WHY THE DEMOCRATS LOST: Because they cannot win unless they explain Keynesian economics and inform the public of the dramatic reduction in federal spending and federal employment since 2010—and the consequences of it. Obama will not (or, intellectually, cannot) do that. So others must.
Yesterday, I wrote here in response to a statement by Greg Sargent that “McConnell’s only way to re-litigate Obama’s policies will remain budgetary guerrilla warfare that will only work if Obama allows it to work, which he won’t, which he won’t.”:
McConnell’s only way to re-litigate Obama’s policies will remain budgetary guerrilla warfare that will only work if Obama allows it to work. Which, if past is prologue, he will. And with Obama, past is always prologue
Obama spent the first three years of his presidency, and, intensely, 2011, waving the budgetary white flag so desperately that it was only the farthest-right contingent of House members that prevented significant changes to Social Security, Medicare and other major safety-net programs. The House contingent that blocked the deal did so because it didn’t go far enough, in their opinion. But it went very far.
What I remember most strikingly from that period, and what Sargent apparently has forgotten, is Obama’s angry public response to the death of this Republican-dream legislation. Always one to invoke some stunningly stupid family-is-like-government analogy, however clearly the analogy adopts the Republicans’ factually erroneous and very harmful policy mantras (“Families are tightening their belts, so the government should tighten its belt, too.”), Obama said he was willing to give the Republicans 90% of what they wanted if they would give him 10% of what he wanted, because that’s his arrangement with Michelle.*
His party controlled the executive branch and one-half of the legislative branch. But he was willing to give the one-half of the legislative branch controlled by the Republicans 90% of what they wanted. If only they would stop looking that gift horse in the mouth.
Biden said yesterday that “we’re willing to compromise.” Read: “We’re willing to cave.” And the Dems’ standard-bearer-apparent—who’s aggressively blocking anyone else from running for the presidential nomination—couldn’t explain Keynesian economics, or cite healthcare coverage or healthcare-cost-reduction specifics, to save her life, yet she’s what will pass for the Dems’ fallback voice.
I titled my post: “Greg Sargent confuses Obama with Elizabeth Warren. Or with Harry Reid. While Obama confuses the congressional Republicans with Michelle.” The post garnered a comment from reader Axt this afternoon saying:
In this I firmly believe the GOP whacko birds will save Obama from himself.
Basically they’ll require full repeal of Obamacare as part of any deal, and that is the one place where Obama will hold firm.
My lengthy reply to him or her merits a full post of its own, I think. I wrote:
Axt113, I wish you were right, but you’re not. McConnell has made clear time and again in the last few months that it will all be done through the budget process.
Of course, Obama COULD—theoretically—give a short primetime TV address once Koch-McConnell Industries starts doing this, explaining what exactly they’re doing, what the intent is, and what the effect is. He COULD, theoretically, even mention how many Kentuckians will lose their healthcare insurance if McConnell gets his way.
Just as he COULD, theoretically, during the last several budget confrontations, and even during this year’s congressional campaigns, given a short primetime TV address, using charts, and telling the public that the budget deficit has declined by more than half in the last four years; that the federal workforce has declined dramatically because of that; that the budgets for key federal agencies such as the NIH and the National Weather Service have been gutted, as has federal financial assistance to state and local governments, causing dramatic reductions in employment by state and local governments (including for teachers and firefighters).
But just as he hasn’t done these things before, he won’t do it going forward. He doesn’t feel comfortable speaking into a camera from his office in the White House and doesn’t feel comfortable explaining things to the public, see. Which I guess is why he didn’t do either of those things regarding Ebola and the travel-ban issue.
We’re in a perfect storm, here, and have been for the last nearly-six years. There no longer are any cultural barriers to brazen misstatements of fact about government policies, statistics, affects, so the Republican media machine inundates the public with false facts. And the only person who could actually penetrate and counter this false-propaganda fest by gaining nationwide attention for the refutations, using statistics and other facts, and the economic effects of these statistics (i.e., Keynesian economics), refuses to do that. And in any event probably couldn’t do it coherently, to save his live. Or to save anyone else’s (political) life.
I’ve known, and right now know, a small number of people who seem very bright and are highly educated (graduate degrees of one sort or another), and yet whose thought process is so “off”, so utterly weird, so illogical, that eventually I realize that there’s no actual way to communicate normally with the person, and no reason to expect that the person will ever have a normal recognition and understanding of normal things. I don’t know Obama personally, but I put him in that category.
This is not to say that he doesn’t deserve great credit for some of what he’s done as president—especially his decision in early 2009, against the political advice of some of his aides, to ask Congress to pursue healthcare insurance reform.
But his bizarre, hands-off, delegation of the policy design to Congress—and his stupefying failure, throughout, to refute the false statements of fact about the eventual law and to make one infamous one himself (“If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan,” which is true for most but not all), rather than explaining the actual policy, and that virtually identical or more comprehensive policies will be available, and why—is emblematic of so much that is very wrong with his presidency.
