The Democratic Party desperately shoved through a debt deal that manages to be wildly unpopular with the American public, disastrous to economic growth and job creation and, not incidentally, opposed to every core principle of shared sacrifice that liberals supposedly hold dear. This will go down in history as the moment Democratic liberalism died. Finally brought down by the repeated blows from the far Right? No. The fatal wounds were entirely self-inflicted.
The vast majority of Americans favor raising taxes on the very rich and oppose cuts to Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Let me repeat that. The vast majority of Americans favor raising taxes. That includes majorities of Independents and Republicans. Nonetheless, Obama refused to force-feed the Republicans heaping spoonfuls of tax increase peas with a glass of persuasive poling on the side to wash it down. Instead we got the proverbial shit sandwich, which given that no one is happy with the deal and partisanship is even greater now as a result, may have solved the economic crisis but enshrined a political one. Even with the prevailing winds of public opinion strongly at their back, Democrats caved to Republican threats and grandstanding.
Of course, the fact that raising the debt ceiling was coupled with deficit cuts was a Democratic capitulation from the start. The wise and independent Economic Policy Institute writes in its post-mortem:
This proposed debt ceiling deal tentatively concludes a needlessly manufactured crisis and will do great harm to our nation. The debt we are undertaking now and scheduled to undertake over the next ten years is solely the product of past decisions (primarily unfunded wars, an unfunded prescription drug benefit and two rounds of tax cuts under President George W. Bush) and the recession-related revenue losses caused by the financial crisis generated by financial deregulation and weak oversight…. There is no economic necessity to undertake spending cuts or deficit reduction plans at this point in the economic recovery, when high unemployment is expected to persist for several more years. Jobs should be the priority and jobs are the path to get our nation’s fiscal situation to a responsible place.
In other words, what’s needed to cure our economic stagnation is not spending cuts that will further cripple the middle class but more spending on infrastructure and jobs to kick start the future. Yet at precisely the moment that we should have been talking about spending more instead of cutting spending, Republicans pigeonholed the political conversation into slashing Social Security, food stamps and Medicare. Democrats agreed to play ball on Republican’s ideological home field. And then kicked the ball through the other side’s goal. It is, unfortunately, my liberal suckers thesis played out to the letter.
I voted for Barack Obama. I volunteered to help him win. And yes, I was swept up by the fantastical Camelot of hopes and dreams. But like many progressives, I’m reminded today that 2008 was about the mission, not the man. And if we cling to the hope that Barack Obama, as one of the few charismatic leaders on our side, might any minute now take up the mantle of progressive ideals that he has so clearly eschewed so far, that is a reflection less on his power over us than our own power of self-delusion and desperation.
Michael Tomasky brilliantly observes that while Republicans fear their base in the sense that they treat them with respect and kid gloves. Democrats fear being associated with their base and thus make “aggressive public moves to demonstrate that they aren’t really like their base.” Which is all the more absurd — or pathetic, really — given that the Republican base is in fact an extreme fringe while the Democratic base represents a very large, very mainstream segment of America. More voters stayed home in the 2010 mid-term elections than voted, and yet the Tea Party has managed to hold a powerful ideological sway not only over the Republican establishment but, clearly, President Obama and many Democrats. The Tea Party is an audacious fringe with mainstream influence. Meanwhile, progressives represent the moral mainstream yet have barely fringe influence.
I’m sick of being taken for granted, in general but especially when something like basic tax increases on the very rich are not only good for our economic future but something that the American people overwhelmingly support. If the President isn’t listening to us now, when will he? Obama didn’t just stab Democratic liberalism in the back — he may have cut himself off from his base permanently.
If you like it, share it!
8 Responses to The Death Of Democratic Liberalism
Leave a Reply
NEW YORK TIMES PROFILE
SOCIALIZE WITH ME!
TV DOESN’T PAY THE BILLS
Make a tax-deductible contribution via our fiscal sponsor, the Grassroots Policy Project
Sally, you may very well have hit the nail on the head. Sadly, if Obama can’t or won’t follow the wills of the voting majority on something as simple as increasing revenue via tax increases on those that can most afford it, then another leader must be found. And then we will all have to do exactly what we did in ’08 in that he get out the vote, work long hours and inform, inform, inform to get that person elected. We did it before and we can do it again. Excellent piece.
George K,
I respect your input but I think your efforts at doing the right thing are misdirected.
Our president campaigned and was elected on issues he promised to correct. Without the cooperation of the Congress, his hands will always be tied. The notion of “compromise” with our politicians is a non-starter. What about doing the right thing, avoiding negative propaganda, voter manipulation and our politican’s personal and political agendas? What really does rule in Washington?
What different outcomes do you expect with the present federal atmosphere?
This president and his agenda was elected in a most remarkable way. A leader must lead and the rest of us should co-operate. This is, after all, our agenda, too.
You want to elect someone else? How do you expect to find a more qualified, more capable, more sincere, more well-rounded and less scandalised individual than who is already on the job?
Rather, do we need a meaningful plan (that has not yet been brought to light) for us citizens to rally around instead sitting on our collective dead asses and whining?
George, what per-centage of us, do you think, is willing to stand up and make enough changes in their personal lives to do the right thing?
Sally Kohn,
Thought you were on vacation. What happened to August twelve?
