Blog

Subscribe to RSS

Get our blog feed via e-mail

Posts Tagged ‘conservatism’

Author, The Political Mind, Moral Politics, Don’t Think of an Elephant!

George Lakoff

By George Lakoff
Author, “
The Political Mind,” “Moral Politics,” “Don’t Think of an Elephant!

The issue is death — death gushing for months at ten thousand pounds per square inch from a mile below the sea, tens of thousands of barrels of death a day. Not just death to eleven human beings. Death to sea birds, sea turtles, dolphins, fish, oyster beds, shrimp, beaches; death to the fishing industry, tourism, jobs; and death to a way of life based on the beauty and bounty of the Gulf.

Many, perhaps a majority, of the Gulf residents affected are conservatives, strong right-wing Republicans, following extremist Governors Bobby Jindal and Haley Barbour. What those conservatives are not saying, and may be incapable of seeing, is that conservatism itself is largely responsible for what happened, and that conservatism is a continuing disaster for conservatives who live along the Gulf. Conservatism is an ideology of death.

It was conservative laissez-faire free market ideology — that maximizing profit comes first — that led to:

  • The corrupt relationship between the oil companies and the Interior Department staff that was supposedly regulating them
  • Minimizing cost by not drilling relief wells
  • The principle that oil companies could be responsible their own risk assessments on drilling
  • Maximizing profit by outsourcing risk assessment that told them what they wanted to hear: zero risk!
  • Maximizing profit by minimizing cost of materials
  • Maximizing profit by failing to pay cleanup crews and businesses for their losses
  • Focusing only on profit by failing to test the cleanup methods to be used if something went wrong
  • Minimizing cost by sacrificing the health of cleanup crews, refusing to allow them to use respirator masks to protect against toxic fumes. (more…)

Reaching the Wrongest Conclusion About Unions!

Dave Johnson

 

By Dave Johnson
Fellow with
Campaign for America’s Future 

A letter-writer in my local paper today reaches the wrongest possible conclusion: 

Public, private workers live in different worlds
The current issue of Time magazine includes a cover story on the increasing numbers of nearly bankrupt states and municipalities across the country. An important point made in the story is that public and private workers increasingly live in separate economies. Private-sector employees face frequent job change, relentless layoffs, flat wages and rising health care premiums, and they fund their retirement with 401(k) contributions. If they’re lucky, their employers will match a portion. Many do not. Contrast that reality to public-sector employees, who enjoy relative job security, defined benefit pensions with guaranteed cost-of-living increases, and competitive wages that rise every year. Public employee unions have had a stranglehold on state and local elected officials for decades. This has to end, as the taxpayers are fed up and tapped out. Nancy Pyle needs to get a clue, as do others on the San Jose City Council.
A.S.
San Jose
 

Summary: Workers in the private sector have it harder and harder. They are increasingly losing benefits, pensions and jobs. Forced to work ever-harder in increasingly degrading work environments their wages stay flat and are starting to fall. 

Meanwhile public sector workers have strong unions so they have good jobs with good working conditions, job security, pensions and raises. 

Therefore… we should get rid of public-employee unions? Wow! Talk about coming to a grossly wrong conclusion, and working against your own interests! Just wow! 

It is a psychological truth that people would rather see others brought down than see themselves brought up, but come on! How hard is it to see that this person should be for strong private-sector unions instead of against public-sector unions. 

And the letter-writer demonstrates the core of the conservative ideological argument: All the benefits of our economy to the top few at the expense of the rest of us. 

*** 

This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary.

 

*** 

Johnson also is a fellow at the Commonweal Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for the Renewal of the California Dream. 

*** 

Follow Dave Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcjohnson 

Moving the political center

 

 

 
 

 

David Sirota

David Sirota

 

 

By David Sirota

Author of “The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populists Revolt”

When they write their retrospectives about the era that ended with the 2008 election, economic historians will undoubtedly credit George W. Bush with almost single-handedly moving the country to embrace extremist conservatism. It’s a simple storyline: Cowboy president drives bewildered American herd over laissez-faire cliff. What such reductionism will ignore, though, is what we must remember now: namely, that Congress also played a decisive role in the stampede.

