Try to imagine how you would have felt about the recent presidential election if President Obama had done some of the following things:
1) suggested in a joking manner that Mitt Romney wasn’t a legitimate presidential contender because his father was born in Mexico, and done nothing to criticize people who made this argument in a non-joking manner.
2) argued that he had actually followed Mitt Romney’s advice on the auto bailout.
3) argued that he alone had rescued Wall Street and that Bush had nothing to do with TARP.
4) wrongly accused Mitt Romney of going on an Apology Tour of Europe and Israel.
5) denied that Mitt Romney had created a health care system in Massachusetts.
I could go on at length. My point is that it would have been harder to support the president’s reelection if he had shown a complete contempt for the truth, even if we thought he was scoring political points in the process.
One of the reasons I value voices like Glenn Greenwald and Arthur Gilroy is because they are gadflies who needle us about the areas where our own political party is doing things that are hard to defend and that can make us complicit in deceitful rhetoric. If we aren’t aware of these shortcomings, we can begin to lose our moral compass.
What I want to point out, however, is that the Republican Party has already morally compromised their entire political movement through their contempt for the truth. Every day, they are making their supporters into worse people because they are teaching them that the truth doesn’t matter. We’re not immune from this same problem and we need to be vigilant about it. But deceit is not central to our political strategy.
On some level, American politics is a zero-sum game. I think you ultimately have to make a decision about which side you are on, and you have to recognize that priority number one is beating the other side while priority number two is working to improve the side you’ve chosen.
I definitely see this as the case for people who choose the left. That’s because I cannot think of one single issue which would be better and more justly handled by the right.
Even though I am pretty much a down-the-line progressive on the issues, almost every disagreement I have with progressives is about the difference in where we put our priorities. For me, I am engaged in a lifelong war against reactionary anti-science xenophobic religious fundamentalists who show fascist tendencies and rely on Wall Street money. Fighting for progressive values within the Democratic Party is very important to me, but will always take second place.
It’s not a no-brainer. In 2000, we had a choice between Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman for vice-president. I didn’t make up my mind to vote for Gore until the Sunday before the election. I ultimately decided that Gore respected and understood science and technology and that his opponents would start a war in Iraq and bankrupt the country.
If you wanted to find a worse vice-presidential candidate than Dick Cheney, John Edwards would be about as good as you could do. But I’d vote for him again over Dick Cheney, because Dick Cheney was a war criminal, not a philanderer.
For me, I recognized something was desperately wrong when the Republicans impeached Clinton despite the public’s clear preference that they merely censure him. That was the beginning. I soon realized that we were really in a war between the Enlightenment values that founded this country and a bunch of lunatics who were miseducated and misguided by a bunch of anti-democratic plutocrats.
I don’t like it when my side falls short, morally or otherwise, but I never take my eyes off the the direst threat.
Well said, Booman. I think it’s appropriate to both criticize and support the Democratic Party, because the alternatives are much worse. I think progressives who leave the party over single issues are part of the problem as well. I don’t believe “my party, right or wrong,” but I do believe, as you so perfectly expressed, that it’s about supporting who would do the better job. And we’ve seen that elections aren’t about individuals – they are about party power. That’s why supporting third-party candidates, to me, isn’t the answer. Anyway, well said. I haven’t logged in here in a while – but I felt compelled to respond with kudos.
I agree with everything you say and find it well stated, and would only one point–that fighting for progressive values within the Democratic party and fighting to beat Republicans are not necessarily always mutually exclusive. As an example, when some progressives’ were critical of what they though were shortcomings in healthcare reform, part of the reason was they felt that if the reform was more successful in helping people, it would be more popular, and in the long run result in more Democrats being elected. Whether or not they were misguided in this, I don’t think it’s entirely a matter of supporting progressive values on the one hand hand beating Republicans on the other. The latter will certainly help with the former, and the former can arguably help with the latter.
I support policies that SHOULD both be attractive to other people, and result in more Democrats being elected. This is the whole point of a party. The party must have policies that help people. This is not pandering. This is what politics is all about. The point is to define laws, policies, and a government agenda which helps the maximum number of persons.
They use a just lie strategy in the budget negotiations too. Its all they are capable of doing just lie and claim that Obama is being intransigent.
No deal may bring recession next year. This does not have to happen. Its anarchy in the Repug caucus thats for sure.
Damn. I had a long comment written and then Windows forced a shutdown for some technical updates even though I had opted to postpone it and so I lost everything I had written. I feel as if Bill Gates has violated my civil right to choose when to update and has thrashed my brilliant comment in the process!
