THOMAS FRANK, AUTHOR OF THE LANDMARK 2004 BOOK, “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” has said that, for a purportedly rightist party, Republicans talk an awful lot about class resentment — but in a strangely inverted way, defining elites in terms of cultural preferences: “Volvo-driving, Latte-sipping, liberal snobs in their big cities, looking down their noses at the humble, hard-working common folk out in ‘flyover country.’” Frank rightly points out that one thing never mentioned by Republicans is the role of economics in the class structure.
The reason Republicans get away with this is because Democrats moved away from grounding their policies in economic fairness. As Republicans started defining themselves as champions of working people — a definition that, if you look at their economic policies, is ludicrous — Democrats went along with defining themselves more along cultural lines.
One of the most disheartening things about the Democratic Party’s haplessness is that it has allowed Republicans to incrementally weaken the New Deal, their longstanding goal. Why? Because the New Deal cost the plutocrats power — and plutocrats are whose interests they represent.
Plutocrats hated New Deal-style policies when they were first enacted, and have hated them ever since, because what they desire is a frightened, submissive and, most of all, low-wage workforce that will allow them to make more money and thus have more power.
This is why single-payer health care represents such a threat to Republicans’ real constituency, the oligarchy, and why it was demagogued to death. Fear of losing medical benefits was very effective in keeping people from stepping out of line and demanding better wages or working conditions.
This is why Our Reptilian Corporate Masters absolutely love crippling student loan debt: it is a potent tool to hold over folks to keep them from threatening the system. They want a population that is “educated” along the lines of vocational training (the knowledge that one is incurring a large debt tends to focus one’s mind on the income potential of one’s major) rather than what used to be considered an “education” before the rise of corporate capitalism in the late 19th century. And that is why raising taxes, and especially making our tax system more progressive (i.e., raising the tax rates as one goes up the income scale) is That Which Must Not Be Done according to Republican rhetoric.
The thing is, Democrats, too, deserve a share of the blame for failing to restrain the oligarchy.
If you’re a Democrat and you really want your heart broken some time, read FDR’s first or second inaugural addresses or virtually any utterance of Harry S Truman (the ones about economics, anyway), and then compare and contrast with the current Thing That Used To Be Liberalism.
FDR:
“Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.”
I suspect a lot of the haplessness of the current Democratic Party can be traced to the way the left split in the late 1960s over Vietnam and, to a lesser extent, the civil rights movement — blue collar and union guys versus “New Left” college radicals. That split has consistently and only served one particular group of folks: the rich.
But the consensus American left position, the set of beliefs that really distinguished you as “left,” used to be very simple, and widely shared across that end of the spectrum, and went like this:
It is legitimate and necessary to use the power of the central government — through progressive taxation, modest income redistribution and support for labor — to restrain the tendency of big business to concentrate wealth in the hands of an elite few, and thus provide social and economic stability.
See? Simple.
Everything else needs to flow from that crucial, central, distinctive-to-the-left premise — and when it does, suddenly the national conversation starts to change.
When the Republican Party says we need tax cuts to stimulate the economy, I’d love it if Democrats countered by pointing out that Republicans have been trying that for years with no discernible effect on the economic health of the country, and really just want to give more money to their rich friends and weaken the government’s ability to stick up for working folks. They might also say that we Democrats want to pass a big jobs bill to give our constituency, ordinary Joes and Janes, a chance to practice their legendary work ethic and provide a future for their children.
The last sentence of that FDR quote — “Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men” — is a more or less perfect description of the disdain with which Wall Street and the banking industry was held by a large fraction of the country in early 2009.
In short, I and many others on the populist left have been calling for the Democratic Party to take the golden opportunity of the current crisis to break out the economic populist rhetoric to sell economic populist policies.
This would seem to be an obvious and winning strategy that could plausibly lead to a couple generations of electoral and ideological dominance — which is precisely what happened the last time Democrats went all-in for the American worker.
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.
Freedom says
Another waste of energy to read any of this junk.
Danny DeMars says
Agreed.
Robert M. Shelby says
“Freedom”, you and “Danny” are completely wrong. You’re so full of your own unexcreted, intestinal matter you can’t see straight.
Will Gregory says
From the above article:
” In short, I and many others on the populist left have been calling for the Democratic Party to take the golden opportunity of the current crisis to break out the economic populist rhetoric to sell economic populist policies.”
Another look (article below) at the democrats and republicans, that gives the reader and the community a more profound understanding of the present two party system.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/18/absurdity
Will Gregory says
From the above article:
” In short, I and many others on the populist left have been calling for the Democratic Party to take the golden opportunity of the current crisis to break out the economic populist rhetoric to sell economic populist policies.”
Question: Will this happen?
An excerpt from the article below for the community to consider….
” Obama’s fiscal stimulus spending programs have been grossly insufficient–not just in terms of levels of spending, but in the composition and timing of that spending as well.”
“The failure of Obama’s fiscal stimulus programs to create jobs has contributed significantly to the weakest job recovery from recession of the 11 prior recessions since 1945.”
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-failure-of-fiscal-monetary-policy-2008-2013-by-jack-rasmus
Tom says
Matt –
You stated,
“They want a population that is ‘educated’ along the lines of vocational training (the knowledge that one is incurring a large debt tends to focus one’s mind on the income potential of one’s major) rather than what used to be considered an “education” before the rise of corporate capitalism in the late 19th century.”