They are, specifically: His extreme lack of mental agility—an inability to recognize when something, including false facts being propagated, needs to be addressed, needs to be dealt with; his extreme delegation to Congress of complex and very important legislation that should be designed at the outset by the White House; and, most of all, his failure to do what is necessary to educate the public about absolutely critical facts that the public clearly is unaware of and facts about which holds outright-false beliefs.
Rand Paul was quoted last night saying that the reason for the election results was “the incompetence of big government.” Because, you see, small government could stop Ebola in its tracks, halt the advance of ISIS, and enable everyone to have access to good healthcare without having to develop an extremely complicated web sign-up. It also could forecast, monitor and warn the public about weather, accurately, using infallible by very cheap technology and warn the public. It could develop an Ebola vaccine, run a wildly popular national pension system for pretty much everyone, and provide competent healthcare access to elderly retirees.
Last weekend, I wrote in a post here:
Yup. Wouldn’t wanna distract from the “personhood” issue by setting the record straight on trivia such as that the federal deficit actually has fallen by more than 50 percent since President Obama took office. And by mentioning such dramatic budgetary facts as those cited in the op-ed about the National Weather Service and those discussed recently by NIH director Dr. Francis Collins. Or by noting the drastic cuts in infrastructure upkeep and in financial assistance to state and local governments. And you certainly wouldn’t wanna point out the direct effects of these cuts.
Bridge collapses, potholed highways, the sudden inability of the National Weather Service to warn of a hurricane’s path, a massive snowstorm, or tornadoes pale in comparison to a “personhood” constitutional amendment that would have less chance of actual passage by Congress and ratification by the necessary number of states than a polar bear will have of survival in Alaska in a few years. So do advances in medicine, warnings of tornadoes and major storm paths, and bringing down what are now spiraling state university and college costs and student loan interest rates.
The New York Times op-ed I linked to, “Our Failing Weather Infrastructure,” by Kathryn Miles, author of a book called ““Superstorm: Nine Days Inside Hurricane Sandy,” begins by detailing several recent severe failures of technological failures of the National Weather Service. Miles says these breakdowns are not a new problem, and explains:
For years, congressional allocations to the National Weather Service have all but flatlined. Meanwhile, the cost of storm recovery has skyrocketed. In the 20 years leading up to Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the United States suffered 133 weather disasters that exceeded $1 billion in damages, for a total of over $875 billion. Sandy, the secondcostliest hurricane in the nation’s history, came with a price tag of anestimated $65 billion.
In the months after Sandy, the Department of Commerce issued a service assessment report, which evaluated the National Weather Service’s response to the storm. Its authors discovered understaffed forecasting offices, a shortage of products that convey storm threats to the general public and a real need for more staff training. These findings echoed a similar report issued after Tropical Storm Irene in 2011, which charged that gaps in technology, service and training had complicated forecasters’ ability to do their jobs.
But rather than address these shortages, in 2013 the National Weather Service was forced to put in place a hiring freeze and cut off funding for forecaster training and equipment maintenance, part of an 8.3 percent budget cut that came in the wake of the federal government’s budget sequestration. The National Weather Service now employs 288 fewer forecasters and technicians than it did when Sandy struck.
A report issued earlier this year by the union representing National Weather Service employees estimates that there are more than 500 job vacancies within the agency, 396 of which are considered “emergency essential” — forecasters and technicians who are on the front line of storm prediction and the issuance of watches, warnings and advisories.
For years, the National Hurricane Center has been stymied by what the Sandy assessment report called “a severe staffing shortage” in its technology and science branch, which is responsible for everything from software development to communicating watches and warnings. Thanks to budget constraints, the center employs just one fulltime storm surge specialist, despite the fact that storm surge consistently kills more people than wind and is much harder to predict.
Meanwhile, existing forecasters are forced to cope with limitations that make their jobs difficult: radar that crashes, broken winddetection devices, failing satellites and budget constraints that prevent them from utilizing tools like weather balloons.
Meteorologists at all levels of the National Weather Service are exceedingly talented, hardworking scientists. They can do far more than their jobs currently allow, including issuing sevenday storm forecasts and using global information systems to create surge maps that would assist emergency managers in evacuations. But, as one senior administrator at the National Hurricane Center told me, “we can barely keep the trains running.”
One commenter wrote in the comments to the op-ed something like: “More money! Look, if they need more money to operate they should get it. But first they should prove that they’re competent.”
Undoubtedly, that commenter also thinks hospitals should demonstrate their competence at surgical operations and at running x-ray labs before they’re paid enough to buy the equipment and hire staff. We do need to reduce healthcare costs, after all. I hope this guy uses one of those hospitals next time he needs major medical treatment. There will be one less winger to vote in the following election.
This is so stunningly stupid. But it also is the result of decades of anti-government propaganda based upon clichés repeated and repeated and repeated, and nothing pushing back on it.
