Pandering to the Right Fringe
by Linda Beale
Pandering to the Right Fringe
This campaign season has revealed more clearly than ever the ultimate goal of today’s hard right, as manifested in campaign debates and the right-wing think tanks’ output. It is nothing less than dismantling the protections established under FDR–Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage and other safety net protections that are nonetheless thinner than most advanced democracies have–under the guise that these programs are too costly, do not require personal responsibility, and can’t be afforded under the new right’s ‘realism’ about the deficits.
The right doesn’t want to afford these programs. Now that it has managed to ‘starve the beast’ through the Bush tax cuts, the repetitive stalling on increasing the debt ceiling, and numerous other revenue reduction measures–especially in the corporate tax provisions–it will claim that there is simply nothing else to be done but cut the safety net away.
This is mere spin. Tax increases and judicious stimulus measures can allow us to recover. Removing the safety net will thrust the country into a deep recession, since it will impact seniors, dependent children and the most vulnerable. The poverty increase that we have witnessed over the last few years will continue. Surely this is not what Americans want for their country!
But the politicians continue to preach the failed approaches of Reaganomics, in the claim that their deregulatory and corporate tax cutting agenda will “revive” manufacturing.
Santorum is riding his near-miss in Iowa under the guise of a populist who understands the worries of the downtrodden labor class in America. The Wall Street Journal (Jan. 7-8, 2012) says that he “cast[s] himself as an advocate for blue-collar workers and their economically troubled communities, hoping to capitalize on differences with Mr. Romney, a wealthy former private-equity investor and son of a Michigan governor.”
Santorum once didn’t have much money and he has memories of a coal-miner grandfather. Is that enough to create ‘bona fides’ for his views on how we should manage the U.S. economy? Seeing poverty can help a person to empathize with those in poverty, or it can lead that person to denounce those who remain in poverty as lazy bums who are in poverty from their failure to take the steps the person took to rise above it. Seeing poverty doesn’t mean that person understands the kinds of gut-wrenching problems that much of middle America and especially those at the lower end of the distribution are experiencing today–small towns that are rotting off the map as manufacturing jobs vanish and farms have become corporate enterprises, extensions of Cargill and AMD and Tyson and the few others that dominate the American production of food from seed to harvest to grocer to table.
And the policies that Santorum favors will be extraordinarily destructive of the middle class: they favor the wealthy and corporate enterprises, not the little guy.
Some of the things Santorum is mentioning on the campaign trail might benefit some in the middle class–like the idea of tripling the exemption for children, though the proposal apparently isn’t linked to income level and so would not be focused on families that need the help. (And it would be widely available, adding significantly to the deficit).
The rest of Santorum’s tax proposals favor the wealthy–lowering corporate tax rates to half their current level, eliminating corporate tax entirely for manufacturers, eliminating corporate tax on overseas profits that are used to buy manufacturing equipment (not clear whether that applies even if the equipment is used overseas as well, since the current tax code is already too friendly to active overseas businesses), and eliminating taxes on capital income.
Those provisions are most favorable for the wealthy who own most of the corproate stock and other financial assets. hough the right likes to label these kinds of tax policies ‘pro-growth’, they are in fact a replay of the failed policies of the last 40 years that have resulted in stagnate wages for the middle class and dying small towns, while the beneficiaries of the tax largesse flourish in gated communities.
These tax policies will carve out huge holes in federal revenues, resulting in increased deficits that will be used as justification for decimating earned benefit programs (Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment compensation). A vicious circle of cutting revenues and then using the loss of revenues to justify cutting important federal programs will leave the middle class (and especially the poor and the near-poor) in even worse condition, as the safety net that is especially needed now is weakened or removed.
These ideas on the right, stale as they are, are getting the kind of attention that cements them in people’s views, no matter how wrong they are. In debate after debate, candidates vie with each other to pander to the right. See, e.g., Santorum Claims Romney’s Tax PLan Isn’t Bold Enough, Huff. Post (Jan 9, 2012). Romney wants to cut taxes and spending and thinks Government is too big, but he at least thinks we need taxes to cover core responsibilities that government should do. Santorum wants more–more tax cuts for the wealthy and large corproations.
And when you repeat something over and over, it tends to stick. The American people are hearing these same ideas from every Republican candidate, as they compete to win the radical fringe of the Republican party.