Focus is a good thing. Focus on sound investments of your money and time are great things! Are you saying that anyone pursuing an education should not consider the costs and benefits of that education? I loved the college experience. Why would I ever leave that world if I didn’t have to worry about the costs or my ability to pay for my tuition, room and board? Party on dude!
I chose to study engineering. Not because of a burning desire to master calculus and quantum physics, but because I was practical, adept at math and wanted to make a better life for me and a future family. When I graduated from college for the first time I had $200 to my name, $7,500 in student loans (at 9% interest) and moved 1000 miles away from home, family and friends for the highest wage with the best company that I had an offer from. I never owned my own car until I was 22 and on my own. Guess what? I could have attended a state school with a tuition that was less than 20% of the private institution that I chose to attend. If I had, I could have lived with my parents saving significant room and boarding costs. Living away was at least half of the education. Worth every penny! But for others the right choice is a different area of study and / or an in-state public college. Go for what makes the most sense for you!
Six years after graduation I was debt free and living in California (over 2500 miles from home). Five years after that I bought a home with 10% down. Three years after that I went back college for an Ivy League Masters’ Degree. I’m kinda glad that I focused on the income potential of my chosen fields of study with an eye towards majors that were economically sustainable. Actively managing my debt is probably the best thing that I’ve done. I’m proud of my 800+ credit score. I’ve spent a lifetime working on it, and it has provided significant rewards.
But that’s just me. If somebody wants to pursue an education for the sheer joy of it, hoping that it will make economic sense, they have every right to do so. They have every right to pursue an education even if they do not think that it will land them a job. As long as they pay for it!
Or…
Party on dude! Who are we going to send the bill to?
Gdo says
Well good for you. What does that have to do with the rest of America, and how does it address the points that Matt is trying to make? I have an Ivy League undergrad, Masters and PhD, make plenty of money, and I agree 100% with Matt. So what? Your story doesn’t advance the conversation at all, it just asks us to pat you on the back. Well, pat pat. Feel better?
Thanks for your efforts, Matt!
Thomas Petersen says
Thanks for the chuckle.
Bob Livesay says
Thomas what do you think Rogee would say?
Thomas Petersen says
Not really sure what that means. What would Bob say? Never mind that, the real question is, “Say about what?”.
Bob Livesay says
Rojee
environmentalpro says
Perhaps you mean Roger? Maybe get your spell check checked out. Either way, whatever your trying to say, remains cryptic at best.
Bob Livesay says
You can not figure it out. Sounds very familiar.
environmentalpro says
You are wasting time and space here, for no apparent reason. Much more familiar.
Robert M. Shelby says
Livesay is on the same raft floating downstream toward the falls as “Freedom” and “Danny Demars.”
Tom says
Gdo –
I am not looking for a pat on the back. I inferred from Matt’s statements above that one should not evaluate educational opportunities through an economic lense. That is completely counter to my experiences, some of which I attempted to share. People, especially young people, should invest their time and money in developing skills that will enable them to be financially independent.
Just as you’ve done. Pat, pat back!
DDL says
Gdo stated: I have an Ivy League undergrad, Masters and PhD, make plenty of money, and I agree 100% with Matt.
Not exactly an endorsement of the education attained within the hallowed halls of Ivy.
DDL says
Matt stated: an obvious and winning strategy that could plausibly lead to a couple generations of electoral and ideological dominance — which is precisely what happened the last time Democrats went all-in for the American worker.
Matt – Just to be certain; could you clarify what action or year are you referring to?
DDL says
Matt Stated: read FDR’s first or second inaugural addresses
One can also learn from his acceptance speech of 1932:
from FDR’s Acceptance Speech 0f 1932
My friends, may this be the symbol of my intention to be honest and to avoid all hypocrisy or sham, to avoid all silly shutting of the eyes to the truth in this campaign
And later:
I know something of taxes. For three long years I have been going up and down this country preaching that Government–Federal and State and local–costs too much. I shall not stop that preaching. As an immediate program of action we must abolish useless offices. We must eliminate unnecessary functions of Government–functions, in fact, that are not definitely essential to the continuance of Government.
We must merge, we must consolidate subdivisions of Government, and, like the private citizen, give up luxuries which we can no longer afford.
By our example at Washington itself, we shall have the opportunity of pointing the way of economy to local government, for let us remember well that out of every tax dollar in the average State in this Nation, 40 cents enter the treasury in Washington, D. C., 10 or 12 cents only go to the State capitals, and 48 cents are consumed by the costs of local government in counties and cities and towns.
I propose to you, my friends, and through you, that Government of all kinds, big and little, be made solvent and that the example be set by the President of the United States and his Cabinet.
Robert M. Shelby says
Dennis, FDR had to appeal to conservatives as well as liberal progressives. His opening sentence is a strategic disclaimer of his actual aim. Rhetorically, he claims to want what any sensible person wants from government: financial efficiency and fair expenditure. The hidden issues were, efficiency at what cost to whom at last and fairness to whom from first to last? His statements contained “fog points” from which listeners of different wish went away thinking they were clear about what had been said. I mustn’t suggest you have much to learn. You studied engineering and know, as I wrote some time ago, everything about anything. Just ask you.
Will Gregory says
Another FDR quote for the community to consider…
“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. ”
-Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws”
Bob Livesay says
Are you sure President Obama did not say the same thing. The only difference is President Obama wants the government owned by the Liberal Socialist.
Robert M. Shelby says
Bobbie, will you never cease being simple and silly?
Bob Livesay says
RMS you are not one to be a critic of anyone. Get your own life straight. Please Robert you have no clue. Just stop your crap or the new one will be coming sooner than you think.