 

As former House Republican leader Tom DeLay said, he and his colleagues deliberately started “every policy initiative from as far to the political right” as possible, so as to shift “the center farther to the right.” The formula emulated Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fabled admonishment to allies: “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”

 

With Bush, congressional Republicans knew they had an ideological comrade in the White House. But they also knew he was confined by the (minimally) moderating desire for re-election and the (even more minimally) moderating limits of his national office. So, to reach their goals, conservatives had to compel their presidential friend to do what they wanted – and compel him they did. When Bush’s tax cuts and deregulatory schemes hit the Capitol, Republicans inevitably expanded them to fully achieve the right’s objectives.

Of course, that triumph was the country’s loss, as Republican policies thrust the political center off a conservative precipice and America into an economic freefall. And as we plummet, we are desperately groping for a lifeline.

If we are lucky and we end up snagging one that saves us – a huge if – it will be one that is strong enough to snap the center back from the conservative brink. This super-durable bungee cord must have the force of law, meaning it will be woven by Democratic legislators now exerting as much pressure on President Obama’s left as congressional Republicans focused on President Bush’s right.

When, for instance, Obama hedged on his promise to revoke $226 billion worth of Bush’s upper-income tax cuts, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, pushed him to fulfill the pledge and put the money into programs that better guarantee job creation.

When Obama initially offered up a stimulus bill filled with discredited business tax breaks, Democratic senators forced him to back off. Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., and Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., then argued that the president’s proposed infrastructure investments were too small to boost the economy. That led House Democrats to increase Obama’s spending targets.

As stimulus negotiations continued, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., tried to add provisions letting courts renegotiate banks’ primary-residence mortgages so as to prevent more foreclosures. It’s a commonsense proposal: Judges already have the power to renegotiate vacation-home mortgages, and the New York Federal Reserve Bank says existing bankruptcy laws are exacerbating the foreclosure crisis. While Obama opposed the initiative out of fear that banking industry opposition might slow the underlying stimulus bill, Conyers’ effort ultimately made the president commit to supporting the reforms in future legislation.

Then there was the progressive reaction to Obama’s demand for more financial bailout money. Turning a routine committee hearing into a modern-day incarnation of the Great Depression’s Pecora Commission, Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., upbraided a Federal Reserve official for refusing to disclose which banks are receiving taxpayer dollars. The spectacle was one of many that whipped the House into passing a bill attaching strings to the funds. Obama responded by committing to enact some of the restrictions by fiat.

At once complementary and adversarial, this intragovernmental squabbling probably makes the conflict-averse Obama uncomfortable. But the “make him do it” dynamic could finally bring the center of Washington’s political debate closer to the progressive center of American public opinion. Even more important, it is precisely what will help the new president avert an economic disaster.

David Sirota is the best-selling author of the books “Hostile Takeover” (2006) and “The Uprising” (2008).

 

 

 

A new progressive era

Robert L. Borosage

Robert L. Borosage

By Robert L. Borosage

Co-Director Campaign for America’s Future

Today, in the New York Times, an Institute for America’s Future op ad calls on us to “remember who we are,” comparing the present crisis with that our parents and grandparents faced at dawn of the New Deal. To see the ad, go here.

If, as seems likely, Obama is elected and Democrats win greater majorities in both houses of Congress, will we witness a new era of bold progressive change – a 21st century Green New Deal? Certainly many of the elements are present:

Moment:
Events force change. Roosevelt famously campaigned in 1932 on a balanced budget and resisted laying out a bold agenda. But the scope of the economic collapse required bold action. Similarly, Obama began his campaign intentionally vague about his “change” agenda. But the scope of the financial collapse, the deepening global economy downturn have already forced what was unimaginable only months ago.

