(Please welcome author Jon Chait in the comments — jh)
Jonathan Chait’s book has the title "The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics." But it’s about more than that. Indeed, some of the best parts of the book have nothing to do with economics. Chait gives us a thoroughgoing indictment of how our political system has become fundamentally corrupted, and how journalists have helped this along.
Before I start to talk about the book in detail, I want to clear the air on one important point. Chait has, in the past, been blisteringly rude about the netroots (some of whom have also been blisteringly rude about him). While the netroots are not a major topic of this book, he takes a couple of swipes against them here too. However, it would be a serious mistake for netroots readers to ignore this book, or think that it has nothing to teach them. Not only will they miss out on one of the best, if not the best recent journalistic accounts of what has gone wrong with America’s political system, but they’ll never discover that Chait reserves his real scorn for other journalists who have played into the Republican agenda. In addition, Chait by turning up today has shown that he’s willing to engage in argument with the netroots on their own territory. I’m not aware of any other serious critic of the netroots who has been willing to do this, and I ask that people – if they want to disagree with Chait – show him the respect that he’s shown them by coming here.
So why is the book valuable? The opening chapter provides a good introduction to the crazier notions of supply side economics. It talks about the Laffer curve – the famous diagram that is supposed to show that cutting taxes will raise government revenue – and how crazies from Jude Wanninski on have tried to use this curve to argue that economic policy should be all tax cuts, all the time. The "supply side economics" of Ronald Reagan’s nuttier advisors is still alive and well, in part because many true believers still subscribe to it, in part because more cynical Republicans such as Irving Kristol think that it’s a useful justification for tax-cuts, even though they know that it’s complete bullshit.
This chapter is recommended reading for anyone who isn’t familiar with this particular economic cult. It’s also the part of the book that has gotten most discussion, in part because Chait excerpted it on the WWW, leading to a lot of blogospheric discussion (the most entertaining moment of which was when libertarian blogger Megan McArdle saw one of her articles spiked by a conservative publication because it disagreed with the Laffer curve, a few weeks after she had loudly pooh-poohed Chait’s claim that Republicans were still strongly influenced by supply-side economics). I was familiar with much of this material already (Paul Krugman’s 1990s book, Peddling Prosperity covers some of the same territory), but then I’m an academic who is interested in economic issues. If you’re not already familiar with this stuff, you’ll find Chait’s contribution valuable.
You’ll also like Chait’s discussion of the role of Republican corruption, and of the revolving door between Congressmen’s offices and the corner suites in lobbyists’ K Street premises. Chait discusses Billy Tauzin’s role in negotiating an incredibly lucrative job as president of the pharmaceutical industry lobby at either exactly the same time as he was crafting legislation that promised to give that industry billions of dollars of tax-payers’ money, or (in his own account) immediately thereafter. Chait talks about the gutting of expertise from the policy process, as well as the K Street project through which Republicans sought to punish lobbying firms that didn’t hire more Republicans or help key items of legislation through. Since the time his book was written, much of this has unravelled; lobbyists are now hiring Democrats again. But the system has become permanently more corrupt than it was before.
Chait’s chapter on the way that Republicans have expelled anyone who disagrees with the low tax agenda from their ranks is also well written. But for my money, the genuinely outstanding part of the book is its discussion of how Washington thinks about the ‘character’ of politicians. This is something that netroots bloggers have talked about a lot, but none of them, none of them, understands the inside story in the way that Chait does. Chait describes how journalists fixed upon the notion of character as a lazy shorthand way to ‘capture’ a politician via a single, supposedly revealing anecdote – and how Republican operatives figured out how to use this laziness to their advantage through blast faxes and emails that try (usually successfully, sooner or later) to ‘fix’ a politician’s character around a character flaw. The success that they’ve enjoyed over the last couple of electoral cycles in making people think that Gore was a self-promoting liar, and Kerry an inauthentic flip-flopper is the result of conscious, well-planned strategies. Simply put, Chait nails it – it’s a cliche to say that some short section of a book is worth the purchase price alone, but in this case it’s true. This is first rate political analysis. Chait’s follow-up chapter on how pundits have failed to understand how radicalized Republicans have become, and how they continue to favor a purported bipartisanship that simply doesn’t mean the same thing as it would in a world where both parties were genuinely close to the center, is also excellent.
