I want to make a couple of points today. First, let’s look at a bit from Ron Brownstein on what distinguishes today’s Democratic Party from the party of 1994.
Today, Democrats face much the same electoral challenge as they did then: unyielding opposition from congressional Republicans and a growing grassroots conservative backlash. But after some wavering, Democrats this time have mostly responded by closing ranks, especially in the dramatic drive to complete health care reform. Democrats remain divided on immigration, climate change, and some other issues, but they have united enough to make this arguably the most productive legislative session for any Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson.
I don’t think it is even arguable, but if you want to find a more productive legislative session in either Carter or Clinton’s terms in office, please provide some links and justification.
Next, I want to look at a bit from Chris Bowers, who examined the size of public sector spending on social programs as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Since fiscal year 2007, the last budgetary year of Republican trifecta governance in Washington, D.C., total public sector spending on social programs (that is, public spending that does not include defense, criminal justice, interest payments, or general government administration) has increased by 7.66% of GDP. The only other time in American history where social program spending increased by that amount was from 1929 to 1939, when it increased by 7.86% of GDP. Even during the Great Society expansion of 1961 to 1972, total public sector program spending only increased by 5.11% of GDP.
Never before have the people watched with such an intense microscope the daily doings of Washington. We know about backroom deals before they can even be signed into law. We’re twittering with the White House press secretary and participating on conference calls with the president’s advisers (or reading articles from ordinary citizens who sat on those calls). We’re way deep into the sausage-making of legislation, even lobbying votes at the committee level. This is all positive for transparency and good government and responsiveness to the party base, but it has its downside. The downside is that the ugly details and the disappointing compromises and the broken promises become so prominent in our thinking that we can lose a bit of perspective. We are in the midst of the most successful Democratically-controlled Congress since LBJ left office, and the biggest boost in social spending since FDR was leading the country through the New Deal reforms. And, so many of us are still disgruntled. But Chris has something to say about keeping perspective.
Progressives didn’t get close to everything we wanted, and it sure as hell isn’t the job of progressives to be satisfied or happy. However, [David] Frum is absolutely right that conservatives have still suffered a crushing defeat that is highly unlikely to ever be reversed. Even if some of the ideas in the health reform bill came from Republicans, the idea of expanding public sector spending on social programs most definitely did not. Over the past four years, public sector spending on social programs has increased by an amount equivalent to, or greater than, the New Deal and the Great Society. We have a long way to go, but it is still a generational achievement to be proud of.
Now, here’s the thing. While it might not be the job of progressives to be satisfied, I see nothing wrong with being happy. It’s just a matter of perspective.
