“Winning The Argument”: Reagan Wanted To Shrink Government, Today’s Republican Party Wants To Destroy It
In his bid to be remembered as a transformational leader, President Obama is following the playbook of an ideological opposite, Margaret Thatcher. First you win the argument, she used to say, then you win the vote.
Obama is gradually winning the argument about what government can and should do. His State of the Union address was an announcement of that fact — and a warning to conservatives that, to remain relevant, they will have to move beyond the premise that government is always the problem and never the solution.
It’s ridiculous for critics to charge that Tuesday night’s speech was not sufficiently bipartisan. Repairing the nation’s infrastructure is not a partisan issue; bridges rust at the same rate in Republican-held congressional districts as in Democratic ones. The benefits of universal preschool will accrue in red states as well as blue. Climate change is not deterred by the fact that a majority of the Republican caucus in the House doesn’t believe in it.
There is no bipartisan compromise between “do something” and “do nothing.” Obama’s reelection reflected the progress he has made in convincing Americans that “do something” is the only option — and that “do nothing” leads inexorably to decline.
Thatcher’s reshaping of British politics and governance is instructive. The Iron Lady came to power at a time when Britain was sinking. The ideological pendulum had swung too far to the left, and the nominally socialist Labor Party, architect of the modern British welfare state, was out of ideas. Thatcher’s Conservative government roused the nation from its torpor. She was an enormously polarizing figure, and much of what she did — fighting the unions, privatizing state industries and public housing — met with bitter resistance.
Today, Britain remains one of the wealthiest countries in the world and continues to play a major role in international affairs. London is arguably the world’s preeminent financial center. I doubt any of this would be the case if Thatcher had not won the argument about how her nation should move forward.
When Obama took office, the United States was in a similar funk. Ronald Reagan’s conservative ideas had been corrupted by his followers into a kind of anti-government nihilism. Reagan wanted to shrink government; today’s Republican Party wants to destroy it.
Obama assumed leadership of a country in which inequality was growing and economic mobility declining, with the result that the American dream was becoming less attainable. It was a country whose primary and secondary schools lagged far behind international norms; whose airports, roads and bridges were showing their age; and, most important, whose path to continued prosperity, in the age of globalization and information technology, was not entirely clear.
Obama’s State of the Union speech was a detailed reiteration of his position that we can and must act to secure our future — and that government can and must be one of our principal instruments.
To understand why Americans reelected Obama in November and sent more Democrats to both houses of Congress, consider the Republican response to the president’s address, delivered by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).
Never mind the unforgettable moment when Rubio stooped almost out of sight and reached for a bottle of water, all the while trying to look straight ahead at the camera like John Cleese in some Monty Python sketch. I felt genuinely sorry for him — and appalled at the Republican Party’s incompetence at basic stagecraft. First they give Clint Eastwood an empty chair to perform with at the convention, and now this?
Even more unfortunate, in the end, was the utter lack of ideas in Rubio’s speech.
“More government isn’t going to help you get ahead, it’s going to hold you back,” Rubio said. Yet he also said that he never would have been able to go to college without government-backed student loans. And he spoke touchingly of how Medicare paid for the care his father received in his final days and the care his mother needs now.
I expected him to try to reconcile this contradiction. Instead, he went back to portraying government as something to be tamed rather than something to be used. To a majority of Republican primary voters, this makes sense. To the electorate as a whole, it might have made sense 30 years ago — but not today.
Margaret Thatcher never won the hearts of her many opponents. But by winning her argument, she shaped a nation’s future. There’s an increasing chance that historians will say the same of Barack Obama.
By: Eugene Robinson, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, February 14, 2013
“Marco Rubio Is Thirsty”: Forget About The Dry Mouth, The Real Problem Was What He Said
It’s not his fault, really. Maybe it was understandable nervousness—after all, here he was just a few days after being anointed “The Republican Savior” in a Time magazine cover, following the president, but without an applauding crowd to feed off. Or maybe it was that the room was hot and dry. Whatever the cause, after trying to wipe the sweat from his brow and face for 12 long minutes and repeatedly moving his tongue around his mouth to get some moisture going, Marco Rubio decided he just had no choice but to bend down and grab that tantalizing little bottle of water that lay just out of reach.