So in short, this is a good and important book. That isn’t to say, of course, that I agree with everything in it. Chait repeatedly contrasts the current era with a supposed golden age before Republican partisanship, when government got respect, people believed in the neutrality of experts, and politicians behaved more honestly than today (even if they weren’t completely honest by any means). Chait isn’t alone in this – Mark Schmitt has an interesting article in The American Prospect this month about how other commentators like Paul Krugman also hark back to the 1950s. But this isn’t the only way to think about politics. As Rick Perlstein argues in Before the Storm (which I organized a book club on at Firedoglake the year before last), there was a lot about the 1950s that wasn’t so hot – institutionalized racism, intellectual narrowness, anti-Communist witch-hunts, a more genteel variety of corruption, and the kind of blind faith in expertise that allowed people like Robert McNamara to rise to the top. There’s a joke among academics that pro-community political theorists want to have Salem without the witches; sometimes I feel that Chait wants to have the 1950s without Senator Joseph McCarthy. And I’m not sure that this is possible, or even desirable.
Some possible topics for discussion:
(1) The disagreements that people like I (and, I suspect, Rick Perlstein) have with Chait’s version of the 1950s probably reflect our ideological positions, at least in part. If you’re a social democrat, you’re likely to believe that the pre-existing American consensus, even if it was much better than what we have today, was pretty corrupt in its own way. If you are closer to the center, you’re likely to want a return to something like the middle-ground consensus that existed before Republicans became so radicalized, It might seem that the netroots are mostly in favor of the left wing position, but I’m not so sure – there is a lot of ideological variation among them. What should the ultimate goal of reform be – a return to a more honest bipartisanship (with a sane Republican party), or a concerted effort to shift the US permanently to the left?
(2) Chait wants to return to a world where it’s possible for political commentators, academics, policy wonks and others to be non-partisan, and to command respect because of their non-partisanship. Leaving aside the implications for the immediate political situation (I think Chait would accept that partisan cheerleading is politically necessary at the moment, even if he doesn’t like it), is this worthwhile as a long term goal? Or should we just forget about objectivity and expertise? Or is there a middle ground, or some alternative way of thinking about these issues?
(3) One paragraph of the book struck me as worth an extended essay in its own right – Chait’s description of how the Democratic party now includes all of the political consensus that existed before the radicalization of the Republicans as well as other groups to boot. In Chait’s words:
So, first the Republican party abandoned the consensus, then the Democratic party grasped what was once the conservative half of that consensus. Now the whole sweep of it, everything from Eisenhower conservatives on the right to Truman liberals on the left, resides in the Democratic party. All the conflicting prerogatives that had once seized the domestic debate – fiscal responsibility versus social outlay, support for business versus support for labor – are in one coalition
This may not be quiteas true as it was when Chait wrote it – a Democratic campaign in which the most right-leaning front runner is expressing doubts about trade pacts is a different party from the Democratic party of the 1990s. But I think that there is still an awful lot of truth to it. What consequences does this have for the Democratic party in the short term, and over the longer haul. As I say, I think that there is a long essay in this argument alone, but some discussion among commenters will have to do.
I’ll respond to comments as I can, as will Jonathan Chait – now, over to all of you.
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Matthew Kerbel, Netroots: Online Progressives and the Transformation of American Politics
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Eric Boehlert, Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Robert H. Frank, The Economic Naturalist’s Field Guide: Common Sense Principles for Troubled Times
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Bruce Bartlett, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes George Soros, The Crash of 2008 and What It Means
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Hi Jon!
Welcome Mr. Farrell, Mr. Chait. Thanks for visiting with us today.
Welcome Jon, and welcome back Henry. Good to have you both.
Jon, Henry, Welcome to the Lake.
Thanks everyone. Henry, thanks for the kind introduction with some very keen insights.
Thanks for the welcome
Let me reply to a couple of Henry’s points while i wait for more questions. Point 1: what is the ultimate goal? I probably disagree with many people here on that. I would like US politics to shift substantially to the left, but probably not as far left as most here.
What I want is a politics where the GOP stands for fiscal responsibility, and the Democratic Party stands for social justice. A good melding of those two goals would produce the right kind of politics in my view.
Mr. Chait, do you regret writing that “I Hate Bush” article in TNR which was such a gift to the right?
My question is how can we counter the common wisdom that floats in DC?
Once my fairly progressive brand new shiny Democratic Congressman went, he came back with all the talking points.