Anyway, the shorter version.
Brilliant and concise exposition of a coherent political philosophy, Booman, and I agree with the above comments too.
The reason I sometimes disagree with you is that politics sometimes doesn’t follow a simple left-right spectrum with the best strategy being to try to move the outcome slightly to the left.
Take the fiscal cliff negotiations for example. Obama is trying to achieve an outcome somewhere to the left of Republican demands, but this, even if achieved, could be disastrous in both economic and political terms. Please let me explain.
I am neo-keynesian and modern monetary theorist in economic terms. If these positions are correct, the optimal economic strategy is actually well to the left of Obama: He should be minting trillion dollar coins to retrospectively pay for the Afghan/Iraqi wars and thus take the debt ceiling out of play altogether. Modern Monetary theory states that Governments print/mint money to pay for their programs, and tax people to “retire” money out of circulation, as otherwise – in the long run – printing endless money without retiring most of it would result in inflation.
The national debt is actually a bit of an accounting scam caused by a failure to print enough money to pay for government programs and instead borrowing previously created money from the markets (and paying rich people interest for doing nothing but the privilege of siting on the money the Government has previously printed).
Printing more money (rather than borrowing it and creating a higher national debt) is actually the right thing to do at a time of recession when there is under-capacity utilization of the economy. Inflation simply isn’t an issue at the moment – or at least a much smaller issue than unemployment – and has, in any case, the beneficial effect of eroding the value of the stockpile of inherited/previously earned wealth of rich and thus reducing wealth inequality because it effects the rich more than the poor. That is why the rich hate it so.
Gross wealth inequality – quite apart from being unjust – is actually economically inefficient in that it results in reduced effective demand in the economy, and reduces capacity potential growth in the economy by leaving many people under educated/trained/employed and thus less productive.
In the long run, of course, and particularly when the economy grows close to full capacity, the money supply has to be reduced to reduce inflation either through increased taxes, reduced expenditure, or increased interest rates, but that is simply not where the economy is at, at the moment.
So what is Obama doing wrong by negotiating with Republicans? Left to there own devices, the Republicans would crash the economy (even worse than Bush did) by pursuing austerity policies at a time of recession. Obama may lessen the impact of this somewhat by reducing the level of austerity, but the bottom line is that the overall outcome will still be a very depressed economy for which Obama and Democrats will be blamed – as they will be for any concessions on social welfare or health care which they make.
A tiny stimulus package which doesn’t work simply makes the whole idea of stimulus look a ridiculous. In fact the last stimulus package worked very well and was nearly big enough to reflate the economy, but was successfully branded a failure in political terms by the Republicans because it didn’t quite succeed. The problem was that it was too small, not too big, but that doesn’t matter – Keynesianism was further discredited.
If Obama wants to be a successful President he simply HAS to reflate the economy and that means minting money, protecting entitlement program, reducing household debt and investing in infrastructure. No one will care, in 2 years time, that he was all bipartisan and keen on “uniting” the country if the outcome is an economic disaster. He will be blamed, and rightly so, even if everything he did wrong was the result of Republican pressure.
Leadership sometimes means not being afraid to go against the current political consensus, and the acid test is not what political “success” he achieves not by compromising, but what the economy looks like in two years time. It is sometimes said that reality has a liberal bias. At the moment it has a hard left bias and I say that as a former senior executive in one of the largest global corporates in the world.
Republicans think they can hold the President to ransom by threatening to thrash the economy if he doesn’t cut entitlement programs. In fact he can hold them for ransom in precisely the opposite was, by threatening to mint almost unlimited money. At the moment he would actually have many in big business on his side, as they, too, badly need the economy to be reflated. People confuse the Republican donor base with big business more generally, when it is actually limited to a relatively small segment of old money which wants to protect its power base against new money coming through – new money which is too focused on actually creating wealth to be as politically engaged.
The reason Republicans are so stupid is because they are the ones who can’t make money even when they have everything in their favour – historically low taxes, relative wage rates, union bargaining power, interest rates and so much capital shloshing around the investment system, that “investors” actually accept negative interest rates if the Government will keep it safe for them. If they were bright they would be creating millions of new jobs with good entrepreneurship. It is because they inherited most of their wealth and never had to work hard or learn hard that they are so stupid. A $Million dollars given to poor people actually creates far more jobs because they don’t spend it abroad, get educated with it, and invest it locally.