Unless the Democrats, en masse, do a complete sweep of their party’s consultants and operatives, and unless they nominate for president someone who never bought into the sales pitch of those people, the party will lose next time. And the time after that. And the time after that.
The Democrats cannot win unless they explain Keynesian economics and inform the public of the dramatic reduction in federal spending and federal employment since 2010—and the consequences of it. Obama will not (or, intellectually, cannot) do that, so others must.
So, Dems: First kill all the consultants. Then kill all the politicians who follow the consultants’ advice.
____
*ADDENDUM: Obama seems to actually think in these silly analogies to families/sports/other-things-that-trivialize-complex-facts-and-situations. Last summer when ISIS broke through to the American consciousness after American journalist James Foley was appaulingly killed and the killing was videotaped, it was reported that last winter when a reporter asked him about ISIS’s recent advances, he said it was just the JVT to al Qaeda. The reporter pointed out that the JVT had just invaded and conquered Falujah.
Which isn’t to say that this country should re-enter Iraq. But it is to say that Obama apparently settles on an analogy and that’s the end of it—including deciding to borrow the “families” analogy from the other side that undermines what had been, and should be, his own position. After all, it’s a family analogy! Or a sports analogy! Or a cat-jumps-through-a-hoop analogy! The public will identify with it!
That’s not “why they lost,” That’s why there is no consolation in the loss. And why they are going to always lose even when they “win.”
Sorry Beverly, but you’re wrong on this.
The budget process gives him the best position from which to fight.
Remember Obama won the last budget standoff over Obamacare
It was only the failure of the website that allowed the GOP to recover from that debacle.
From Obama’s view a fight on Obamacare and the budget will be his best chance to recover his approval ratings before he leaves office.
So I gotta disagree on the issue of using the Budget, McConnell would be a fool to challenge Obama like that.
As for the other issues you are concerned about Obama discussed many of the things you want in his post election presser this afternoon.
He threw down the gauntlet on Obamacare opposing any changes to the mandate and other core parts of the law.
He also continued his opposition to XL albeit veil in his opposition there. And stated clearly that he’ll go it alone on immigration.
About the only thing he gave ground on was corporate taxes, but requiring infrastructure as part of the deal.
He also continued to call for a higher minimum wage noting it did better than the Democrats.
Overall not a bad set of stancea.
Now of course the proof is in the pudding.
If he holds to these positions then it’ll be fine for the next 2 years.
And I believe that the GOP will in fact be his best ally in this as he can rely on the whacko birds to push too fa4, far enough that he will be able to oppose them without fear of backlash
axt:
Did you listen to McConnell today? Here is what he said as said by Slate:
“Presumptive majority leader Mitch McConnell says he will use the budget reconciliation process to pass changes, which would prevent Democratic filibusters. Within the next couple years, it seems likely that conservatives will have made a few dents in Obamacare.” Read the rest of the article here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/11/05/republican_senate_and_obamacare_how_they_could_change_the_law.html
I have half the Keynesians saying it works because look at how well the US is doing. I have another half saying the opposite.
The Dems were massacred because things keep going further and further down the drain with no hope in sight:
Already poverty line incomes (includes current median income in my sight) going down further;
Medical care — and — medicine twice as costly here as elsewhere (with tens of millions left out!);
Education steadily more costly as traditional colleges increasingly max charges for profit (God help those who go to for-profit) — and — student debt spirals;
Housing for average incomes (apartments) becomes scarcer and costlier;
Private equity skims the economy;
Wall Street and friends rule the government;
etc., etc.
The Dems are in power so the Dems take the blame. No way in the world to explain “Keynesian economics and inform the public of the dramatic reduction in federal spending and federal employment since 2010—and the consequences of it” …
and it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference if we could …
… as long as the functions of labor market bargaining power — and — political financing muscle equal to ownership’s supplied by labor unions (to go with our 99% of the votes) have perished from this part of the earth.
I guess there is no reason to bother to point out that re-unionizing the right way (the easy way?), legally mandated, centralized bargaining (where all worker doing similar work negotiate one common contract with all firms hiring similar workers) would be a lot easier to explain to all the frustrated workers than “Keynesian economics.”
Voters in the US don’t naturally think of centralized bargaining by themselves — it never having been the system here (except for the Teamsters Union’s National Master Freight Agreement). THAT’S WHY WE HAVE TO TELL THEM ABOUT IT.
We have Marxists, we have Austrians and every shade of economic thought in between. Why cannot anyone ever discuss the only free market mode that spells balance of economic and political power for the average person for nearing three-quarters of a century anywhere it is in place world-wide?
ESPECIALLY SINCE IT IS SO E-A-S-Y TO EXPLAIN THE SENSE OF IT TO ANYONE WHO WORKS IN ANY LABOR MARKET (no Ph.D. required — Jimmy Hoffa had a 7th grade education)?
One detail I think is incorrect: Because, you see, small government could stop Ebola in its tracks, halt the advance of ISIS, and enable everyone to have access to good healthcare without having to develop an extremely complicated web sign-up.