Mandate:
Hoover’s failure and the speculative excesses and crimes exposed in the stock market crash discredited the Gilded Age policies of that conservative era, giving FDR a mandate for a very different direction. Similarly, Bush’s catastrophic failures have discredited modern day conservatism. John McCain has helped define the scope of Obama’s mandate, with his closing argument that the election poses a choice between Reaganism — smaller government and lower taxes –and “socialism.” At this point, socialism is winning. Obama is far from a socialist, but he too has framed his closing argument as a choice of a new direction or the “failed philosophy” of trickle down economics, that scorns government, lowers taxes on the rich and increases insecurity for the many. He will be elected with a clear mandate for a change in direction, not simply a change in parties.

Majority:
Roosevelt’s overwhelming victory cowed what remained of his Republican opposition. Indeed, he had greater trouble corralling the various factions of the Democratic Party, particularly its entrenched Southern wing. Next Tuesday is likely to expose the Republicans as a minority, regional, aging, whites only party in the grip of its evangelical extreme. For Obama, the greatest obstacles to pursuing progressive reform are likely to come from his party’s conservative Blue Dogs and Wall Street DLC New Democrats.

Moral Armament:
Roosevelt, by the time of his first inaugural address, was portraying the challenge to the country in moral terms. He warned against “fear itself,” called people to service and to unity. He demanded “safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order,” particularly that of “speculating with other people’s money.” He skewered the “unscrupulous money changers” who had failed because

.. “their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.”

In his “closing” for the election, Obama is already issuing a similar moral indictment. He too is calling Americans to come together, to trust one another.

In one week, you can turn the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street….

I know these are difficult times for America. But I also know that we have faced difficult times before. The American story has never been about things coming easy – it’s been about rising to the moment when the moment was hard. It’s about seeing the highest mountaintop from the deepest of valleys. It’s about rejecting fear and division for unity of purpose. That’s how we’ve overcome war and depression. That’s how we’ve won great struggles for civil rights and women’s rights and worker’s rights. And that’s how we’ll emerge from this crisis stronger and more prosperous than we were before – as one nation; as one people.

Does all this add up to a new era of bold reform? Two more elements are vital.

Presidential Determination:
Roosevelt was known neither as a radical nor a particularly bold leader. Yet, as he came to understand the depths of the challenge facing the country, he clearly decided that “constant and persistent experimentation” were necessary, and that bold and dramatic measures were vital: the RFC to shackle the banks, the SEC to police markets, the WPA to put people to work, Social Security to provide basic security for all, the Wagner Act to empower workers and more.

Obama will face the same choice in the worst economic crisis since that Great Depression. Yet, today’s conditions are far less dire. Many voices will counsel caution. Many will tell him to limit his priorities. Many will warn of unsustainable debts and deficits. What he decides is needed will be telling.

Progressive Movement
Roosevelt was blessed – although he often thought it a curse – with a mobilized progressive movement, led by militant labor unions. They pushed hard for reform, challenging Roosevelt’s agenda, criticizing his timidity, demanding more. But they were also responsible, working to help him win reforms, challenging those who stood the way, understanding that they had to keep building power to gain further progress. Roosevelt was smart enough to help them: “the president wants you to join a labor union,” their organizers said. They were disciplined enough to help the president, even as they pushed for more.

The current progressive movement is neither as organized nor as grounded. Some good many are pure Obama fans. Some – including much of the best of the bloggers – grew up in opposition to the war in Iraq and the crimes and catastrophes of the Bush administration. They are scornful of compromised Democrats, suspicious of a leadership that didn’t end the war, cynical about the many corruptions of modern day politicians. Most of the organized progressive movement has spent the last years fighting to stop bad things from happening. Will a progressive movement come together that is independent enough to push Obama hard to go father than he might otherwise go, and responsible enough to help support reforms, and go after those in both parties that stand in the way? The Obama White House will clearly prefer the remarkable base that they have built during the campaign, ready to be mobilized in his support. Will they come to appreciate the benefits of an independent progressive movement demanding more than they think is possible?

Inheriting a country mired in two wars, headed into a deep and long recession, marked by Gilded Age inequality and growing insecurity, the next president will face stark challenges. If Obama is elected, he will have the moment, mandate, momentum, and moral armament to launch a new era of bold progressive reform. And in the coming months, if all goes well on Tuesday, we will learn if he has the audacity of hope to undertake it, and whether progressives can forge a force for change to propel it.