So Obama really needs to think completely outside the box ans stop playing party games. Incremental change which makes things incrementally worse is a recipe for the destruction of the Obama/Democrat brand and total failure in the longer run. It is time for some real leadership. If the Republicans won’t extend unemployment benefits, give people “tax credits” or zero interest loans instead and reflate the economy as well as ameliorating poverty. In those cases the debt is on the books of the individuals and not the government in any case. The debt can always be forgiven when Dems get a Congressional majority and add to the Republican paranoia about Democrats winning because they give people stuff. Yes they do. They do what Government are supposed to do, which is to govern in the interests of the vast majority of the people, not just the plutocrats and “job creators” who are anything but.
Now why is that so hard to understand?
Frank, I really cannot take the trillion dollar coin argument seriously, at all. It may be that the there is a loophole or interpretation of the law that technically would allow the president to do that, but it was not intentionally created. The Federal Reserve already serves this purpose and there are laws that were intentional that regulate what they do.
A technicality, certainly, but a fortuitous one, and a necessary one if Obama’s back is to the wall – as it probably will be. The Fed basically represents the banks and is not a publicly elected entity. It is for the Executive and Congress to decide how the Government is funded, and, in this case, the Executive have, whether intentionally or not, been given a get out of jail free card.
The debt ceiling was never intended to act as a brake on expenditure otherwise approved by congress either. Given the US is constitutionally debarred from defaulting, one or the other must go – as the Debt ceiling contradicts otherwise properly Congressional approved expenditure. The trillion Coin option is then the only way for the President to obey BOTH the Congresses’ previously approved budgets/expenditures and the debt ceiling.
Doesn’t the Constitution give Congress the power to coin money? Doesn’t that mean the House has to authorize the Trillion-dollar coin?
I think arguing that by appropriating more money than received in taxes Congress has de facto raised the debt limit is a better legal argument.
Your post is chock-full-o’ disconnects.
I’m not sure why you’re talking about an election that was 12 years ago— and an election which by the way, Gore totally blew because of his stupidity/poor campaign strategy.
But I think I see what you’re attempting to do: prove there is a significant difference between the “two” political parties.. however, obviously when it comes to numerous major policy issues, there is ZERO difference between the “two” political parties.
thus your job here is rather difficult.
when it comes to science and technology, the democrats aren’t doing much of anything to prove they are significantly different from/better than the repugs.
NASA funding got cut under Obama.
The “democrats” in congress are doing ZERO in regard to smart grid technology and the obvious improvements we need to our nation’s infrastructure.
Obama’s budget suggests $50 Billion for infrastructure; a complete joke. Gov. Cuomo just requested $30 billion from the federal government for infrastructure repair for New York, to repair damage from Hurricane Sandy. If one state needs $30 Billion, obviously $50 Billion is woefully inadequate.
Continuing evaluations of our nation’s infrastrucure by the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) resulted in a grade “D”, with “F” being failure– and the ASCE estimates an expediture of $2 Trillion dollars is needed to repair/upgrade our infrastructure.
Numerous credible economists are on record stating now is the WRONG time for austerity– but that is exactly what Obama and the “democrats” in congress intend to do, except of course when it comes to our hideously bloated defense budget.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/nyregion/cuomo-to-seek-30-billion-in-aid-for-storm-relief.html?_r=
0
Booman writes:
OK. I am not exactly “imagining” here, but if the opposition was of a higher quality than the tomato cans that he has faced so far I would believe even more deeply that the fix is permanently in regarding the presidency of the United States.
This whole article of yours only makes good sense if you step back a notch and look at the few possible ways that the fixers can actually establish a fix. Short of a multi-year effort to build a new party (or at least legitimize through massive media coverage an existing minor party) they can only choose from one or the other or our UniParty duopoly. DemRats or RatPubs, that’s all she wrote. You…and I as well…believe that the Democratic Party as it stands today is overall a better choice on any number of levels. Long story short, it represents the inevitable demographic future of the United States rather than the demographic past that controls the Republican Party.
But the corporate fixers are leery of giving up their power to control both parties. What if the Dems got so strong that no matter what the corporate controllers threatened, did or said the working Democratic base might pass all kinds of laws that do not agree with the totally capitalist philosophy that lies behind the actions of the corporate-owned and controlled Permanent Government.
You write: “Fighting for progressive values within the Democratic Party is very important to me, but will always take second place.” That is very…practical….of you, Booman, but I wonder if you really understand the mechanics behind that practicality.