What is worrisome is that progressives are disengaged. They are miffed about the continuing degradation of civil rights under the continuing “war” on terrorism, Obama’s weakness in not being able to stand up to the Republican minority or even hold to his threat to veto (see, e.g., the pipeline problem) and the way corporate lobbyists are succeeding in causing agencies to weaken or delay important environmental regulations. They are miffed because they had projected onto Obama their specific dreams of revitalization and change, and there is no way that any one person could have satisfied all that. Much less this person, who was an inexperienced politico with a stable of advisers from Wall Street and past administrations who valued change not one whit.
But it seems fairly obvious that the only hope for progressives is to defeat the resurging right that intends to deregulate, cut taxes and privatize if it gains complete power through control of the White House, House and Senate.
Sometimes I question these labels, progressive versus conservative. In this instance, are liberals ‘conservative’ and conservatives ‘radical’ with respect to preserving the foundations of constitutional law? I refer to Article VI, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
“ … no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Yet, here are 5 Founding Fathers Whose Skepticism About Christianity Would Make Them Unelectable Today.
In the State of Florida, Senate Bill 98 is scheduled for a vote TODAY. This bill would let school districts overrule the objections of religious minorities and organize school-sponsored prayer under the banner of student government. Under the bill, school officials would be able to skirt the Constitutional protections of religious liberty (i.e. the separation of church and state) by letting students actually vote on what kind of prayers the school will allow and conduct.
Most disturbing of all, the bill empowers underage children … children! … to trash the Constitution, turn religious freedom into a popularity contest as if electing a prom or homecoming queen, and compel minority students through peer pressure to engage in religious practices that go against their own beliefs.
This is the worst case of social conservative overreach within my lifetime. And yes, it is FASCISM!
Sometimes I question these labels, progressive versus conservative. In this instance, are liberals ‘conservative’ and conservatives ‘radical’ with respect to preserving the foundations of constitutional law? I refer to Article VI, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
“ … no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Yet, here are 5 Founding Fathers Whose Skepticism About Christianity Would Make Them Unelectable Today.
In the State of Florida, Senate Bill 98 is scheduled for a vote TODAY. This bill would let school districts overrule the objections of religious minorities and organize school-sponsored prayer under the banner of student government. Under the bill, school officials would be able to skirt the Constitutional protections of religious liberty (i.e. the separation of church and state) by letting students actually vote on what kind of prayers the school will allow and conduct.
Most disturbing of all, the bill empowers underage children … children! … to trash the Constitution, turn religious freedom into a popularity contest as if electing a prom or homecoming queen, and compel minority students through peer pressure to engage in religious practices that go against their own beliefs.
This is the worst case of social conservative overreach within my lifetime. And yes, it is FASCISM!
Linda
I agree with you about Santorum, but I suspect the only reason the R’s have had their clown debate is exactly to give air time to the most dangerous “right” “ideas.”
So I am not mollified when you say “at least Romney…” hell, you are just looking at another bit of market testing.
And you seem to think Obama was “weak”… again, hell, Obama was part of the “right” all along.
More like Obama had to be part of the “right” to get elected. So he become a typical Rockafeller Republican. That said, he campaigned as one, people wouldn’t listen.
It is all about chiseling at the center. If Santorum is the GOP candidate–I am not worried, Obama will run further and further to the right regardless of what it does to the 99%. The only check will be the Senate. If Romney is the candidate–I think he is the prohibitive favorite at this point–Obama will back toward the center and try and get a few more disaffected liberals involved. Policy might be marginally better, but the driving force is to try and wall off as much of the electorate as possible on your side of the ledger. That is why I am not going to get too upset about Romney beating Obama in November–Obama has done little for the country except increase the partisan gridlock. Romney will attempt to govern to the left of where Obama has been the last 3 years employing the same strategy that Obama has used.
“Romney will attempt to govern to the left of where Obama has been the last 3 years employing the same strategy that Obama has used.”
Romney threatens to overturn HealthCare reform, cut taxes again, deregulate, cut the size of government and this is will be Governoring to the Left of Obama?
Obama is the quintissential Leftist, and everybody knows it, except apparently the echo chamber here, and it is the reason he will lose in November. Obama ran as a Centerist and proceeded Left after the 2008 election.
It appears to me the only position the Left can take to further these ridiculous claims that Obama is a closet moderate Republican, or that he has governed to the right of where he campaigned is his actions in Iraq and Afghansistan. It’s not much of a leg to stand on, and I don’t get why people who are trying to force this into reality don’t see see how poorly it plays all across the country. I think the proof ultimately lies with the analysis of who actually still supports Obama. He’s already lost most of the independents and moderate Democrats, and they aren’t gonna come to him no matter how hard to the right he tries to campaign.