Is there a strategy to counter the trickle down econ 101 people other than tell them my line….. if my ex stops paying child support and I have to raise the kids on my income alone, I am not making more money….?
I’m going to remind people to stay on the topic of the book, which our guest is here to discuss.
Thanks to everyone for their cooperation.
Good question, kenosha. I think the article was good. I think it holds up. I don’t r=worry about the effects of what I write. I do, however, regret that the introduction of it became the only thing people remembered. I thought that honesty required that I divulge my own feelings, but I think that part just overshadowed the argument.
Let me reply to Henry’s point 3. Things have changed somewhat since I wrote the book. The Democratic Party has shifted a little bit to the left. Free trade is a more controversial position within the party. But I think it’s basically still right, and I think Henry agrees.
Oh, and another thing about Henry’s take. It really is the smartest review I’ve seen of the book. I don’t mean the most positive. I mean the parts he discusses are the important parts of the book. He gets the signficant elements of what I’m saying. It’s very gratifying to see that. So many reviews have concentrated on ancillary parts of the story.
In this climate, do you think there is any chance for campaign finance reform?
Welcome Mr. Chait.
So here’s my Q. If you cut the federal tax rate to zero, would federal government revenue go up to the point at which it equals total U.S. GDP?
well, bgrothus, we did pass campaign finance reform a few years ago. Do you mean public financing? If so, probably not.
no, ecahn, it would go to infinity!
Trickle down poverty is more like it.
Jonathan -on point 3, what I think is interesting (and worth an essay in its own right) is the implication of what this means for the Democratic party. It means that there is always going to be a lot more internal debate and lack of consensus in the Democratic party for structural reasons – it has to play the role of a party of the center left and a party of the center right simultaneously. The Republicans, for the reasons that people like you and Pierson and Hacker have laid out, don’t face the same internal pressures.
It strikes me that your answer reflects the very partisanship that you’d like to get away from. Why would you long for “fiscal responsibility” to be a “GOP” brand product, and “social justice” a brand belonging to the Democratic party?
Is it possible, in your view, for those two goals to be melded within the Democratic party, in a way that is both capable of winning elections and governing effectively?
Welcome, Mr. Chait.
I’m interested in how the Republicans have
been able to leverage the “death tax” as an issue.
It is counterintuitive that a tax that affects so few people has
so many enemies.
Could you comment on how the Republicans did it?
on ecahn’s point, there is a lot of fudging among supply side economics types about what is the revenue maximizing size of the tax rate under Laffer’s assumptions- my understanding is that by one of those wonderful coincidences, it more or less equates to what many of the anti-tax types would have liked to have seen in the first place. Laffer himself, in fairness, has recently come out and said that he ‘doesn’t know’ whether cutting taxes will raise revenues.
Jon you write:
There’s a lot to chew on here, but I assume when you’re talking about “excommunicating ideological dissidents” you’re referring to Joe Lieberman.
You’re right, we kicked him out of the party. I’m curious what you think we should have done with him.
peterr, the short answer is that you can’t have one-party government. Republicans are going to win. I would like for the world to be such that when they do win, they jerk policy toward low deficits rather than toward transferring as much wealth upward as possible.
A worthy response. Now I guess I’ll have to buy your book in appreciation.
Tax cuts for the wealthy sure has turned our economy into a roaring lion. Laffer must be laughing. Bush certainly is. I’ll take John Kenneth Galbraith anyday over these trickle down hoods.
Jane, Lieberman is just one example. I think heretic-hunting is a common sport on the netroots. It’s part of building a movement, sometimes it’s necessary — possibly was necessary with Lieberman — but it can reach feverish excesses.
Start major wars, increase pork spending and cut taxes. Makes sense to me.
allan, there’s a whole book on the estate tax saga, can’t recall the name right now.
But the serious part of my snarky Q was the reductio ad absurdum. I find that to be a very effective arguement in select issues.
The book is “Death by a Thousand Cuts,” it’s by my law school tax prof Mike Graetz, and it’s brilliant,
Welcome to Jon Chait, and thanks very much for coming here. I have one question, with regard to this sentence in the introduction:
“Chait reserves his real scorn for other journalists who have played into the Republican agenda.”
What role does corporate interest, specifically media conglomerate corporate slef-interest, play in the very poor performance of the mainstream press? It seems to me that any discussion of economic inequality, disadvantages of extreme unregulated free market capitalism, criticism of corporate control are absent from corporate media.
