A Plea to the President

Could there be a better time for truly progressive Americans to begin a movement for reform? With the Tea Party leaders blathering on about undoing all the social and economic reforms of the last 110 years and returning the United States to, what. . . the 1890s? Yeah that is what we need, a roll back of progress to a time when we had unsafe food and drugs, no child labor laws, most of our wealth being consolidated in the hands a few super rich bankers and industrialists, no fire codes, substandard housing, no Social Security, no Medicare, no federal money for infrastructure projects, no flood controls, no building codes, no highway system, no safety rules governing transportation, no public health programs, no Center for Disease Control, no air and water standards and. . . well, need I go on.

Taking advantage of the fear and anger generated every time we go through hard economic times, extremists like the Tea Baggers are screaming for an end to government "interference" in our lives and, of course are totally oblivious to the consequences of what they are calling for. But to make matters worse, our Democratic political leaders are doing nothing to call these pin heads on the lunacy of their proposals. But instead, they are cowering in Washington hoping that the idiot brigade will just run out of gas and go away. Speaking only for myself, when I voted for Barrack Obama in 2008, I was voting for a set of policy initiatives but I was also voting for some political leadership. The "Bully Pulpit" is exclusively available to the President and it appears that he is reluctant to use it. As much as I support most of Obama's policy decisions, I did not vote for a technocratic manager, but for a person who would lead us in a new direction in a time of crisis. It seems pretty clear now that President Obama is reluctant to engage politically, believing that the American electorate will eventually see the merits of his agenda, by what. . . osmosis?

Looking back on our political history, it is clear that fundamental political change not only required a sound set of policy proposals, but the leadership of bold presidents to see those initiatives through. Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson did not neglect the political side of the legislative equation in getting their programs adopted. It is as if President Obama does not want to soil his hands in the dirty business of politics to bring about the adoption of his agenda. If he has learned anything from the Tea Party gang, it has to be that success in American politics is often won after some fierce battles, and can be lost by too much intellectual pondering. One does not have to look further than the failed presidencies of Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush to see the results of being too removed from the rough and tumble political arena. Like it or not, most American voters do not read the New York Times, Listen to NPR, or watch Public Television. But instead, they consume infotainment in the guise of news, consult the fringe element on the Internet, or listen to commercially sponsored talk radio for political advice.

If Rupert Murdock has taught us anything it is that the addition of screaming demagogues to simplistic and slanted news shows can be highly profitable, while building a significant following. Sometimes, Mr. President you have to punch back. . . especially since there is no intellectual hurdle one must negotiate for the privilege of voting in the United States. We have just as much of a God-given right to be stupid, vile, and bigoted in this country as we do to be reasoned and well-informed. Remember all the high brow intellectuals John Kennedy brought to Washington in 1961, you know, the so-called Best and Brightest? Well he accomplished not one of his legislative reforms while sticking to the high road. It took the all time master of political infighting, the guy the Kennedy clan reviled with Brahman disdain, Lyndon Johnson, to get a Civil Rights BIll, a Voting Rights Bill, and a Medicare Bill through a timid and reluctant Congress. LBJ was neither nice nor polished, but he was effective. He seemed to live by a philosophical position I have long employed during my teaching career: IF I CANNOT WIN YOUR RESPECT, I WILL SETTLE FOR YOUR FEAR.

Take off the gloves Mr. President, before it is too late. We not only hired you because of your positions on public policies, we hired you to lead too. And sometimes that means getting into a fight or two and calling out your critics, clearly and loudly. Heck, once you get in there and mix it up a bit, you might find that you actually like it!

Why We Need A Third Party

If any of my ex-students are reading this I am sure they are asking themselves how I could endorse a third party movement when I taught them that third parties are doomed to failure in or political system. Relax people, I have not changed my position about the ultimate failure of third parties. In the end, because of our winner take all electoral processes, it is all but impossible for a third, or minor, party to dislodge one of the two giants that dominate the American political scene. But history suggests that minor parties can and often do have a major effect on the direction of public policy, so this may not be a futile effort on my part.

In the late 19th century, a third party emerged out on the Great Plains that called itself the People's Party of America, or the Populist Party. Although this party was not around very long, most of the important policy agendas that it endorsed were ultimately adopted into our political system. In fact, this minor party that swept through the farm states in the center of our country, was instrumental in fundamentally changing both of the two major parties during its short life in the 1890s. The Populists, led by the fiery and eloquent young attorney from Omaha, William Jennings Bryan, called for many radical reforms in our political system to relieve the economic suffering of mid-American farmers. Within its party platform were calls for a national income tax, women's suffrage, direct election of US Senators, secret ballots in all elections. The first three were eventually adopted as constitutional amendments, and by the end of the first decade of the 20th century, every state had converted to the sue of secret ballots to elect officials at all levels. By most standards these would be enough to call the Populist Party a raging success.

Unfortunately, in the United States, political parties are not judged by the number of policy initiatives they inaugurate, but whether or not they can win a presidential election. By that standard the Populists were unqualified failures, so they are relegated to the trash heap of American history, along with the Anti-Masonics, Greenback Laborites, Free Soilers, and Know Nothings that preceded them in the 1800s. But if we eliminate this one criterion of success, an ability to take the White House, the Populists were anything but failures. In fact, the success of having one's policy positions woven into our political character may be much more important than a head count of presidents bearing the party name.

