Miller counts off the grim statistics of American society's most intractable problems: "40 million uninsured; 15 million working poor; 10 million poor kids in failing schools." Soon, making these costs seem trivial, baby boomers will retire. And the political system, distorted by money and special interests, refuses to seriously address these issues. Miller, a radio commentator and syndicated columnist, has a plan. With an increase of government spending of 2% of GDP, we can solve all these problems...
Gosh! 2%--it's such a tiny slice! Why can't we all just get along?
Well, perhaps because increasing government spending without increasing revenues is what the GOP has been doing for a long, long time--producing massive deficits which it then turns around and blames on Democrats. And because New Democrats like Barack Obama have pretty much given up on arguing that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization," as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. so neatly put it. Which is why it's so relevant to re-post a couple of charts that Chris put up during the week in "Federal taxes at historic lows":
The relentless decline in income tax rates--far more significant for the super-rich than for ordinary Americans--reveals Miller's pipe dream for the utter fantasy it is. Miller implicitly assumes a fixed difference between static liberal and conservative positions. But as with the Supreme Court, so with the tax rate--any failure to continue the relentless march to the right is considered "socialism" by conservatives, as would Miller's proposal, if anyone were to serious pursue it, say with health care reform (Publishers Weekly reviewed continued, precisely where it left off above...)
but it will require "grand bargains" between the parties, with Democrats agreeing to accept market-oriented programs if Republicans will generously fund them. For instance, Miller says many Republicans would support universal health coverage if Democrats would allow a plan relying on tax subsidies to cover private insurance policies.
Ha! It's only fair to note that Miller published this book in 2003, and that afterwards, Mitt Romney seemingly validated it... in Massachusetts! Of course, as Michael Dukakis can tell you, Massachusetts is not America, which is basically why this whole approach is detached from reality.
So, to summarize what's delusional about this sort of centrism:
I love Nancy Pelosi's reaction to Republican whining about her not giving them more of what they wanted: she said:
I didn't come here to be partisan. I didn't come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be nonpartisan, to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest... We reached out to the Republicans all along the way. And they know it... They just didn't have the ideas that had the support of the majority of the people in the Congress.
You tell them, Madam Speaker!
And did you notice that the Republicans were telling the press that Obama's concilliatory gestures actually emboldened them to all vote against the bill in the House? Now I'm sure they are saying that in part to embarrass and mess with him, and to try and drive a wedge between him and House Dems, so we shouldn't take them too seriously. But if this is how House Republicans want to play it, that's just fine: they can be the most powerless and impotent political force in America. No problem at all.
As we come off the high of the Inauguration, we have to get ready for what will be some very tough fights ahead. I have been doing some thinking about the challenges of this whole post-partisan theory of change, and wanted to spend some time addressing it strategically.
As you may know, I recently did an interview with Sam Stein at the Huffington Post about my new book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, where I talked about the fact that history doesn't really support the whole post-partisan, bring everybody together theory of change-that every big change in American history has only come after a very intense and rancorous battle to the end between progressives and conservatives. That caused some heartburn for some of my friends in the Obama White House, but I stick by what I said. There are a lot of nuances and layers to what is going on right now, and we need to do some real thinking about the strategy going forward.
The first draft of my diary, "Obama's 'Mandate' To Slash Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security" was written through the prism of a column by E.J. Dionne this past Thursday, "Audacity Without Ideology". Regardless of whether or not my fears expressed in that earlier diary prove well-founded, I believe that Dionne's article can help us unpack some of the misgivings I have about Obama's approach that I think many others share as well, albeit to varying degress.
In his column Dionne cited "at least three keys to understanding Obama's approach to (and avoidance of) ideology." First, "his simple joy in testing himself against those who disagree with him. Someone who knows the president-elect well says that he likes talking with philosophical adversaries more than with allies." Second, "Right now, being empirical is in the progressive interest," since rightwing policies since Reagan "have been based more on faith in their worldview than on empirical tests." But third, Obama believes in a non-ideological approach. that a "pragmatic" "non-ideological" path--a "grand bargain" with conservatives involving "sacrifice" for all will result in political "sustainability"--a solution that Republicans won't want to undo, when they return to power someday.