So don’t blame him for that, even though he’ll no doubt get plenty of mockery for it today. You can blame him, however, for the insipid speech he delivered, a combination of calumny and cliché that demonstrated just why Republicans are having such problems appealing to voters. Let’s start with this:
Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity.
But President Obama? He believes it’s the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn’t tax enough, spend enough, and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.
OK, so that’s not what the President said in his speech, and hearing from a Republican that Barack Obama hates free enterprise ceased to surprise a long time ago. And though Obama has certainly placed part of the blame for the economic downturn on insufficient government oversight of capital markets, the idea that he ever once blamed it on insufficient spending and taxation is obviously, plainly, absurdly false, a lie by any definition of the term. But that doesn’t surprise, either. What is remarkable is that just a few paragraphs after falsely attacking the president’s motives, Rubio says this: “There are valid reasons to be concerned about the president’s plan to grow our government. But any time anyone opposes the president’s agenda, he and his allies usually respond by falsely attacking their motives.”
Come to think of it, that mixture of dishonesty and self-pity may be just what Republican primary voters are looking for in 2016. And one thing they may also be looking for is the assurance that not only are we God’s favorite country, but life everywhere else is an unending nightmare of opportunities denied and dreams dashed. If so, Rubio is ready to oblige:
This dream – of a better life for their children – it’s the hope of parents everywhere. Politicians here and throughout the world have long promised that more government can make those dreams come true.
But we Americans have always known better. From our earliest days, we embraced economic liberty instead. And because we did, America remains one of the few places on earth where dreams like these even have a chance.
Really? America is one of the few places on earth where people can dream of a better life for their children? Oh, please. The truth is that economic mobility in America is lower than in many similar countries (the result of a decades-long trend, and not Barack Obama’s fault, for what it’s worth). The “only in America” canard is a longtime pet peeve of mine, so I have to ask: why is it necessary to extol our country’s virtues by claiming that those virtues are ours alone? Why is it so hard to say that we value hard work and opportunity, and so do many other societies?
Maybe Marco Rubio is the Republican savior. Lots of politicians have given one crappy speech and then gone on to great things, most notably Bill Clinton, whose speech nominating Michael Dukakis at the 1988 Democratic convention was panned for being both dull and ponderously long. Before you know it, this one will be little more than the source of the occasional chuckle, and Rubio will rise or fall based on what he does in a hundred other settings. But it just goes to show that with a few rare exceptions (like this one), delivering the opposition’s response to the State of the Union is likely to do your career more harm than good. If Rubio thought he’d be the one to buck that history, he didn’t get much more for his trouble than a dry mouth.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, February 13, 2013
“Bedford Falls Or Pottersville?”: The Mr. Potter’s Are Still Alive And Well In America
It’s easy to feel discouraged about the bullying by right-wing Republicans and their patrons over everything from gun control to taxes and social safety nets to trade unions and jobs.
Every year about now I watch “It’s a Wonderful Life” again to remind myself what Frank Capra understood about America — its essential decency and common sense.
In many ways the nation is better than it was in 1946 when the movie first appeared. Women have gained economic power and reproductive rights; we enacted Civil Rights and Voting Rights and, through Medicare and Medicaid, dramatically reduced poverty among the elderly; we began to tackle environmental devastation; we stopped treating gays as criminals and have even started to recognize equal marriage rights. We elected and then re-elected the first black president of the United States. We have enacted the bare beginnings of universal healthcare.
But we are still in danger of the “Pottersville” Capra saw as the consequence of what happens when Americans fail to join together and forget the meaning of the public good.
If Lionel Barrymore’s “Mr. Potter” were alive today he’d call himself a “job creator” and condemn George Bailey as a socialist. He’d be financing a fleet of lobbyists to get lower taxes on multi-millionaires like himself, overturn environmental laws, trample on workers’ rights, and shred social safety nets. He’d fight any form of gun control. He’d want the citizens of Pottersville to be economically insecure – living paycheck to paycheck and worried about losing their jobs – so they’d be dependent on his good graces.