Throughout our history, sweeping political and economic reforms were first endorsed by minority political movements, before being adopted by an electoral majority. In a fiercely competitive political environment where the major parties are vying for control, third parties can have a major impact on the outcome of even our most important elections. In 1992, Ross Perot organized the Independent Party movement in response to the tax increases President George HW Bush promoted after the first Gulf War. Perot did not win, but his presence opened the door for a political unknown from tiny Arkansas, Bill Clinton to win the presidential election. And let us not forget that Bush was a sitting president in 1992. Then in the 2000 election, Ralph Nader, Green Party candidate, mounted a campaign for the presidency that siphoned off votes from the Democratic candidate, Vice President Al Gore. Had Gore not lost votes to Nader followers, he would have won that election and George W. Bush would have ended his public life as the retired governor of Texas.

One of the reasons that third parties fade so quickly in America is that they focus more on finding viable candidates than they do on creating plausible policy agendas. This may be the ultimate fate of the contemporary Tea Party movement. Without a clear set of policy proposals, this extreme right "party" is relying on endorsing a set of charismatic champions who shout and rail against the established political status quo, rather than championing a slate of real political objectives. However, the Tea Party movement, like the Progressive movement in the early 1900s is attempting to take over an existing major party rather than going it alone as a third party. This is a risky proposition, as moderate Republicans may be so turned off by these radical candidates that they vote Democratic in November, or just stay home in states where Tea Party candidates have won Republican primary elections.

All that aside, there is no doubt that the Tea Party movement has tapped into a portion of the American electorate that is highly energized, if completely unfocused. One can only surmise that if this kind of energy was lying dormant on the far right of the Republican Party, then those of us to the left of mainstream Democrats may need to begin organizing too. However, I believe that we will be better served outside our party, rather than trying to move the monolithic Democratic Party from within. Further, we need to focus on establishing a clear set of policy goals with specific plans for achieving them, instead of railing against our opponents, as has been the strategy of the far right. I say this because in order to be a legitimate force, a new Progressive Party will have to draw, rather than repel a number of political moderates.

There is no doubt that the Obama led Democrats decided to court the status quo from the very beginning of the President's term. Opting for a weak economic stimulus and supporting programs that rescued multi-national banks and Wall Street investors, while doing almost nothing for working Americans and financially strapped home owners has left us wallowing in a Japan-style recession with no real end in sight. Further, the watered down health care program left to the likes of Blue Dog Senators such as Max Baucus, the darling of Drug companies, offers no real change from a system suffering from runaway costs and the wrath of insurance companies. With all the shouting about socialized medicine from the right, very little attention has been paid to those of us who were hoping for real reform. A Medicare for all program or at least, a public option would rescue us from the car wreck our health delivery system is still heading for. In short, all the attention is going to people who never supported Obama and the Congressional Democrats anyway, and those of us who carried the elections of 2006 and 2008 for the Democrats have been left out in the cold. Can yo think of a more powerful message as we move toward 2012 than to let the Democratic establishment that they can no longer count on us as an automatic voting block? Me neither.

More to come on some possible policy positions. Let me know what you think.

I have moved to a new blogsite!

I am ending Off Center and continuing my left of center rants on a new blog called People'sProgressive Party. You can join or just follow at http://progresscalifornia.blogspot.com

I made the move because I believe that we progressives are not being fully represented by the old coalition of the Democratic Party. Too many Blue Dogs and conservatives under the massive Democratic tent for us to ever see any real progressive change.

Hope you all with stick around!

Greg

Thank You John Boehner!

For months now I have been trying to figure out what the Republicans were offering as an alternative to the Democrats to re-start our sagging economy. Even though the economy has created more private sector jobs under President Obama than were created during the entire Bush administration, we are nowhere near the number needed to replace those that were lost since 2008. Being a card carrying "lefty," I was in favor of a stimulus package about twice as big as the one enacted in 2009. Since I am a student of history, as well as a liberal, I was aware that FDR's timid foray into Keynesian economics in the 30s, rather than demanding an aggressive plunge, resulted in a slide back into depression in 1937. Every high school student in America knows (or at least was taught) that the Great Depression ended when World War II began. But the war did not, in and of itself, end the thirteen year economic slump in America. It was the massive deficit spending to churn out weapons of war that did the trick. The national government poured billions of borrowed dollars into the private sector to manufacture everything from guns and bullets to beds and boots, and millions of new jobs were created almost over night!

Without a doubt, the Obama stimulus was the correct medicine for our sagging economy, but the dosage was not strong enough to get the job done. Once again, timidity was the enemy of a Democratic president, and as in the midterm elections of 1938, the Republicans will reap the benefits of this luke-warm response. But then, one might ask, what is the Republican strategy for success? So far it has been little more than crying "No" to everything the Democrats have proposed. But in comes House Speaker Wanna Be John Boehner and we now have our answer.

According to Minority Leader Boehner, what we need to do to fix our economy is, drum roll please. . . extend the Bush tax cuts to everyone making over $250,000 per year! That, says Boehner, will then allow for the creation of all kinds of jobs in the private sector and we will all live happily ever after. I guess it must be part of Republican marching orders for their leaders to abstain from reading the history of the United States. We tried this "trickle down" nonsense before and it did not work. . .TWICE! First in the 80s it was called Reaganomics and it led to the Reagan Recession and our country's worst ever deficits that the country did not emerge from until 1992. Then, just to make sure that is wasn't a fluke, George W Bush and the Gingrich crowd in Congress did it again in the Bush tax cuts and the results were the worst recession since the Great Depression! But at least Bush extended the tax cuts where they could do some good today, to the middle class.

Rich people do not create jobs when they get tax cuts, they just get richer. But the middle class takes their tax savings and spends them on household goods and services which indeed put their fellow citizens back to work. So why aren't Boehner and his fellow travelers in Congress supporting President Obama's call to extend the tax cuts to everyone except those who make more than $250,000 per year? Because they are Republicans and they have never deviated from their code of making sure that the rich get richer! Why any middle class American would vote for these people is beyond my comprehension.