems are not the fault of young people. Hardly anyone would hold a sixteen-year-old personally accountable for lacking interest in the news or failing to join associations. If we should blame anyone, it would be parents, educators, politicians, reporters, and other adults. Nevertheless, the problems are located (so to speak) inside the heads of young people. We should therefore look for interventions that directly improve young people’s civic abilities and attitudes. Such interventions include formal civic education, opportunities for community service, and broader educational reforms that are designed to improve the overall character of schools. The government, the press, and political parties can also enhance young people’s civic commitments and skills by directly communicating with them.

The second model assumes that there are flaws in our institutions that make it unreasonable to expect positive civic attitudes and active engagement. For example, citizens (young and old alike) may rightly shun voting when most elections have already been determined by the way district lines were drawn. They may rightly ignore the news when the quality of journalism, especially on television, is poor. And they may rightly disengage from high schools that are large, anonymous, and alienating. If this model holds, then we do not need interventions that change young people’s minds. Civic education that teaches people to admire a flawed system is mere propaganda. Instead, we should reform major institutions.

There are valid arguments in favor of both models, although they sometimes conflict in ways that I explore. In my view, we need a broad movement that improves civic education while it also reforms the institutions in which citizens engage. We must prepare citizens for politics, but also improve politics for citizens. Neither effort can succeed in isolation from the other. Educational curricula, textbooks, and programs, if disconnected from the goal of strengthening and improving democracy, can easily become means of accommodating young people to a flawed system. But political reform is impossible until we better prepare the next generation of citizens with appropriate knowledge, skills, habits, and values. Students should feel that they are being educated for citizenship, but also that they can help to renew American democracy.

It’s pretty obvious that the Bush Administration will try to counter public dissatisfaction with the Iraq war by calling critics “appeasers,” “quitters,” and the like. It is also obvious that the national Democrats, having gone through the Swift Boat Experience, are now ready to counter-punch speedily. But will they respond cleverly?

After Secretary Rumsfeld’s VFW speech, the House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, was ready with a zippy quote. She said, “Secretary Rumsfeld’s efforts to smear critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy are a pathetic attempt to shift the public’s attention from his repeated failure to manage the conduct of the war competently.”

This reminds me a little of the press releases Mary Matalin used to issue on behalf of George H.W. Bush in 1992. She would call the Democrats “sniveling,” “pathetic,” “cowardly.” Her rhetorical style, in other words, was to rely exclusively on pejorative adjectives. You can imagine people looking over a first draft in Pelosi’s office and saying, “Let’s add ‘reprehensible’ there.” “No, ‘abhorrent’ sounds tougher.” “Too fancy. How about ‘pathetic’?”

Matalin’s candidate, as you will recall, lost. If you’re going to counter-punch, you have to say something that makes people stop and think. It has to have some content. For example: “No Democrat wants to ‘appease’ Osama bin Laden. We want to destroy him. By the way, why is bin Laden still at large, Secretary Rumsfeld?” Or: “Instead of going to Nashville to reminisce about World War II, Secretary Rumsfeld should be back in his office trying to figure out how to end the war he started.”

This is not a kind of politics that inspires me. But it’s going to happen, and it might as well be effective.

Maybe it’s because I still have a summer ‘flu and a fever, but I find this very funny: