Paul and Charlie and John — and the myth of the “middle”

December 27th, 2007

I watched Charlie Rose interview Paul Krugman last night, and had another of my “wish-I-could-slap-Charlie” moments — a long time fan of both the format and the man, there are times when Rose’s southern-fried upbringing and “I-exist-in-a-world-of-intellectual-ideas” mindset works my every nerve. He kept interrupting Paul to question him, leaving him unable to articulate his vision for the future … and that, he [eventually] said, is that we are standing on the possibility of completing FDR’s New Deal, taking it to the next level.

The nation is ready to do this, says Paul, based on the fact that we were actually poised on it back in 2000 … and have been interrupted by the cruel twist of fate that was George W. Bush, an improbable and tragic aberration; the nation is by and large more populist, more liberal and less racist than at any time in our history, and we’re ready to leap into the next iteration of FDR’s progressive model.

Rose wouldn’t shut up long enough for me to hear it in its simple beauty — when Krugman mentioned that the Republican dialogue, at its heart, was racist and had been winningly exacerbated by St. Ronnie the Reagan, Charlie had to argue for a few long … and lost … moments.

Again and again, Paul came back to John Edwards as the candidate that was most aggressive in progressive issues and ideas, and you know where I stand on that. For me, if it can’t be Dennis, then it has to be John … and even if I like other of the candidates [and I surely do] John is the champion of the Average Joe/Jane that has made corporatism and corruption an issue — and no New Deal can occur under the fascist model that runs us today.

I’ve stayed back from trying to untangle the presidential race for you until now; I have my bias’s and Lord knows you can read about the debates and town meet-up’s everywhere, see them on the boob tube.

Hillary has the big money, the oil backers, and Big Bill [who has tripped repeatedly, lately.]

Obama is an extraordinary and charismatic man who has the ability to bring us together and dream a new dream … and if he’ll bide his time, he can take us into it; but I haven’t heard his plan to STOP the downward slide of opportunity and liberty we endure now, and for this season, at any rate, I want a fighter … not a dreamer!

Edwards is mentioned as the “third” in this race — and yet he is stronger than reported, more liberal than any candidate except the aforementioned Dennis, and has a real shot, here. You wouldn’t know it from the press coverage, but he’s placed to do well in the caucus’s. For awhile, he was the only candidate that polls said could beat all comers — Barack has claimed that mantle recently so the flux in Iowa is real enough, but John has been there for FOUR YEARS and has a dedicated team on the ground. Do NOT count him out — and if you wish to count him IN, you can read more here.

I’m dreaming a dream, too — I want health care for everyone and the end of the corporate medical model that eats our paychecks and allows those many who fall into the cracks to die unnecessarily; education for our children that opens doors for their minds and takes them into the realms of science, sociology, philosophy, that allows them to think for themselves and break through the smoke of American propaganda; I want the financial inequity in this nation controlled, the corporations chastened, the credit card companies and banks policed; I want the rule of law reestablished and the Constitution honored. I want the playing field leveled — and it won’t happen with talk, it will only happen if we wrench it back out of the hands of those who think they are safe from public scrutiny and rational oversight.

We can dream big dreams later — first, we’d better take back this country! If we have to have a politician in the White House, then I want the one who has a track-record of kicking the snot out of conscienceless corporations as a trial lawyer, and stood in the ruins of Hurricane Katrina with kids he’d rounded up to make a difference.

There’s no middle for me — I’m a progressive; the word should say it all … those who are NOT progressive are destined to stagnate and move backwards. And I am determined to see the 21st century look like something more than the same-old non-sense that we have endured during this first disastrous and repressive decade.

Jude

Progressives, To Arms!
Forget about Bush—and the middle ground.
Paul Krugman, Slate
Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2007

Here’s a thought for progressives: Bush isn’t the problem. And the next president should not try to be the anti-Bush.

No, I haven’t lost my mind. I’m not saying that we should look kindly on the Worst President Ever; we’ll all breathe a sigh of relief when he leaves office 405 days, 2 hours, and 46 minutes from now. (Yes, a friend gave me one of those Bush countdown clocks.) Nor am I suggesting that we should forgive and forget; I very much hope that the next president will open the records and let the full story of the Bush era’s outrages be told.