And example is obsession with idea that any kind of social insurance is unworkable, must fall apart, and poor and working class must lose and feel pain (see Russerts history of tendentious and ignorant TV questions on social security).
Is this just a result of ignorant journalists, or fear of getting beat up by GOP machine, or does long term self-interest of media conglomerates play a role? In other words, is it a corporate strategy that involves social engineering, apart from GOP political manipulation?
Jon
Welcome. I am a compulsive reader of your work, even on those occasions when what you write drives me up a wall.
Here’s my question — aren’t we into a new historical moment? The old framing of social responsibility v. fiscal responsibility don;t seem to apply anymore. So what does?
From my vantage point, it seems the axis has shifted to something more fundamental, like individual and collective liberty v. heavy-handed authoritarianism.
Which isn’t a new fight — it’s the same one we had when this country was founded. Not to be overly dramatic, but at times it strikes me that we are redebating, redefining and to some degree refighting the American Revolution and the American Experiment that came out of that.
Jane – I read the book a little differently – Jonathan has a very good discussion both of how Unity ‘08 assigns blame equally to both parties while replicating Democratic positions, and how John Breaux managed to make a career out of presenting his “penchant for dealmaking” not as a “tawdry exercise in back-scratching but as a noble quest to bring the two parties together.” While I think that Jonathan is a centrist in some ways – he wants bipartisanship, he does a good job in distinguishing the kinds of bipartisanship he would like to see, from the kind of posturing that Breaux (and, I suspect, Lieberman) engage in. The book isn’t a brief for Unity 08 style bischmartisanship, and in fact attacks it pretty vigorously, as a sham that fails to observe what is actually going on.
ecahn, I agree. Conservatives sometimes tell me “tax cuts always make revenues rise.” I use that reply, and it usually works pretty well.
Please give examples of what you consider to be feverish excesses of netroots. Lieberman is way out of touch with (meaning to the right of) mainstream Ds, let alone the population as whole, so drumming him out of the D party hardly seems excessive.
“Can reach feverish excesses” — what would an example of that be?
Like McCarthyism?
Which does lead to a different question for Jonathan – when is chasing after people like Lieberman ‘excessive,’ ‘witch hunting’ etc, and when is it appropriate and justifiable? I can sort of see in principle how you cut this up, but I’m not at all clear about the boundaries in practice.
Das Kapital or The Wealth of Nations. Which really proved correct?
Oh, boy, ecahn. I wrote a whole article on this. The easiest reply is that i pay attention to what people write aboout me, and I’ve been declared a right-winger many times.
CTuttle, for the record I’m anti-McCarthyism.
Terrific intro, Henry, and welcome to both of you.
So many themes. One of the suggested questions is about what we should be trying to “return to” as though we can go back to something worthwhile in the past. My question is whether we have a functioning framework to make major improvements. It seems clear the constitutional system that kept extremism and lawlessness in check has been severely weakened, so it’s not clear whether there are sufficient checks/balances to get us back to anything approaching whatever political balance one might think existed before. What are your assessments of what’s still possible? And what are the preconditions for getting there?
The cost of campaigns and the use of TV per the “character” meme Henry discusses creates a horror in terms of how people become elected, outside of vote tampering of course.
And it also furthers the partisan behaviors of the elected, and the media follow-through.
Thus, it seems we are hell-bent on maintaining this partisan trap we are in. It does not lead to effective governance. The 60-vote mess comes to mind. No respect for the opposition. Not that Lieberman deserves respect, just to follow that theme.
This is a really interesting point, but also should be expanded to encompass legal issues like those who support expanded government surveillance versus those who oppose it and those who are willing to tolerate “enhanced interrogation” versus those who are horrified by it.
This helps explain why there are those on the left who assert that voting for a Democrat represents complicity in evil. The question is whether a political party can stably incorporate those who consider the positions of other members of the party to be morally indefensible. Perhaps the only Democratic Party platform that can rally broad support right now is “we are not completely batshit insane”.
cvcobb, I think the central issue in American politics is inequality — skyrocketing inequality, and the GOP’s determination to use every possible policy lever to exacerbate inequality. I think this is what’s so dangerous. And because it has placed the GOP in the posiiton of holding such a small minority view, it has distorted the workings of our political system.