Otter
I answered your nonsense about Ponzi schemes. You didn’t come back to learn, because of course you already know everything. so there is no reason for me to answer your nonsense here.
“Obama is the quintissential Leftist, and everybody knows it, except apparently the echo chamber here”
You must live in some sort of Bizarro Faux News echo chamber yourself if you actually believe this horsepucky. If Obama is really so “Leftist”, then why hasn’t he:
–nationalized the banks, audited the Fed, and implemented *real* banking reforms? (vs. banksterizing the government)
–instituted universal single payer healthcare (like the rest of the civilized world)?
–aggressively raised corporate and millionaire income taxes? (never mind his populist rhetoric, it still hasn’t happened)
–stopped accepting donations from his Wall Street pals?
–closed Camp X-ray, restored Habeas Corpus and denounced denying due process even to U.S. to citizens?
–severely reduced U.S. military presence overseas? (the wind-down in Iraq more than offset by escalation in Afghanistan, Libya, etc.)
–made higher education free or heavily subsidized to low income citizens (like the rest of the civilized world)?
–supported bills to impose mortgage cram-downs on subprime lenders?
Just look at O’s continued bailouts and industry friendly “reforms”, and his Goldman Sachs, BofA & Citigroup appointments to his cabinet & key Administration posts. If this guy’s a “quintissential Leftist”, then I suppose Nixon must have been a flaming Communist.
“Obama is the quintissential Leftist, and everybody knows it, except apparently the echo chamber here”
You must live in some sort of Bizarro Faux News echo chamber yourself if you actually believe this horsepucky. If Obama is really so “Leftist”, then why hasn’t he:
–nationalized the banks, audited the Fed, and implemented *real* banking reforms? (vs. banksterizing the government)
–instituted universal single payer healthcare (like the rest of the civilized world)?
–aggressively raised corporate and millionaire income taxes? (never mind his populist rhetoric, it still hasn’t happened)
–stopped accepting donations from his Wall Street pals?
–closed Camp X-ray, restored Habeas Corpus and denounced denying due process even to U.S. to citizens?
–severely reduced U.S. military presence overseas? (the wind-down in Iraq more than offset by escalation in Afghanistan, Libya, etc.)
–made higher education free or heavily subsidized to low income citizens (like the rest of the civilized world)?
–supported bills to impose mortgage cram-downs on subprime lenders?
Just look at O’s continued bailouts and industry friendly “reforms”, and his Goldman Sachs, BofA & Citigroup appointments to his cabinet & key Administration posts. If this guy’s a “quintissential Leftist”, then I suppose Nixon must have been a flaming Communist. He created the EPA, OSHA, buddied up with Mao and nearly gave us national healthcare, for God’s sake!
And here comes the election cycle. For Obama, I think we need to watch his admin and cabinet team to see what he is about to prefer as course of actions,,,
Is it too soon to begin figuring out Congressional election trends?
Traditional
yes. but you remind me. back in the day I had heard a little about Rockefeller in the news, oh boy. so I went to listen to a speech he gave. the speech was so obviously pandering to his audience… me, but even at that age i had a pander detector, that i gave up on him.
i heard enough from O to expect him to be weak, ignorant, on Social Security. I really did not expect him to actively destroy it. or to actively destroy the Bill of Rights. or to in fact be a kinder gentler george bush.
i could do with a moderate republican… a traditional conservative… but Obama makes even a Rockefeller liar look like a good man in a pinch.
i am tired of the lesser weevil.
Harm,
There is two reason’s why he didn’t get those things you list. And BTW, who is kidding who here? The Health Care Reform that they passed was designed specifically to get the country to a Single Payer, so that one is kinda of a moot point for you. But before I list them, I would like to point out that I think you have already defeated your own position, because Obama clearly does want all those things, and tried to move that direction.
Anyway, he has not accomplished those things because:
1.) He is not a dictator with unlimited power, and even a dictator couldn’t have done it all in a 3 year time span.
2.) Obama and the Democrats always have to hide what they really believe. If the public truly understood what their agenda was, then would never be able to secure any power for an extended period of time. So what we have seen from Obama is, him speaking as a centerist….a populist, but consistantly moving the Left’s agenda forward, maybe slowly, but Obama has accomplished alot for the Left.