Paul is not talking small government doing this stuff. He believes the private market can and will do it if only the market is free enough.
The Dems are NOT in power, Denis. The House Republicans and Mitch McConnell’s filibuster crowd have been in power since Jan. 2011. THAT’s what this election should have been about.
Beverly, my dear; the voters did not reject the Dems because they thought the Repubs were in power and not helping enough did they? They rejected Obama — for not helping; that’s what (who) the election was all about.
What’s the opposite, Matt? That Keynesian economics works and that that’s why the U.S. isn’t doing well? We’re doing the opposite of what Keynesian economics says we should be doing (we’re cutting rather than increasing government spending), and the result that Keynesian economics predicts—a slow, slow recovery—is what is happening here?
Not to be pedantic, but, the Dems who were thrown out were (personally) in power. For example Illinois Governor Quinn who was thrown out by a Repub private equity millionaire who very noticeably spent the entire campaign narrowing down on not one single issue.
Crain’s Chicago Business Editorial: Show us the money, Mr. Rauner (in which they wonder — as others openly do — what said specifics might turn out to be.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chicagobusiness.com%2Farticle%2F20141105%2FOPINION%2F141109885%2Fshow-us-the-money-mr-rauner&ei=4fJaVPPJINGXyATovYLACA&usg=AFQjCNEcIqJ4b0ZTmuKNVx9HvIObkrL1VQ&sig2=NyfXKcBqbjtz6VSqENMYbg).
What it appears actually happened is not that “the voters” switched to Republicans, but that Democrats did not show up to vote. The turnout was even more putrid in many places than it was in 2010, and in some cases Republicans won with fewer votes than they had in 2010. The lack of Democratic turnout must be laid precisely at the feet of the Democratic establishment in DC. The atrocious strategy of the DCCC — saying little else except, with minimal support, what a terrible person the Republican person is, over and over and over until viewers became numb to the message and had no idea who the Democrat is –once again cost a lot of candidates dearly.
You cannot have a successful brand unless — in a pure win-lose, zero sum competition — you show clearly how your brand is better than the other brand. That is Marketing 101, and the DCCC, CSCC and DNC clearly flunked that course.
urban:
Yes, very true. The midterm elections after the re-election of a president has gone poorly for every president since WWII. The Dems could have done more to get out the vote.
All the Democrats did was ask me for money. They did not explain why I should give it to them. They did not explain what they had accomplished and why they did not accomplish more.
The Democrats had no message, so the Republicans did not need one.
“…The Dems are in power so the Dems take the blame. No way in the world to explain “Keynesian economics and inform the public of the dramatic reduction in federal spending and federal employment since 2010—and the consequences of it” …
and it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference if we could …”
No way in the world? Hell no. Elizabeth Warren does a knockdown job, as does Robert Reich and a host of others. They have been explaining, in clear language and unforgettable similes, what has been happening and what should be done.
People talk about evidence based medicine — if the Dems just had evidence based explaining, (i.e. Explain something, see if it gets through, adjust and repeat) perhaps they would be further along.
But the publicans have one advantage — they don’t limit themselves to explaining the truth. Quite the opposite. They understand that repetition, emotion, fearmongering, and word salad are supereffective modes of persuasion. Hell, word salad is a two-for-one deal — you’re not presenting clear arguments which might be refuted, you’re evoking emotion with random triggers from which the listener can draw whatever he wants to hear: Rorschach rhetoric.
As Screwtape said, ““Do remember you are there to fuddle him. From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to teach!”
Noni
bad economy, ebola, isis, ferguson missouri
“and it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference if we could …”
And I repeat:
… as long as the functions of labor market bargaining power — and — political financing muscle equal to ownership’s supplied by labor unions (to go with our 99% of the votes) have perished from this part of the earth.
I guess there is no reason to bother to point out that re-unionizing the right way (the easy way?), legally mandated, centralized bargaining (where all worker doing similar work negotiate one common contract with all firms hiring similar workers) would be a lot easier to explain to all the frustrated workers than “Keynesian economics.”
Until the kind of (re)unionization that they have in continental Europe takes hold here you can convince anyone of any theory you want to — you will get laughed at by your elected representatives when you go to for help until you go with equal campaign financing for them and equal lobbying expertise (to go with our 99% of votes) supplied by your (immune to race-to-the-bottom tactics because of centralized bargaining) labor unions.
Elizabeth Warren in her book The Two Income Trap wrote how she convinced first lady Hillary to talk her husband into opposing a rule change that would force credit card application to ask for individual income instead of family income (making non-working housewives totally dependent on their husband for credit cards). As soon as Hil go elected Senator and copped a few hundred thou from whatever companies she switched sides. Warren was livid.
Not to drag out the point but: I read of some (fellow) Chicago cab drivers organizing demos to try to get fair treatment of certain needs (e.g., neighborhood parking). I emailed them at their then office at “In These Times” and suggested that instead they just go to their city councilpersons and offer to work getting the vote out two weeks before elections — predicting the councilpersons would them be calling them to find out what they need. Now I see cab drivers working the elections two weeks every two years and I assume they are getting those phone calls.
