Hullabaloo

Sunday, July 24, 2011

 
Wankstock Too

by digby

It looks like we got us a full blown Centrists Revolt on our hands. First there's the Super Congress, which plans to allow nothing but Very Serious Grown-ups to gather in backrooms to decide what to tell the children (also known as citizens) they are going to have to do. Should be awesome. Maybe they can do elections like too. It would save a lot of money. And we're going to need it. For catfood.

But that's nothing to the re-emergence of the perennial Third Party for the Radical Middle. The last time they brought in Jack McCoy and called it Unity 08. Today Tom "suck on this" Friedman announces the latest incarnation, creatively dubbed "Americans Elect."

Thanks to a quiet political start-up that is now ready to show its hand, a viable, centrist, third presidential ticket, elected by an Internet convention, is going to emerge in 2012. I know it sounds gimmicky — an Internet convention — but an impressive group of frustrated Democrats, Republicans and independents, called Americans Elect, is really serious, and they have thought out this process well. In a few days, Americans Elect will formally submit the 1.6 million signatures it has gathered to get on the presidential ballot in California as part of its unfolding national effort to get on the ballots of all 50 states for 2012.

Oh Goody. These are people who evidently think the political center is between Barack Obama and the Republicans. Think about that for a moment.

Dave Weigel shares this bit of background on who Friedman and the Centrists see boldly challenging the status quo:

At the Aspen Ideas Festival, I'd heard him muse, to an audience of the sort of people who wouldn't laugh at "Americans Elect," that Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles should consumate their partnership as a presidential ticket.

Fortunately these wealthy gadflies come up with something like this in almost every election and it inevitably goes nowhere. Here's a little trip down memory lane:

January 07, 2008

By The Time They Got To Wankstock

by digby

Following up on D-Day's post below, may I just reiterate how predictable it is that the Bloomer Wankstock has now decided to insist that the candidates "renounce partisan bickering"? D-day wonders what that means:

If the Democrats want to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making $200,000 or more, and the Republicans don't want any expiration, is the bipartisan position letting the tax cuts expire for those making (infinity-$200,000)/2?

Actually, that's not it at all. "Partisan bickering" means the Democrats proposing to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Period. You see, it's divisive for Democrats to even hint that the Republicans have been on the wrong track. We need to move on from that kind of partisan ugliness and "get something done" which is actually get nothing done.

What the Bloomberg discussions and the calls for bipartisanship are all about is to narrow the range of options for the Democratic nominee. That's part of what I was illustrating with the David Boren sketch of yesterday.

Look, the real agenda here is to cut the heart out of the economic populist pitch that's shown to be very popular among the grassroots in both parties thus far. The standard bearers of that pitch may not make it to the finish line, but there's a strong possibility that their effect will be felt in the coming campaign. In 1992, health care and the deficit became the defining issues of the campaign not because Bill Clinton came into the campaign running on them but because a fluke health care campaign by Senator Harris Wofford was taken up by Bob Kerrey and others in the primaries --- and the deficit was flogged as the greatest threat to western civilization by a bipartisan group of "centrists" called the Concord Coalition --- and a little nutcase named Ross Perot.

As they did then, the villagers, plutocrats and the aristocrats have to put a stop to any populist/progressive policies as quickly as possible. They substitute progressive policies with calls for "fiscal responsibility" and knee-cap populist sentiment with these cries for "centrist solutions." One tried and true method is to set up a situation where conciliation is supposedly the take away message from the voters and then blame the change agents when the other side plays the victim. The Republicans are very good at staging the hissy kabuki, which will, as usual, twist the Democrats into pretzels as they try to battle it back. (I have seen nothing from any candidate that indicates they have the skill to change that particular dynamic.)

They bank on the fact that people will understand that since the Republicans spent the country into oblivion and the wars without end must be funded or the boogeymen will kill them in their in their beds, we just can't afford new programs when the nation needs to "sacrifice." (Yes, now they will ask for sacrifice...)

And about those tax cuts, Krugman nails it this morning:

The November election will take place against that background of economic distress, which ought to be good news for candidates running on a platform of change.

But the opponents of change, those who want to keep the Bush legacy intact, are not without resources. In fact, they’ve already made their standard pivot when things turn bad — the pivot from hype to fear. And in case you haven’t noticed, they’re very, very good at the fear thing.

You see, for 30 years American politics has been dominated by a political movement practicing Robin-Hood-in-reverse, giving unto those that hath while taking from those who don’t. And one secret of that long domination has been a remarkable flexibility in economic debate. The policies never change — but the arguments for these policies turn on a dime.

When the economy is doing reasonably well, the debate is dominated by hype — by the claim that America’s prosperity is truly wondrous, and that conservative economic policies deserve all the credit.

But when things turn down, there is a seamless transition from “It’s morning in America! Hurray for tax cuts!” to “The economy is slumping! Raising taxes would be a disaster!”

It's "divisive" you see, to question such things. But we must deal with the deficit, which in beltway CW means spending cuts. (William Cohen called the deficit "fiscal child abuse" today at Wankstock.)

The compromise, if there is one, will be no new taxes and no new programs. Voila: the status quo.

And it isn't just domestic policy. The very "serious" foreign policy clerisy is terribly worried about divisiveness too. Here's Michael O'Hanlon offering his special brand of village wisdom in the WSJ this morning:

[T]here are nonetheless two problems with Mr. Obama's Iraq views that call into doubt his ability to build a truly inclusive American political movement. First, he seems contemptuous of the motivations of those who supported the war. While showing proper respect for the heroic efforts of our troops, he displays little regard for the views of those many Americans who saw the case for war in the first place -- even as he has called for a more civil and respectful political debate.

[...]

Politically, Republicans will surely try to paint any policy of rapid, complete withdrawal as Democratic defeatism. Mr. Obama needs to think hard about whether his uplifting message of hope is really bulletproof enough to withstand these charges -- and about whether his Iraq views truly reflect the non-ideological, nonpartisan wisdom of the American people that he seeks to lead.

The CW is emerging on all fronts. The conservative political establishment is obviously very worried about a rejection of the status quo of earthquake proportions.

I do not believe that it is impossible to beat it back, but we have to be clear eyed about the forces that are being gathered to defeat this. They will not go quietly, and once a Democrat is in office, they will use all of their formidable powers to keep them constricted within a narrow range of acceptable policy options.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade. I've long extolled the virtue and necessity of inspiration and participation in politics and real democratic mandate would be a powerful weapon. But real change isn't going to be simple and it isn't going to be easy, no matter how big a mandate for a strong progressive agenda the Democrats are able to achieve. This is a massive ship we're trying to turn and while it's necessary to have a talented captain at the helm, it takes more than that to counter momentum. We're just beginning to see the movement that's necessary to change course.

The ship's steering mechanism seems to be broken. Anybody know how to fix it?

.

digby 7/24/2011 09:35:00 AM