The Mr. Potters are still alive and well in America, threatening our democracy with their money and our common morality with their greed.
Call me naive or sentimental but I still believe the George Baileys will continue to win this contest. They know we’re all in it together, and that if we succumb to the bullying selfishness of the Potters we lose America and relinquish the future.
Happy holidays.
By: Robert Reich, Robert Reich Blog, December 22, 2012
“Stuck On A Plateau”: Progress For Women Continues Flatlining At Top Ranks Of The Private Sector
After the election, word was that we had just lived through another Year of the Woman. After all, a record twenty women will now be serving in the US Senate next term, representing a fifth of all seats. We had previously failed to breach the 18 percent mark in that legislative body.
But women’s progress has stalled out somewhere else: the top of the private sector. The research organization Catalyst released its 2012 Census today, which tracks the number of women in executive officer and board director positions. Women held just over 14 percent of executive officer positions at Fortune 500 companies this year and 16.6 percent of board seats at the same. Adding insult to injury, an even smaller percent of those female executive officers are counted among the highest earners—less than 8 percent of the top earner positions were held by women. Meanwhile, a full quarter of these companies simply had no women executive officers at all and one-tenth had no women directors on their boards.
But as in the Senate, progress may be slow and even small percentages can be victories. Did this year represent a step forward? Not even close. Women’s share of these positions went up by a mere half of a percentage point or less last year. Even worse, 2012 was the seventh consecutive year in which we haven’t seen any growth in board seats and the third year of stagnation in the C-suite. Meanwhile, women may hold the majority of the jobs in growing sectors such as retail, healthcare and food service, but of the executive officers in those industries they represent less than 18 percent, under 16 percent and just 15.5 percent, respectively.
If this is the sign of the end of men or the richer sex, I fail to see how. Reversing these numbers may take time. But we’re not even on a steady uptick—we’re stuck on a plateau. Fortune tellers who tell us women are on track to dominate the economy need to explain how that can be if we aren’t seeing any movement in these top indicators. Representing half the workforce can still mean inequality if we aren’t breaking through to the top jobs.
By: Bryce Covert, The Nation, December 11, 2012
“America Is A Democracy, Not A Plutocracy”: It’s Time To Show The Rich And Powerful Who’s Boss
Who is in charge here, anyway? That, more than sequestered spending or how much we raise in new taxes, will be the most important question resolved by this “fiscal cliff” stand-off between President Obama and the GOP.
More than Republicans and Democrats forging an elusive consensus on shrinking the nation’s deficit, the real question before the country in these debates over debt is whether the American Republic has within it the will and the means to make its most powerful elites pay “just a little bit more,” as the President likes to say, at a time when those elites are determined to resist. And as we sit here today, the jury on that question is still out.
The power to tax may be the power to destroy, as the old saying goes. But as historian Francis Fukuyama reminds us, the reverse is also true: “Scandalous as it may sound to the ears of Republicans schooled in Reaganomics,” he says, “one critical measure of the health of a modern democracy is its ability to legitimately extract taxes from its own elites.”
Those who have ever been to places like Jamaica and seen ramshackle shacks side-by-side with mansions behind their high, stone walls and iron-barred windows know Fukuyama is right when he says the most dysfunctional societies are those in which elites are able to either legally exempt themselves from taxation or evade it and thus shift the burden of public expenditure onto the rest of society.
There is another old saying among students of American politics: “The President proposes and Congress disposes.” Well, the new rule, as Bill Maher might say, seems to be that in America today the Plutocracy proposes and Congress – or at least that part of Congress that is Republican – does as it is told.
Listening to the supposedly sensible Republican Senator Tom Coburn on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program earlier today dodge and weave every time the show’s hosts tried to pin him down on whether Republicans could agree to increasing income tax rates on the rich, it quickly became apparent that when Republicans say we shouldn’t raise taxes on the rich what they really mean is that Republicans can’t.