“WILL WORK FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCING” (congressional begging sign)
These are just of few of the things you union lobbyists will be working on — nobody is working on them now — nobody no congressman cares about — NOBODY IS MINDING THE STORE in a de-unionized America:
Already poverty line incomes (includes current median income in my sight) going down further;
Medical care — and — medicine twice as costly here as elsewhere (with tens of millions left out!);
Education steadily more costly as traditional colleges increasingly max charges for profit (God help those who go to for-profit) — and — student debt spirals;
Housing for average incomes (apartments) becomes scarcer and costlier;
Private equity skims the economy;
Wall Street and friends rule the government AND FIX THE RULES SO THEY CAN SKIN THE REST OF US.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/upshot/what-democrats-dont-get-about-the-minimum-wage.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1&abt=0002&abg=0
New York Times article about how Democratic positions to help the poor (minimum wage hikes) have the support of the middle class — but are perceived as not doing anything for the terrible problems of the middle class (see list just above).
I know what to do! Raise the one issue that would solve all the problems on the list above: legally mandated, CENTRALIZED BARGAINING! Sorry for shouting. To repeat what I also said above:
[snip]
We have Marxists, we have Austrians and every shade of economic thought in between. Why cannot anyone ever discuss the only free market mode that spells balance of economic and political power for the average person for nearing three-quarters of a century anywhere it is in place world-wide?
ESPECIALLY SINCE IT IS SO E-A-S-Y TO EXPLAIN THE SENSE OF IT TO ANYONE WHO WORKS IN ANY LABOR MARKET (no Ph.D. required — Jimmy Hoffa had a 7th grade education)?
[snip]
From Barry Ritholtz (The Big Picture):
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-06/one-chart-explains-democrats-loss
“The Republicans tapped into dissatisfaction with the Obama economy, despite how positive large parts of it look on paper. The average indebted family has had no gain in income for six years and they are working harder to pay down the excess leverage from the 2000s.
“Obama didn’t address this. At least, that seems to be the message the Republicans got out, early and often. A diffuse anger toward Obama was tapped and in many subtle ways, directed toward this issue.
“Regular readers know I am not big on forecasts, but I am going to make one here and now: The party that figures out how to respond to this issue in a way that resonates with voters will win the White House in 2016.”
How about normal unionization — as practiced in fair economies around the globe for many, many decades — centralized bargaining (surprise).
I think we have to face what appears now to be fact, that there is a concerted effort within the machinery of the Dem party to keep the money/conservative (DLC, New Dems) in control. Digby has an article up that links to 2 other article specifically investigating this problem:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/why-do-they-leave-easy-ones-on-table.html
Also noted there was the 2 dems that one in areas where they were heavily worked against by the repub machine: Franken and Tom Udall. They ran progressive. She notes:
“And as Howie points out, all those Republicans in Democratic clothing the Party recruited lost as did all the Blue Dogs who’ve been very reliable GOP votes.”
@Run
You do realize that Obama can just veto any bill sent by McConnell
Right?
Reconciliation doesn’t override a veto
Sheesh are you guys really that ignorant of how things work?
Reconciliation only bypasses the need for 60 votes, it will not change the fact that Obama can just kick it right back to the Senate.
A veto will still force the need for a 2/3 majority of the Senate and the House
Not going to happen
The Budget process will not be able to repeal Obamacare
Unless Obama refuses to Veto said budget.
Now what is the chances he will let the GOP repeal his biggest policy success
Let me give you a hint, its the number that looks like the first letter in his last name.
He’ll just kick it back and force them to send back a bill that actually maintains Obamacare or shut down the government
axt:
Let me give you a hint. I was going to explain what I meant in my reply to you; but, you appear to be bent on name-calling and ad hominems which cancels out the need to do so. I am a pretty reasonable person. Do not push your luck with that type of approach.
I’m not engaging in name-calling and ad hominems, I’m merely pointing out that if you think that budget reconciliation attempts by McConnell can’t be blocked by Obama then you are clearly lacking in your knowledge of how things work.
Reconciliation is not some magical power where McConnell can override the power of the executive branch.
If the GOP try and lace a budget with things that will seriously damage the ACA, Obama has the option to use his veto pen, and then kick it back down to Congress.
Yes he can go after the medical device tax, not something Obama is opposed to as long as he gets something in return, but that won’t change the law in any meaningful way.
Meaningful changes would require 2/3 majority, something the GOP will not have.
The loss can be summed up in one number – 37%. That’s the nationwide turnout. A turnout of 60%-70% maybe even 50% would yield a very different electoral map. The folks who stay home are largely Democratic voters.
One possible silver lining from this election is that the Democratic caucuses in both the House and Senate are likely to be more Progressive from an economic standpoint. It isn’t so much being able to explain Keynesian economics as being able to explain basic principles of Rawlsian justice.