Practically speaking, if real “progressive values” (Whatever that phrase might really mean to you.) were truly established as the main strategic goals of the Democratic Party and it nominated someone who would not play the UniParty/PermaGov game, the fix would one way or another have to be operated against that candidate. And that could get very nasty. There’s more than one way to skin a cat or fix an election. They “fixed” JFK when he crossed them and things threatened to get a little out of hand, remember? He got too popular; they disappeared him the old-fashioned way and the next thing we knew it was Nixon fixin’ time and the tomato can was a Democrat.
So go right ahead wif your bad self, Booman. Do whatcha gotta.
But always remember…as long as the fixers are in power, change will be gradual and “progress” will be slow.
Very, very slow.
Meanwhile, the universe continues to speed up. Ask the physicists. They’ll tell you. Its expansion is accelerating. On our level, that means that evolution is accelerating. Bet on it. Just as the RatPub base is looking more and more to us like a bunch of dinosaurs headed for the tarpits, the continuing acceleration of the rest of the world makes our own pace look dinosaur-like. Eventually the U.S. will have to shake off the fixers or else it will become the Republican Party of the international world.
Headed for the tarpits of history.
Is a puzzlement, Booman; I’ll grant you that. Too fast and you get “fixed.” Too slow and you get fossilized.
UH oh!!!
Where’s Goldilocks when you really need her?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Later…
AG
Well said Boo Man. It’s a very pragmatic deal for me: whose policies will help the most people? Although I have problems with the Dems, they remain the only game in town for me, year after year, decade after decade. I wish they could stand together more often to face the foe head on, and do the squabbling in private. They are who they are though. The diversity of political thought that is characteristic of their caucus and is in many ways a strenght, can get in the way when push comes to shove.
well, as Saint Raygun noted “politics and morality are inseparable”.
I have always seen the removal of the Fairness Doctrine as the first shot across the bow in terms of their actively waging a war against reality/the truth, but the plans for it pre-date that. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/history-political-lying?page=2 More than anything, what has facilitated their success (that the elimination of the FD dovetailed nicely with) was the media acquistitions by rightwingnut interests during the Raygun years, and made worse by the corppratist-lite Bill Clinton with the Telecommunications act of 1996. And of course, the failure of those on the left to keep up, also plays a major role in our Post-Truth society. It all has resulted in the death of the concept of “agreed upon facts”, which was their goal from the onset, and is what onviously remains dead today.
Given that political wars are really wars over morality, the “the ends justify the means” approach the rightwingers use, representing the complete abandonment of the 9th commnandment as it does, makes most of their BS immoral even by the standards they claim to uphold in this Judeo-Xtian nation they claim to be the paragons of.
This is why I’ve never thought an analysis of the “rightwing brain” and causes for their collective and individual mental maladies as sought by Chris Mooney, is all that complicated. Their ever-escalating rejection and denials of the truth and reality is nothing more than a reaction to their awareness that they can no longer win by honest means with what they have long had to sell. And of course, this also explains the shamelessness with which they continue in this shameful state, which is simply an effort to delay the inevitable which now begins to unfold as all “oh what a tangled…” schemes do. A single Jim Jones need not dispense the kool-aid for the dynamics of a cult to take hold and be practiced.
It’s been a decades long and a concerted effort on the part of the rightwingnut masterminds that has led to adoption and policy choices of the center/right kind in DC in the midst of this center/left nation of ours, but the gig is just about up. Meanwhile, if you look at the wealth inequality and the mountains of dough their monied masters have been able to accumulate as a result of it, they and theirs will remain in fine shape for generations to come, no matter how much the policies coming out of DC swing leftward as a result of them being rejected on the national stage.
This is of course only part of the story, since it only describes and pertains to the method and means used to achieve the nefarious goals at the expense of this nation and the quality of life for its citizens. The goals of the cultmaster/s are always separate and distinct from the damage they do through exploitation to the minds of the cult members — the “rightwing brain”.
I fight them as I do because they are a cult, and as such, given their role in our society as an organized major political party, they are a threat to this republic my kid and grandkid will be living in, as well as the rest I care about as a secular humanist.
Did you really anticipate, during the 2000 campaign, that President Bush would start an Iraq War?
Yes, I told that to anyone who would listen.
My ambivalence was about whether to give a vote of support to Gore/Lieberman. I was living in New Jersey at the time, so my vote wasn’t going to matter. I had trouble endorsing that ticket. But I did it.