When Republicans say taxes on the rich cannot go up, that is not a bargaining position. It’s an admission of weakness that Republicans literally can’t make it happen — either because their rigid ideology won’t let them or because Republicans have lost control of their own party. Maybe both.
Republican heretic David Frum helps shine a light on why Republicans are so boxed in on tax rates and why they are reduced to vague talk about closing loopholes and deductions with no specifics or numbers attached.
According to Frum, it’s okay for Republican lawmakers to advocate raising “revenues” by closing unspecified loopholes because upper-income Republicans in red states, like Texas, don’t really have that many deductions to begin with.
Deductions for state and local taxes don’t interest wealthy Texans because Texas doesn’t have a state income tax at all, he says.
“Nor is the mortgage interest deduction a matter of life or death,” says Frum, since housing prices are comparatively cheap in the Lone Star State, unlike blue states like New York or California where housing is more expensive, as are taxes.
“What Texas does have, however, is a lot of very high incomes who care a great deal about tax rates,” says Frum. And so the GOP’s big donors are willing to throw loopholes over the side, says Frum, since in the battle between the “ordinary rich” and super-rich, deductions matter a lot more to people earning $400,000 than to people earning $4 million or $40 million.”
That is why the Republican Party’s billionaire backers have sent the word out that there will be hell to pay if Republicans let tax rates go up even a fraction of a point on those making more than $250,000.
Republicans do their best to disguise their emasculated feebleness by whining that raising tax rates 4% would only bring in about $50 billion a year – chump change, a drop in the bucket, they say – while promising to bring in lots more dough by closing unnamed loopholes or through that fog bank of imprecision known as “tax reform.”
But rates going up on the richest Americans is off the table as far as Republicans are concerned. It is a non-starter, with violators punished by no-nonsense warnings of a leadership coup or, even worse, an intra-party civil war as conservative secessionists carry out their threats to abandon the GOP, en masse, and form their own ultra-right party.
One manifestation of the dysfunction affecting American politics is that once the Republican Party has dug in its heels and decided not to do something, their obstruction sets the terms of debate and the starting assumptions for the rest of the Washington Establishment.
When Republican’s wealthy benefactors decide they will tolerate no compromise on rates – none – the rest of us are expected to accept that recalcitrance as a “given” and work around it.
To confront that presumption head-on and challenge it directly, as President Obama has done – to declare that America is a democracy not a plutocracy by insisting that no deficit-reduction package will be signed by him unless Republicans agree to increase tax rates on top income earners – that is what Republicans mean when they say the President is “politicizing” an issue or “failing to show leadership” by either capitulating to Republican demands or neutralizing the negative consequences of the Republican Party’s own intransigence.
“President Obama has an unbelievable opportunity to be a transformational president – that is, to bring the country together,” said Speaker Boehner lieutenant Pete Roskam of Illinois. “Or he can devolve into zero-sum-game politics, where he wins and other people lose.”
You can tell Charles Krauthammer understands the Republican’s inside game here because the master propagandist accuses President Obama of playing it.
The President’s insistence Republicans put their big donor’s money where their mouths and show they are serious about deficit reduction “has nothing to do with economics or real fiscal reform,” says Krauthammer. “It is entirely about politics.”
How true, about Republicans I mean. Likewise, in response to news the irreconcilable right intends to launch a leadership coup or third party challenge should Republican leaders go along with the 70% of Americans who say they want taxes raised on the top 2%, Krauthammer accuses the President of bargaining in bad faith by making offers “designed to break the Republican opposition and grant him political supremacy.”
This is why, for example, Krauthammer says Obama sent Treasury Secretary Geithner to Republicans “to convey not a negotiating offer but a demand for unconditional surrender.”
Accusing ones opponents of that which you are most guilty of yourself is a well-traveled tactic on the right. And what’s obviously got Krauthammer most incensed is the dawning realization from the President’s less conciliatory posture since election day that two can play at the Republican’s give-no-quarter game.
The seeds for America’s political dysfunction were sown 30 years ago when Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party made the fateful decision to favor Wall Street over Main Street, finance over manufacturing, as America’s signature industry.