I’ve been rereading essays written in the mid-50’s and early 60’s by folks like Hofstadter and Daniel Bell. They discuss the rise of McCarthyism and then the more Radical Right of the Birchers. Their insights about the motivations of these movements, what guides them, and what their appeal is are spot on and very applicable to today’s political map.
This is about communication but it’s also about more than that. It’s understanding that the appeal of the Right arises from fear and reactionary attempts to overthrow the accepted landscape that arose from the New Deal.
Noni, thank you for that comment. Paul Krugman, too, explains Keynesian fiscal economics clearly, succinctly, and very-easily-understandably, pretty regularly in his columns and on his blog. It’s not hard at all. Krugman repeats it not because he thinks his regular readers haven’t yet understood his earlier explanations but instead as a jump-off point to make some other point, and also (presumably) for new readers.
But one thing that is starting to drive me crazy is this apparently common belief (at least among commenters on my posts here at AB) that it would be futile to inform the public that the budget deficit has decreased dramatically under Obama, as has federal spending and federal employment—and what the specific consequences are—because, well, a lot of people are racists (or whatever).
It’s certainly true that a lot of people are racists, or for some other reason have a virulent antipathy toward Obama, and would never vote Democratic now no matter what. But EVERYONE who thinks that the budget deficit and government spending and government employment? Really??
Veteran Republican pollster Frank Luntz has an op-ed in today’s NYT in which he says that his firm’s exit polls show that many people voted Republican because of their concerns about the “out-of-control” budget deficit and government spending. This is CRAZY. But it also is what most people do believe.
Given the importance of this issue not just politically but as a matter of the national interest, it’s really outright malpractice on Obama’s part and on the Democratic political operatives’ and candidates’ parts, that they haven’t shouted (or even mentioned) the actual statistics, much less identified specific consequences.
But, y’know … whatever.
Luntz’s op-ed is at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/opinion/the-midterms-were-not-a-republican-revolution.html?ref=opinion&_r=0.
If people are voting for the repubs out of fear of the budget, is it totally because they are miss informed? Could it be that their own financial insecurity is what makes it easy to believe what is not true?
Considering both parties used the kitchen table talk analogy, I think it is very likely the issue of voting to reduce the debt. Not only has the personalization of the governments spending conflated the citizens reality, but also the continued concept that reducing taxes will improve the governments position AND will put more money in your pocket has been the base of which debt reduction is promoted.
So, I can easily see (though they might not see it) that a reasonable citizen would vote for reducing the debt/deficit because in doing so they believe they are voting in their best financial interest.
This means, the progressives/dems need to go to a more simple presentation and a much more personal presentation than Keynes. Yes, it would be based on such understanding but it is not capable of addressing the fear and personal experience as it has been presented.
As good as Warren is, she has not brought the understanding of Keynes down to that “gut” level where the kitchen table talk happens such that it will challenge and show the error of reason the citizens are using in thinking reducing the debt/deficit and tax will reduce their debt/deficit. The understanding of Keynes etc, even effective demand has to be presented so that as the citizens are talking about it, they are figuring it out.
This is why the conservative economics have been so successful in moving the population. They present it in such a way that the discovery of the understanding happens during the kitchen table discussion.
Let me put it this way. Why has the population jumped on the unions as evil? Why is the question: How come they get so much more than I get? Implying that those unions are over paid. Why is the true question not being asked: Why do I not get what they got?
How is it that the simple reality that each year this nation produces more, means that it is not going broke is not understood? How is it that the simple fact that the nation is producing more each year means you should have more each year is not understood?
This is the level of simplicity that must be presented if the dems/progressives want to succeed in getting this nation back to working for everyone in that the nation’s goal in not simply growth but the reduction of life’s risks of living.
Sitting and talking at the kitchen table is always about reducing the risks of life. Present Keynes that way and we win.
As far as worrying about the federal deficit, I think that concerns mainly Repubs-who-have-it-made-types — Tea Party types. I doubt if that issue is why Dem Governor Pat Quinn was ousted by a Repub private equity type who made a campaign of studiously avoiding any specifics on how he was going to make anything better.
Rawlsian justice? In my cab driver ignorance a minute on Wiki I take that as some sort of theory of just distribution. Liberty, equality, fraternity — like that? The French Revolution was based on ideals; the American revolution was based on the idea that people were always going to be at each other’s throats in selfish pursuit of their own interests — and our checks and balances form of government was designed with that in mind. Which was successful?
Ask Jimmy Hoffa (7th grade education) — probably the most popular union leader ever with his members (including me — was in for a short spell) because he delivered the bucks — high pay. He spent thirty years, coming up from the labor jungle of Detroit in the Depression, gradually spreading his version of CENTRALIZED BARGAINING across the country until he finally achieved the Teamsters Union’s National Master Freight Agreement.