This last point was particularly salient in putting me deeply on guard about cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Indeed, I had an early draft done before I even saw the short notice in the Post that I eventually used instead of Dionne's piece. This is why I found it faintly humorous that several commentators jumped on my interpretation of the replacement piece from The Fix that I used instead. Whether or not my fears prove justified, Dionne's interpretation of what Obama is up to does reflect a widely perceived reality. And in politics, perceived realities all too often trump actual realities. So it's best to take them very seriously, no matter how silly they seem, or for that matter, no matter how silly you seem by doing so.
I parse my way through Dionne's "three keys" on the flip.
Yesterday, I wrote three diaries about different high-level Obama nominees--Admiral Dennis Blair for Director of National Intelligence, Sanjay Gupta Surgeon General , and Arne Duncan for Secretary of Education. In all three cases, one could have raised objections about their positions or policies they had backed, but such arguments have long been deflected with any number of handy tropes. Instead, by one means or another, I questioned the basic rationale that Obama, his apologists and applauders have raised again and again--the rationale of competence. Is Admiral Blair really competent if he disobeyed orders and continued encouraging the Indonesian military in its last-stand massacres in East Timor in 1999? Is Sanjay Gupta really competent for the post of Surgeon General, if he mangles facts and outright lies in attacking Michael Moore's Sicko, doesn't have a public health background, and has questionable conflicts of interest? Is Arne Duncan competent for the post of Sevretary of Education if he has no background at all as a classroom educator, and only a so-so record as a city-level "education reformer"?
In short, Obama's rationale of making appointments based on "competence" not ideology falls apart when examined carefully. This is not to claim that all his appointments are incompetent for the posts they are selected for. It is only to claim that the rationale does not hold across the board. Something else must be going on, and the obvious candidate for that is, rather obviously, insider politics-as-usual. Where competence is compatible with insider-politics-as-usual, we get competence as a special bonus. Where it is not, we get bupkis.
Mark Matson, one of the most thoughful Obamaphile commentators here at Open Left, posted a quick hit overnight, excerpting a recent Marc Ambinder post, "Obama And A New Liberal Consensus". It's worth taking a closer look at, because I really do think it makes the best case I've seen for Obama, and in turn, this also helps sharpen the focus of criticism. This is not unfamiliar territory, of course. But Mark has a good eye for a good presentation. Here's his excerpt, which he calls "quite thought provoking":
Some Democrats are wary of Obama's professed bipartisanship. But there's been no evidence that his views are torn between the left and the right; he is clearly putting forth a progressive, or liberal, agenda. So, rather than a Democrat bringing in a bunch of Republicans to govern by splitting the baby between the two sides, it appears that we have a case of a Democrat bringing in Republicans to put a bipartisan face on progressive policy, shades of, say, George Bush bringing in Ted Kennedy to put a bipartisan face on "compassionate conservatism."
...
But if he taps some of the most well-known Republicans in America to serve in his administration, it will be tougher for conservative Republicans who are opposed in principle to Obama's agenda. Even the Republicans are Democrats these days, is what the impression would be. In other words, liberal consensus.
...
He seems to want to mainstream Democratic philosophies and the Democratic worldview, rather than focusing on pure party-building (though he's certainly built up the party as well). It's a long-term strategy, and a far more ambitious one than people seem to realize.
It's ironic that Chris Bowers decided to post about the advantages of partisanship this morning because I have been thinking more and more about the advantages of post-partisanship. It's not that I really disagree with most of what Bowers (or Yglesias) has to say about the issue, but I am looking to the immediate future and I think their analysis is based on the recent past.
STATE BLOGS
