Why Obama Needs a Primary Challenge from the 'Left'

bdzz for Daily Kos    Tue Jun 28, 2011

The president's strategy for reelection is pretty clear: defer to the main conservative obsession (currently the debt 'crisis'), defend the most popular liberal programs (Social Security, Medicare), and continue to 'embrace' compromise.  I.e. Obama is positioning himself as the 'sensible centrist' and it's a familiar stance.  Bill Clinton was the master of this sort of thing, but it's been the mainstay of the Democratic party since way back in the 1980s, when conservatives became the dominant force in U.S. politics.  (All of Obama's serious opponents in the 2008 primaries fit this mold.)

Now I admit that this kind of politics doesn't make me dance and sing, but it is a reasonable strategy, and it's consistent with the politician that Obama has, in fact, always been - a practical centrist (not a true liberal, and certainly not the 'leftist' of conservative rants). Unfortunately, the strategy has a potential flaw. And that, of course, is the economy.

At least so far, Obama's position has been that the economy is basically on the right track.  He has recently proposed a little innocuous industrial policy to help things along, but otherwise the message is 'stay the course'.  This is pretty non-threatening stuff and fits well with the sensible centrist stance (And I suspect it's what Obama genuinely believes).  It's a safe and viable strategy if unemployment actually declines over the next year.  Unfortunately,  there is good reason to think that it won't, and it's quite possible that the economy will get actually get worse.

If so, voters will be left with a nasty and dangerous choice: vote for Obama and the economic status quo or try a 'change' to the GOP's neo-libertarian 'vision'.  With the unemployment rate close to 10%, the status quo is not terribly appealing. There will a great temptation, especially among 'independent' voters, to support any promise of economic change, no matter how dubious.  Democrats will have a very hard sell.  Even if Obama manages to get reelected (possible given the Republican field), we could end up with Republicans in control of the House and the Senate.

Now one could argue that given the Republicans' strength in Congress (especially after the 2010 election), there isn't really much the president can do to lower unemployment.  That's true, but it isn't an argument Obama has made to the public.  One could also argue that GOP's proposed budget cuts will be terrible for economy.  But again, the president has not made that case.  One could easily argue that conservatives are pushing the country over the cliff and only a big Democratic victory can avert disaster.  But that's not the president's position - it's not the sensible centrist way.

One problem is that Obama's economic policy is a compromise between conservatism and a hypothetical progressive policy that most Americans never hear.  Oh, it's out there if you look for it, but isn't part of the mainstream news cycle.  The U.S. news media reports most issues as two sided battles: the White House vs the party that's out of power.  With a centrist president, the 'left-wing' of the Democratic party is barely heard. 

To prevent the GOP from exploiting our economic woes in the next election, someone needs to articulate a real economic alternative.  That will require challenging the nonsensical paranoia about the federal debt. It will probably require confronting conservatives about the utter failure of their policies - during that quarter of a century when they held sway over American politics. These are not things that we can expect of Obama - his repertoire is based on compromise, not confrontation.

The majority of Americans may not be ready for the kind of policies that could actually lower unemployment (such as substantial, sustained public works projects,  or a redistribution of income through serious tax reform).  But putting them on the table would help if only to clarify things.  In particular it would help clarify the president's place in the political spectrum. If voters aren't quite ready for a real solution to unemployment, Obama is a viable compromise, if people understand that he really is a compromise, between the neo-libertarian right and a progressive alternative. The question is, how to get a non-conservative alternative into the light of day?

Some Democrats in Congress are trying - there has recently been some talk about a fiscal stimulus (albeit a modest one). Unfortunately, these efforts probably won't get much attention. With a Republican majority in the House, there is almost no chance of a fiscal stimulus passing. And that means it won't be much of story in the eyes of the media.   U.S. news organizations like big stories, and for the next year the big political story will be the fight for the Republican presidential nomination.

To get the media's attention, we'll need a story that's bigger than the GOP circus.  It's a tall order, but perhaps a challenge to the president from the 'left' would do the trick.  (By 'left', of course I mean liberals.  With the exception of Bernie Sanders, there's no one in U.S. politics who can properly be called 'left wing').

Let me hasten to say that a third-party challenge is pointless.  The last thing the we need is repeat of the 2000 election, when Ralph Nader helped put Bush II in office.  Like it or not, in our political system third party campaigns are at best spoilers. No third party has ever gotten anywhere in U.S. politics.

No, what we really need is for some liberal Democrat to take on the thankless task of running against Obama in the primaries. That would be a story the media could get its teeth into.  An underdog, a dark horse, idealistic supporters ... reporters would eat it up.  It might even supplant the Tea Party as the media's obsession. 

Voters, in particular 'swing' voters, need to be shown that there is way out of our economic malaise.  They need to undestand that a Republican victory will move us further from real economic recovery.  And it needs to be clear that despite their excessive moderation, Obama and the Democrats could move us closer.  A liberal opponent for Obama may be the best way to make the point.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,2012 Elections,The Economy,Current Events,Politics

We have a revenue problem, not a spending problem

Joan McCarter    Tue Jul 05, 2011

The refrain that's won the day, apparently, for budget negotiators racing to see who can get the most praise from the Very Serious People for making the most Americans suffer under austerity, is "we having a spending problem." Not to put too fine a point on it: Bullshit.

That's a chart from the Senate Appropriations Committee, making a key point.

Our deficit and debts can be traced to the fact that spending on entitlement programs and defense has shot up, and tax revenues have plummeted to their lowest level in decades. But spending on domestic discretionary programs has grown much more slowly. And, if you correct for inflation, and for growing population, it turns out we're spending exactly the same amount on these programs as we were a full decade ago....

"Although non-defense discretionary spending in nominal dollars has increased, when taking inflation and population growth into account the amount contained in the [2011 budget] represents no increase over what we spent in 2001, a year in which we generated a surplus of $128 billion," said chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) in a prepared statement. "So the right question to ask is: Are we really spending too much on non-defense programs? The answer is clearly no."

...In the wake of the Bush tax cuts, and the Great Recession, tax revenue has fallen through the floor to near-historic lows. As a percentage of GDP, it's fallen 24 percent since 2001, and if you correct for inflation, the government is collecting nearly 20 percent less per person than it was a decade ago. At the same time, the population-adjusted costs of mandatory spending programs—driven by Medicare, including its new prescription drug benefit, and Medicaid—have increased by over 30 percent. And, of course, defense spending has skyrocketed. But if you isolate domestic discretionary programs, a decade later we're spending no more on a per-person basis than we were back then.

What has increased? Health care spending, but at a rate that would have nearly been covered by massive loss of revenue in the past decade. TPM took the numbers from the Committee and "put them in a slightly different context, so you can see by what percentage spending and revenues have risen and fallen on a population adjusted basis over the last decade."

As they say, it clearly shows "what is and is not the culprit of deficits and our supposedly out-of-control spending."

 

Technorati Tags: Budget Cuts,Taxes,Debt Ceiling,Republicans,Current Events,Politics