But Bush will soon be gone. What progressives should be focused on now is taking on the political movement that brought Bush to power. In short, what we need right now isn’t Bush bashing—what we need is partisanship.

OK, before I get there, a word about terms—specifically, liberal vs. progressive. Everyone seems to have their own definitions; mine involves the distinction between values and action. If you think every American should be guaranteed health insurance, you’re a liberal; if you’re trying to make universal health care happen, you’re a progressive.

And here’s the thing: Progressives have an opportunity, because American public opinion has become a lot more liberal.

Not everyone understands that. In fact, the reaction of the news media to the first clear electoral manifestation of America’s new liberalism—the Democratic sweep in last year’s congressional elections—was almost comical in its denial.

Thus, in 1994, Time celebrated the Republican victory in the midterm elections by putting a herd of charging elephants on its cover. But its response to the Democratic victory of 2006—a victory in which House Democrats achieved a larger majority, both in seats and in the popular vote, than the Republicans ever did in their 12-year reign—was a pair of overlapping red and blue circles, with the headline “The center is the place to be.”

Oh, and the guests on Meet the Press the Sunday after the Democratic sweep were, you guessed it, Joe Lieberman and John McCain.

More seriously, many pundits have attributed last year’s Republican defeat to Iraq, with the implication that once the war has receded as an issue, the right will reassert its natural political advantage—in spite of polls that show a large Democratic advantage on just about every domestic issue.

In a way, it’s understandable that many political analysts are finding it hard to grasp how much things have changed. After all, not long ago it was conventional wisdom among the chattering classes that America had entered an era of long-term Republican—and conservative—dominance. I have a whole shelf of books with titles like One Party Country and Building Red America, all of them explaining why movement conservatism—the interlocking set of institutions, ranging from the Heritage Foundation to Fox News, that make up the modern American right—is invincible.

And it’s true that even now, polls suggest that Americans are about twice as likely to identify themselves as conservatives as they are to identify themselves as liberals.

But if you look at peoples’ views on actual issues, as opposed to labels, the electorate’s growing liberalism is unmistakable. Don’t take my word for it; look at the massive report Pew released earlier this year on trends in “political attitudes and core values.” Pew found “increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies.”

Meanwhile, nothing’s the matter with Kansas: People are ever less inclined to support conservative views on moral values—and have become dramatically more liberal on racial issues.

And it’s not just opinion polls: Last year, the newly liberal mindset of the electorate was reflected in actual votes, too. Yes, some of the Democrats newly elected last year were relatively conservative. But others, including James Webb of Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana, have staked out strikingly progressive positions on economic issues.

The question, however, is whether Democrats will take advantage of America’s new liberalism. To do that, they have to be ready to forcefully make the case that progressive goals are right and conservatives are wrong. They also need to be ready to fight some very nasty political battles.

And that’s where the continuing focus of many people on Bush, rather than the movement he represents, has become a problem.

A year ago, Michael Tomasky wrote a perceptive piece titled “Obama the anti-Bush,” in which he described Barack Obama’s appeal: After the bitter partisanship of the Bush years, Tomasky argued, voters are attracted to “someone who speaks of his frustration with our polarized politics and his fervent desire to transcend the red-blue divide.” People in the news media, in particular, long for an end to the polarization and partisanship of the Bush years—a fact that probably explains the highly favorable coverage Obama has received.

But any attempt to change America’s direction, to implement a real progressive agenda, will necessarily be highly polarizing. Proposals for universal health care, in particular, are sure to face a firestorm of partisan opposition. And fundamental change can’t be accomplished by a politician who shuns partisanship.

I like to remind people who long for bipartisanship that FDR’s drive to create Social Security was as divisive as Bush’s attempt to dismantle it. And we got Social Security because FDR wasn’t afraid of division. In his great Madison Square Garden speech, he declared of the forces of “organized money”: “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”

So, here’s my worry: Democrats, with the encouragement of people in the news media who seek bipartisanship for its own sake, may fall into the trap of trying to be anti-Bushes—of trying to transcend partisanship, seeking some middle ground between the parties.

That middle ground doesn’t exist—and if Democrats try to find it, they’ll squander a huge opportunity. Right now, the stars are aligned for a major change in America’s direction. If the Democrats play nice, that opportunity may soon be gone. ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Entry Filed under: Political Waves