No more race to the bottom. In general terms, no Walmart coming in and sucking the life out of other retail employees contracts by underpay its workers — and undercutting prices. Walmart closed 88 big boxes in Germany because it could not profit paying the same pay and benefits as everyone else.
A labor market setup with centralized bargaining means universal unionization which means universal political muscle for the 99%. Note bene.
If the Great Recession never happened the American labor market would still be turning more and more into the American labor hell. I just today read a quote from Keynes in a 2010 book, Low Wage Work in the Wealthy World: “Economists are not the guardians of civilization, but they are the guardians of the possibility of civilization.”
It would not matter if the economy were running hot in a fascist country. It does not matter if it is running hot in America’s “hollow democracy” (to coin a phrase?) where the average person gets squeezed both economically and politically to their limit of misery (just short of taking to the streets). Without power which can be supplied only by unions — and only by broadly present unions — and only under a centralized bargaining setup so unionization isn’t futile — the smoothest running economy in the world will be a (is a) miserable failure.
To which I might add (actually forgot to say — now might as well shout :-]):
SUPERMARKET WORKERS AND AIRLINE EMPLOYEES WOULD KILL FOR CENTRALIZED BARGAINING! !!! (if only some candidate somewhere would whisper the legislative possibility out loud)
As others have noted, this election was lost due to failure of Democratically oriented voters to participate. I would add that the senate contests were largely in red states. As to the lack of participation, however, perhaps it’s time to give the electorate some of the blame it so richly deserves. To think that non participation is somehow neutral is ignorant and/or stupid. Many of the facts discussed here and elsewhere that should have motivated the voters were widely published. They were, it seems, simply ignored. I would love to believe that some communication technique or focus could change that but I’ve watched it occur for too many years. It has been noted that presidents in the last two years of two year terms often suffer severe legislative losses in the last midterm election of their second term including Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton and now Obama. Nixon and Johnson are special cases. There is apparently a belief abroad in the land that if one is unhappy with the current state of affairs, voting in the president’s opponents will somehow create change for the better. What was that definition of insanity again?
Voting for someone worse does not create change for the better.
Daniel–
“Tom Udall?
It’s “Mark Udall” –you know, like “Mo Udall.”
Why do so many Americans dislike unions?
Because, unfortunately, back when unions were powerful, too many were corrupt– very corrupt. I’m old enough to remember
what went on.
This is why so many Americans applauded when Ronald Reagan (cruelly and unfairly) smashed the controller’s union. (They were not corrupt. They were not greedy. They were mainly concerned about safety issues. But he broke that union, and the majority of the country cheered.
So the whole notion that we progressives can fix things by
rallying around unions is like the idea that if we just
explain Keynesian economics to the American people,
everything will be okay.
Beverly–
You write: “Paul Krugman, too, explains Keynesian fiscal economics clearly, succinctly, and very-easily-understandably, pretty regularly in his columns and on his blog. It’s not hard at all. Krugman repeats it not because he thinks his regular readers haven’t yet understood his earlier explanations but instead as a jump-off point to make some other point, and also (presumably) for new readers”
Beverly–do you have any idea who reads the New York Times–and what slice of that audience reads Krugman?
You are talking about well-educated liberals, many of whom live in Manhattan, L.A. or Boston.
Do you realize that the majority of Americans have never attended college, and that most would have a very hard time
reading one of Krugman’s columns all the way to the end?
(And as you say, he is a clear concise writer).
Do you think that if Dems running for office tried harder to
explain Keynesian economics, they could bring out more
black, Latino and low-income voters?
Do you really think those folks are worried about how much power corporations have, or how much power Wall Street has?
Axt– 113
You’re exactly right about Obamacare.
The medical device tax is the only part that may be vulnerable–
in part because Elizabeth Warren is agains ti (the device
lobbyists in her state have gotten to her.)
And other lDemos could well follow Warren on this issue.
It’s pretty easy–arguing that if we tax them, they won’t be have the $$$ to create more and more new and better devices.
(Of course, the truth is that the vast majority of new devices are no better than the old ones, just far more expensive, and riskier–because they haven’t been around that long. Think of J&J’s hip.
Meanwhile, profit margins among large device-makers are
obscene.
But I agree, the Republicans might win that one.
But that’s about it.
Obama will veto anything else that attempts to undermine the
Affordable Care ACt. He has made that clear.
And, as you say, the Republicans won’t have the super-majority need to overturn a veto.
Axt113–
Yes: you’re right: Obama laid it all out in the
press conference.
He’s not going to back down on anything important.
— Obamacare is not in danger.
—He will press forward with immigration reform–and win.
(Republicans will be caught between a rock and a hard place.
They don’t want to vote in favor of amnesty and alienate
their older white racist base.
On the other hand they don’t want to vote against it and give up any hope of Latinos (or people under 30 ,or well-educated adults , or women–all of whom favor amnesty) ever
voting for them.
This is why Boehner said this afternoon that there is no
guarantee that Congress will vote on immigration reform.