I kinda knew that today’s Senate vote would get your attention enough to write another article. After last night’s House plan and vote, I pictured you up in the wee hours pounding out today’s article.
This debt ceiling driven “settlement” amongst our highest paid and highly trusted federal employees is nothing less than a political farce!
I agree that “The fatal wounds were entirely self-inflicted”. My reasoning looks different in one significant way. You seem to see change only possible from “within” the existing system and I see meaningful change only possible from “without”.
Radical change? No doubt. Of course, I cannot read your mind but I do appreciate your mindset in yearning for all folks to do the right and reasonable thing.
In light of that I postulate:
Politics and the way our politicians function at the federal level are neither reasonable nor right! What if us citizens had a more direct input in the decision-making process? What if our elected officials were told what to on any given issue and expected to carry out the people’s wishes? They are, after all, our employees and we are their employers. At this point in our history, is this relationship radically and harmfully upside down?
What if there was NO room for legislator’s interpretation of the voter’s wishes? What if the expected input from them was facts rather than opinion? What if their only public expectation and duty was the people’s business? What if their personal or political agendas were not welcomed while not on the job? What if voter dissatisfaction with their actions did not have to wait for the next election to replace them? What if we employed present technology to have voting as often as needed without the current costs and complications now in play?
If you came across a plan that allowed for us citizens to have the proper input AND control over our collective destiny while shunning those who choose political manipulation and/or controlling of various forms of the media for propagandizing purposes, would you do anything?
Hypothetical questions for sure/ for now. But what if none of these questions were and such a plan did exist? Would you be willing to make enough changes in your thinking and actions to help bring a plan into being? Do you think enough of us Americans would make enough changes in their own lives to make this happen?
I wonder.
With respect,
David Zane Fleisher
I totally agree. I voted for Obama and have been deeply disappointed in his performance. Obama is just being bullied into a corner. I wish he and the Democrats had formed a complex “attack plan” to wiggle their way through all the republican crap and win with their interests and ideas in all of the bills. I don’t think that the Democrats know what their interests are. So annoying to be represented by a bunch of nobodys.
You desperately need an education on the Constitution and the demonstrable evils of statism/collectivism. Your views are just so boring and passé, like so many of the blowhards who inhabit our universities. How refreshing it would be to hear a new and refreshing viewpoint instead of the same old regurgitation of the poxy old Karl Marx canards.
Sally,
It must be really convenient to be able to base your ideas on fictitious history. You said on the O’Reilly Factor tonight that the New Deal is a great model for how to turn an economy around. Look at unemployment rates during the New Deal. They stayed high until we began to gear up for WWII. I don’t believe that any of us want to use building up the military as a way to put people back to work. To FDR’s credit, he did inspire hope but he did not fix the problem. He was reelected because he connected with people, not because he actually made the economy better. If we had a bigger stimulus package like you suggest, the only thing that would be different today is that we would have hit the debt limit faster. Can you give another example where big government spending lifted an economy out of a recession? How did it work for Jimmy Carter?
I don’t even know where to start… You have absolutely no concept of
economics or how the economy actually works. Your beloved Keynesian
model has failed every time, yet you still irrationally cling to it. The
tax increases that you support will hurt the economy even more so than
your failed policies already have. The illusory cuts to the budget were
not nearly enough, but somehow you believe they will hurt the middle
class. Government spending has crippled the economy and further
stagnated growth by mis-allocating resources and stopping the free
market from naturally realigning itself which would bring actual growth
(not false growth created by the Federal Reserve which got us into this
mess in the first place). If you actually knew anything about the New
Deal and the Great Depression, you would know that the New Deal was
terrible. Massive government spending never worked and never will. Your
absurd views are the exact reason we are in this debt mess in the
first place. If you truly believe in your policies, then you have no
concept of reality and are a complete and utter moron.
Sally, it is sad that this old Kensyan economic philosophy still survives today. The same stimulus during the 1930′s led to a deeper, longer lasting depression. Today’s cycle proves this correct. take the President Coolidge years and observe how limiting the government in it’s spending and regulation caused the roaring 20′s. Now before you think you have me with how the 1929 stock market crash was “caused” by excessive spending during the 20′s, remember that “smoot holly” and Hoovers government expansion took the economy in the other direction, ie away from prosperity. The free market will always correct itself without government help. A simple way to put it is, “The government needs us, we don’t need the government” Nearly everything you said was incorrect and was based on a socialistic/communist model. If government could create jobs, then we would be overwhelmed today, if this worked, ,then the Soviet Union would be the premier world super power, not the USA. It is obvious you don’t want facts or history to prevent your opinion from being voiced, so I must assume you want top down control with very little say in our lives. You work against the natural human spirit of liberty in favor of tyranny. When I said the government needs us,
the point is that gov’t cannot create jobs or wealth, so it must take from us, the taxpayer. If I followed the governments thinking about jobs, then I would take money from my neighbor, spend it, then repeat. Though someone would get the money and prosper, my neighbor would go broke, I would actually never create anything new or lasting, only a redistribution of wealth. Since nothing of lasting value was achieved during my transaction, it would all be short term and pointless. If I invented something though, investors would invest, people would be employed and buyers would buy, ie a company would be born and last without taking from someone who does not wish to give or even care.