Paul Krguman repeats his call for Democrats to REJECT, to STOP selling their identity out to the "MUDDLED MIDDLE" (copyright right here!) voters "in the heartland" who often VOTE AGAINST THEIR OWN ECONOMIC INTERESTS.
This is of course because the right-wing.... the Reactionary political organizations and institutions of the wealthy - have mastered the art of IDENTITY POLITICS, of "us versus them", of playing one group against another; of DIVIDE and CONQUER.
It is the "WHAT's THE MATTER WITH KANSAS?" syndrome. Once the railways were built, giving midwestern farmers access to the great markets of large, eastern cities, (and, as Kevin Phillips points out in his book, "Wealth and Democracy", those great railroad fortunes were built with cheap land from the government... i.e. huge government subsidies to well-connected industrialists), those rail-roads became the center of fierce battles for CONSOLIDATION and CONTROL. Those huge companies DID_NOT_LIKE COMPETITION.... they preferred MONOPOLY CONTROL of the markets. Once the dust of the rail-road consolidation wars had settled, the winning monopoly could FIX grain shipment prices, telling farmers "TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT." A western farmer had one of two choices.... let his grain ROT in the fields or silos, or pay the rail-road company what they wanted. Over several decades of such monopolistic control and predatory pricing, the Midwest BECAME A HOTBED of POPULISM, at times radical populism.
To BREAK THE BACK of SHIPPING MONOPOLIES who had a DEATH GRIP on western farmers..... to break the back of electric conglomerates who DID NOT WANT TO RUN COSTLY POWERLINES TO RURAL communities.... to break the back of Wall St. financiers who took bump-and-dump stock schemes as their right.... ALL THOSE PROGRAMS which Americans (especially rural and "heartland) today TAKE FOR GRANTED, REQUIRED PARTISAN, in-your-face, SMASH-MOUTH politics.
TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY to rural Texas, Congressman & Senator Lyndon B Johnson had to TAKE ON THE ELECTRIC CONGLOMERATES, who RESISTED public, subsidized electric distribution. Johnson allied himself with two German-Texas contractors, Brown and Root, and by creating jobs for workers in those huge electrification and dam projects, Johnson was able to gain enough support to ram his "LIBERAL" if not "SOCIALIST" policies through in Texas, especially during the DEPRESSION years when "liberalism" was extremely popular in Texas. Of course, once a Democratic president and "liberal," socialistic policies had helped guide America out of the Great Depression and through to success in World War II, millions of Texas voters returned to the "conservative", REACTIONARY policies that HAD LANDED TEXAS and America IN THE GREAT DEPRESSION in the first place!
Today, every Democratic senator is the chairman and CEO of a million-dollar company, his or her own re-election campaign. Senators like Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein may pose as Democrats, but they have not been articulating exactly what it is that sets them apart from the reactionary Bush-Cheney Republicans.
It should be remembered, that Republicans won control of the "Super-Trifecta" - control of the House, the Senate, the White House, the US courts and Supreme Court, federal agencies, and much of the "4th Estate" (formerly "liberal media) BY BEING EXTREMELY PARTISAN, by THROWING THEIR identity-groups RED MEAT.
Given that much of the Republican "Red Meat" media- and PR spin was SHEER PROPAGANDA - the Republicans, with scandals like Jeff Ganon, Mark Foley, Jeff Ganon, and Ted Haggard were just as bad as they like to portray "degenerate liberals," and in economic/fiscal policy, President Bush has presided over the greatest DEFICITS in US history.
Democratic "leaders" OWE IT TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS and voters to HIGHLIGHT the REACTIONARY, steal-from-the-poor to give-to-the-rich agenda of the Republicans, and to engage in some good old SMASH MOUTH, "You are NOT STEALING FROM BABIES on OUR watch!" partisanship.
FORGET ABOUT BUSH—AND THE MIDDLE GROUND.
By Paul Krugman
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2007
http://www.slate.com/id/2180178
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.