My guess is that they’ll just look the other way, and let Obama
do whatever he decides to do. (He has the authority; legal
precedent is behind him.)
Beverly–
Your disdain for Obama’s intellectual capacity, like your
assertion that Hillary couldn’t begin to explain health care reform or health care costs, are breathtaking.
Obamacare was built on HillaryCare. She knows the law inside/out and learned all about why our health care is so
expensive (over-treatment and paying way too much for everything , from doctors to screws) from the folks at Dartmouth who have spent more than 3 decades on the research.
As for Obama’s “mental agility” — I just wish my mind were that
agile.
Maggiemahar,
it was Tom Udall that won. Mark lost.
Never said rally around unions.
Read it all again.
Maggie,
Why did Americans rally around unions in the first place? The same terrible conditions have returned.
[snip]
Look at most of the Americans you meet working on less than specific training-required jobs (like x-ray tech): they are embarrassed. They are earning $400-$500 a week. $500 is today’s median income (median wage is $16 so they must not be getting 50 weeks or 40 hours).
Look at the official federal poverty line: 3 X the price of an emergency diet (dried beans only please; no expensive canned) — a formula from the mid-fifties = $20,000 poverty line for family of three ($400 a week). Realistic minimum needs line based on table 3-2, p. 44 (after adjusting for inflation) in the MS Foundation book Raise the Floor works out to more like $50,000 a year for family of three if it has to pay for its medical insurance ($1,000 a week!). HALF OF TODAY’S AMERICANS EARN HALF THAT POVERTY LINE OR LESS!
[snip]
Polls show 50% of Americans want to be in unions — but current law provides them not with a civilized path to organization but with a gantlet to run through and be beaten into the ground in.
I suggest you look at the success — and widespread approval — of continental (and French Canadian) centralized bargaining unions before you so blithely dismiss their appeal. Fact is Mag, that you and David Cay Johnston and Dean Baker and all the rest of progressive drum beaters are just moving air molecules until re-unionization takes place. There is nobody how in the Congress to listen to you concerns. Massively re-unionize (by law) and the same shleps will be calling you to find out what you want.
Legally mandated, centralized bargaining — and the political muscle that comes with it — is the only labor market/social setup that can work in the modern world. Why are you afraid to sell it, do you think people are too stupid to understand the simple labor market they work in — or lack interest. As I always say Jimmy Hoffa had a 7th grade education.
As I also always say — once you educate people about this super-simple way to super-effectively unionize – supermarket workers and airline employees will kill for centralized booking. And 90% of Fight-For-Fifteen supporters would line up to vote at three in the morning like an Apple mob.
Maggie, I sincerely suggest that you and David Cay, etc., temporarily give up what you all are working on now and spend all your time enlightening the public to the magic bullet of centralized bargaining. Really. It would be much more efficient in the long run — you will get your reforms that much faster. 🙂
A COMMENT LIFTED FROM AN AMERICAN PROSPECT ARTICLE BY
A COMMENT BORROWED FROM AN AMERICAN PROSPECT ARTICLE — The Democrats’ Catastrophe and the Need For a New Agenda — The party’s failure isn’t just the result of Republican negativity.
Harold Meyerson
November 5, 2014
“Marx was wrong in his proscriptions for how to protect workers. They found a way through unions and government policy to maintain a reasonable balance of power and we were able to get through the depression while maintaining a functioning market and private capital.
“Today however the balance of power has shifted so far to the rich and privileged that misery and insecurity are the lot for most American workers.
“The powerful have found a way to:
– Compete American workers against the lowest paid and most exploited in the world
– Eliminate worker power in most ares
– Capture government help in securing privileges for themselves
– Steer and pollute the debate on important public issues such as global warming and the need for fiscal stimulus in times like these.
[snip]
“This situation will not change until a majority of the public is educated about how they are being exploited and stop voting against there own self interest.” [emphasis mine]
TO ME THAT MEANS educating them to the only labor union setup that has close to 70 years of success behind it in some of the most successful economies — and societies: that would be centralized bargaining only of course. Who will tell the people?
Drew–
I guess you didn’t read this article by Harold Myerson:
“With Unions Gone, Workers Turn to Legislation.” (sorry, I’m having a hard time pasting URL, but you can Google it.)
He writes that workers will win raises only through legislation that raises the minimum wage.
He’s quite clear: “With the near-elimination of unions from the private-sector economy, legislation remains the sole means available for workers to bargain for their fair share of their company’s revenue, particularly in sectors, such as retail, that can’t really relocate. That’s why the victories of those workers demonstrating at Wal-Mart and fast-food outlets have taken the form of legislated increases in local minimum wages, rather than resulting in union contracts.”
He is right of course. State by stage, city by city, minimum
wages are rising. Over the next 2 years, it’s quite possible that Republicans in Congress will agree to a modest increase in the
minimum wage. (Though they are so self-destructive, they
may not even do that. )
Nevertheless, at the local level, min wages will rise in a great
many places.
In the meantime, by and large, private sector unions represent the past.