Timothy Egan says that liberal and conservative won't matter so much in 2010. Why? Excerpt:
It takes quite a bit for Americans to say that the social contract is broken, or look upon concentrated wealth as anything except a virtue.But we may have reached that breach. Our politics are not simply left and right, conservative and liberal. Never have been. Every once in a while, the great middle of independents are stirred to one side. My guess is, if the drift caused by recent actions continues, the United States will be consumed in the coming year by the politics of betrayal, and the winner will be ahead of the rage.
Right now, a time when only 20 percent of Americans call themselves Republicans and Democrats are shrinking as well, the independents are disgusted with both parties. In large part, it's because neither one seems to be on their side.
More:
There was once a political party that came out against concentration of wealth. They called for regulation of food, drugs, and big corporations. Called for "square deal" for the average American. And their robust spokesman, the leader of their party, said this of his countrymen:"There is not in the world a more ignoble character than the mere money-getting American, insensitive to every duty, regardless of principle, bent only on amassing a fortune."
That party was the Republicans, a bit more than century ago, led by Teddy Roosevelt.
Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center is out with new polling numbers showing that 2010 is shaping up to be a powerful anti-incumbent year -- but no real interest in a third party. Independents are especially volatile, and Republicans are in a better position headed into 2010 than Democrats. It's time for some Republican outsiders who care more about lunchbucket economic issues than the Club for Growth and K Street to get their acts together and challenge GOP incumbents and party regulars!
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
There certainly is anger out there, challenging for both parties. The Dems need to tune in to the pain and anxiety of middle class voters and focus more on jobs creation, the Repubs need to get off the outrage bandwagon and “just say no” tactics and offer more practical solutions than they have. Trickier than it seems. I predict there will be lots of hyperbole, as usual, from both sides, with neither tackling the real problem of what to do with the federal budget, most of which is taken up by mandates such as Medicare and non-discretionary spending. Discretionary spending in 2009 makes up a mere third of the federal budget; a little over half of that 32.5% goes towards national security and defense. If you believe defense spending should remain untouched, that leaves very little to cut.
Look at what happened to the small slice of discretionary spending in the federal budget during the six years of the Bush administration while Republicans controlled the Congress (2001-2007) – spending on national security went up 22.7% in real capita terms, on domestic programs up a mere 1.1%. It was tax cuts and defense spending and adding to entitlements (such as the prescription drug benefit), not domestic programs, which drove up the Bush era deficit after 2001. (The Clinton era budget surplus was wiped out already in 2002.) That deficit only increased as Bush and Obama agreed on economists’ advice on how to handle the financial and fiscal crisis of 2008. Would it have been better to allow the banking system to collapse? Detroit to fail? Not everyone would say yes, yet voters feel frustrated that so much money went towards industry bailouts while Americans (some of whom had been profligate with their own spending, some of whom had been thrifty) were losing their homes and jobs.
As long as they don’t have a viable third party for which to vote, voters are going to go with one or the other of the existing ones. There well may be an anti-incumbent effect in 2010 but what will happen to the people voted in? They’ll become subject to the discipline of either the R or the D legislative leaders, compelled to vote party line to support the traditional interest (big business, labor) or become pariahs in their own caucuses. Special interests -- Big Pharma, insurance companies, defense contractors, Wall Street, trial lawyers -- will be right there in the mix, influencing legislation just as they always have.
Re: The Dems need to tune in to the pain and anxiety of middle class voters and focus more on jobs creation
The middle class isn't where the jobs trouble lies. I saw an interactive chart the other day that presented the unemployment rate by demographic group. (Wish I had the link to share-- it was off the The Atlantic's website) My group (white male college graduate, age 25-45) has a shockinglt low %3.9 unemployment rate. I was amazed-- I'm aware that college graduates aren't as seriously affected as the less educated, but I would still have guessed my demographic's rate at 6% if not higher.
This is a recession that is mostly hitting the young, the less schooled and minorities. The rest of us, not so much at all. In fact, we may be enjoying the bit of price decline and special sales all around us.
Interesting data, Jon. I haven’t looked at all the drill down data myself, I’ll have to look for the chart you mentioned. Do you remember the site?
I think there is an inchoate aspect to some public anxiety. That creates challenges in and of itself. Some people clearly are worried about their personal budgets and the federal deficit. Others may feel a general sense of gloom, a worry that the future will not be very bright economically. That may come from the fact that they sense that the aging of the baby boomers will create enormous budgetary problems.
There’s some interesting stuff related to this at Andrew Sullivan’s blog.
The director of the CBO recently addressed the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management and said, “The country faces a fundamental disconnect between the services the people expect the government to provide, particularly in the form of benefits for older Americans, and the tax revenues that people are willing to send to the government to finance those services.”
Matt Yglesias expands on this, noting that “What we really see with the entitlement situation is a public refusal to think seriously about the future—a kind of myopia more than a refusal to pay the tab. What actually happens when the tab comes [due]? We’ll have to see. But I don’t think we really know what the public’s view of the coming crisis will be when it actually arrives.”
Bruce Bartlett reportedly says of the effect of the massive commitments to pay out Medicare and Social Security in the near future to now aging baby boomers that the massive cuts in spending that would be required may be politically impossible. Raising taxes are an option but Bartlett believes Republicans would not support that. Bartlett apparently believes a Value Added Tax would be more feasible than large increases in taxes.
That should be Bruce Bartlett reportedly says of deficit reduction efforts and the effect of the massive commitments to pay out Medicare . . .
The best political bumper sticker I ever saw was back in '88 when I was living in Boston.
It read: "Jack Sh_t for president."
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.