The inevitable concentration of wealth this favoritism produced empowered a narrow economic elite with the financial resources to capture a political party and then use that party to capture the nation’s government.
It was just as those early Jeffersonians foretold more than 200 years ago when they worried about those “Anglomen” who stood to profit from Alexander Hamilton’s scheming over the National Bank and a Commercial Republic far more entranced by pecuniary promises of profit than the public-spirited virtues of civic republicanism.
And since 1980 all of these ancient fears have come to pass as a greater share of the nation’s wealth has fallen into fewer and fewer hands – 25% of income and 40% of assets controlled by 1% of the population – with the predicable distortions this concentration of economic power has had on the American political system.
A GOP that is the wholly-owned subsidiary of that super elite “may no longer be a normal party,” wrote David Brooks at the height of the debt ceiling crisis 18 months ago.
Brooks was outraged when Republicans passed on what he called the “mother of no brainers” by turning down a perfectly good deal with Democrats to resolve the impasse because, in Brooks’ view, Republicans a.) have been “infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative;” b.) do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms; c.) do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities; d.) have no sense of moral decency if they can talk so “blandly of default” and their willingness to “stain their nation’s honor”; and finally e.) have no economic theory worthy of the name since tax levels are all that matter to them.
There are sound economic arguments for reducing debts and deficits – maybe not now while unemployment is still high and interests rates low, but over the long term. But there is none – none – for taking upper income tax rates off the table as part of the final deficit-reduction agreement. And the only reason we are hung up on taxes for the top 2% is that this powerful special interest thinks it can flex its muscles and vacate the verdict of a national election by getting its demands met regardless of majority public opinion.
“The conservative insurgents of today argue that their anti-tax cost cutting agenda is designed to revive the economy, boost the job market and get America on the move again,” writes Thomas Edsall in The Age of Austerity: How Scarcity Will Remake American Politics.
“There is, however, another equally probable motivation,” he says, “that this cashiering of moral restraint on the Right reflects its belief, conscious or unconscious, that we have reached the end of the American Century.”
In that event, says Edsell, the “adamant anti-tax posture of the Right” can be seen as “an implicit abandonment of the state and of the larger American experiment — a decision that the enterprise is failing and that it is time to jump ship.”
The real news on the American right, agrees professor Mark Lilla “is the mainstreaming of political apocalypticism” led by people he calls “redemptive reactionaries” who think the only way forward “is to destroy what history has given us and wait for a new order to emerge out of the chaos.”
Once there was a conservative Golden Age, these reactionaries believe, where the world was ruled by the “Best and Brightest,” the “job creators,” Ayn Rand’s “makers,” and the top 2% who now threaten punitive action against Republican leaders or civil war within the party if their non-negotiable demands against tax hikes are not met.
But then came the New Deal, the Great Society and the civil rights movements of the 1960s that emancipated heretofore marginalized minorities of all kinds – in other words “an apocalypse” so horrible in its consequences that the only sane response was “to provoke another in hopes of starting over,” says Lizza.
And ever since, these reactionaries have been working toward a counterrevolution “that would destroy the present state of affairs and transport the nation, or the faith, or the entire human race to some new Golden Age that would redeem aspects of the past without returning there.”
Grover Norquist’s “no tax pledge” perfectly captures the Judgment Day spirit of this reactionary mentality. So does the Senate filibuster. So does the so-called “fiscal cliff,” which itself is the apocalyptic can Democrats were forced to kick down the road to escape the calamitous consequences of the first Doomsday can Republicans constructed 18 months ago by refusing to raise the debt ceiling and allow the government to pay its overdue bills, thus pushing the nation to the brink of insolvency for the first time in US history.
And so, when Republicans assail President Obama for trying to make a political “statement” when he insists that taxes on the wealthy must go up as part of this deficit-cutting deal that Republicans demanded in the first place, it’s good to remember that this is a valuable statement to make, since every once in a while it’s important to remind these rich and powerful “redemptive reactionaries” just who’s boss.
By: Ted Frier, Open Salon Blog, December 7, 2012
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 