After reading Mike's diary, "A Simple Test", I found myself agreeing with the broad thrust of it, that Obama needs to move left-as FDR did, after his initial '100 Days'-guided most simply by the test, "does it benefit poor and middle class people, or does it benefit Goldman and Morgan?". Yet, at the same time, I found myself disagreeing that this simple test is necessarily enough. It's certainly a good starting point, and given that no legislation is ever perfect, and that time and energy spent on one thing is taken away from another, that test may well be enough for most legislation in most circumstances. But we should be clear that ideally more is required, and we should be clear just what that is, so that even when we don't pursue it, we know precisely what it is that we are foregoing. And so I present my three-part test:
(1) Mike's Simple Test:
who does it benefit the most, and who does it benefit first? If the main or biggest beneficiary is the big majority of poor and middle income people, I rate it a success. If the first and biggest beneficiaries are the wealthy and powerful, then I rate it a failure
(2) The Marine Test: Who did it leave behind on the battlefield? Who could have been helped who was not helped? Particularly when more was clearly achievable. If it failed to help a substantial number of poor and middle income people, then it was failure, even if it passed Mike's Simple Test-unless there is a clear and credible plan and a path forward to do more to help those people, and there is the political will to pass legislation that achieves the unmet goal.
(3) The Gramsci Test: Did it help change the direction of basic operating assumptions for future political struggles in a more progressive direction? If so, rate it a success. If it missed a rare opening, created new obstacles, or needlessly reinforced conservative assumptions, it is a failure.
Now, let me emphasize again, I am not suggesting that all three tests should apply to every piece of legislation, just because they could be applied. First of all, as already noted, there are practical trade-offs to be considered. Second, there are significant differences in the opportunities presented at different times. But when we're talking about major pieces of legislation, such as the stimulus, or the health care reform, then it seems entirely proper to employ all three tests. We might, in the end, decide to support legislation that failed one or more of the tests, but at least we would support it having a much more realistic sense of the cost involved.
On the flip, I consider what difference this might make in evaluating the stimulus and health care reform-with particular attention to the former, in light of new statistics out about the state of state finances. By sharpening critical awareness of what happened with the stimulus, perhaps we can do better with health care and global warming.
I have always had a simple test for any public policy: who does it benefit the most, and who does it benefit first? If the main or biggest beneficiary is the big majority of poor and middle income people, I rate it a success. If the first and biggest beneficiaries are the wealthy and powerful, then I rate it a failure- after all, they generally do just fine without special benefits from the government. And the who-it-benefits-first thing is a critical part of the equation, because as John Maynard Keynes famously said, in the long run we are all dead. The reality is that policy, politics, other unexpected circumstances change too rapidly in this country that if poor and middle income folks are not benefiting early from some policy change, they probably aren't going to benefit at all (See trickle down economics in general as an example of what I mean.)
By this simple test, even though it is now clear that the stimulus package passed earlier this year was clearly too small, I still rate it a success in some important ways. It has saved the jobs of a lot of teachers, firefighters, police officers, social workers, and others doing important work, and it has created new jobs in the environment, health care, science, technology, the arts, construction, and road building.
I wanted to let y'all know that not only will I be at Netroots Nation in Pittsburgh this year, but I will be returning to the OpenLeft pub trivia team with several of our other front-pagers, ensuring our sound victory. Obscure questions about the 1884 election FTW.
Aside from that, I'll be doing two discussions. The first is I'll be co-moderating a town hall on health care reform with Gov. Dean, (who just released his new book on that very topic). Friday, August 14th, 9-10:15 am.
The second is that I'll be discussing the financial system and economic crisis with Ian Welsh and my friends Digby and Bob Kuttner, moderated by Jay Ackroyd. Not one to miss. Saturday August 15th, 3-4:15 in room 318.
We'll also be doing an OpenLeft caucus, date/location TBA.
I'm looking forward to meeting many of y'all in person. Click here to register.