Many of the perverse features of American politics are the result of one party staking out an extreme position in defense of the interests of a tiny economic minority. (See end of Chapter 4.) It has put them in a position of distrusting the institution of reasoned civic discourse.
I wasn’t saying you were, my question and Jane’s, was to what extent is the feverish excesses being displayed by the Left and/or Right Wing web sites…?
So, Mr. Chait, the netroots are guilty for branding you a right-winger. Geez, that hardly seems a dispositive condemnation.
I was a Wall St. economist. (Biodun can vouch for my bona fides.) Rather than whining, I was proud of the fact that on Wall St I was considered pretty left wing, and in the group I run with in the country I was considered pretty conservative. Thought that put me a good place.
This might be okay if there were no Republicans on the far right. But what we see over and over is a coalition of the Republicans and the center-right Dems, and they combine to give us the Military Commissions Act, defeats for centrist budgets, SCHIP, continued war funding, gutting of FISA, and on and on.
Why shouldn’t we conclude that the Dem party you’re describing cannot play the role you envision without purging itself of the enablers?
Physioprof, your last line is on point. The Democratic Party is in many ways organized not so much around any one set of normative values but a loose kind of utilitarianism. In other words, just look at programs and policies and figure out which ones make life better for most people, which ones have some sound empirical basis. Value judgments do come into play, especially in social issues, but the Dems are decidely less ideological than the GOP.
I agree with you on the importance of the income inequality issue, but have been disappointed with Ds framing. Edwards come closest with his 2-Americas, and for that reason he has my support. But he hasn’t gotten any resonance. Any suggestions?
Ding ding ding. We have a winner.
Competition is no longer a function of Capitalism. Greed, collusion and corporate fixing is. And we are in store for this dirty business as far as the eye can see. The so called two party system has done a pretty neat job of seeing to that.
How about no parties at all. No party platforms, no talking points. Free press. No financial gain or incentive by any media or to any media to put forth biased opinion to the public. Each candidate in any election is funded by a state fund, if it is a state election; or a federal fund, if it is a federal election. Each candidate is alloted equal air time both on TV and on the radio. Each candidate is elected by her/his constituents based upon issues. No corporate financing allowed prior to, during, following, or while in office by any candidate. Term limits. Any elected politician must follow the Constitution and the rule of law at all times or they are promptly removed. All candidates must legislate according to the benefit of the citizens of the country, never for personal gain or for the benefit of policies of other countries. No private armies. Heh.
On scarecrow’s question, the Mark Schmitt piece I link to in the intro is very interesting on the use of the past. Basically, Schmitt argues that the 1950s is important as a kind of demonstration that a different system than the one we have today, one much more responsive to issues of inequality and the like, is not only possible, but has been achieved. My personal take (Jonathan’s may differ) is that key to changing things is the introduction of new institutions including universal health care, better protection of individuals from economic risk etc as the basis for a kind of new New Deal.
I wish my party were a bit more ideological.
Another winner. Let’s get back to legitimate economic competition. Can we start by getting Tausin fired? No, I don’t suppose we can.
I should say – my response is to Scarecrow’s original question, not the one immediately above.
In relation to income inequality, the Republicans do an incredibly good job of convincing their middle-class supporters that their economic downslide is not due to wealth redistribution upwards, but downwards to “illegal” immigrants and poor people. I think this works because it resonates with the human tendency to be more comfortable looking down on someone than up at someone.
I disagree. If anything, the netroots tend to do the opposite of “heretic hunting”.. they tend to lionize whoever says something reasonable or sane at any given moment in time, even if that person has a long history of letting them down. We do it with the likes of dubious liberals like Webb and Murtha all the time, just because they ocasionally say something we like on the war. Heck, some of us even embraced right-wing zealot Hagel just because he stood up for ‘right.’ One or two of us even had nice things to say about Ashcroft when his conscience flared for a brief microsecond and he stood up by Bush. If we did more hunting and less mislaid hero worship we may get that much further in getting our agenda heard.
Ecahn, my advice on political framing probably isn’t worth much…
Doesn’t being “less ideological” (as you say are the Dems) really just make us impotent under current circumstances?
Welcome Mr Chait, Honestly I had to set the book aside before finishing it. Wishing for days of old where Republicans are oh so responsible with the budget, when exactly was that the case except in talking points?
Clinton and congress managed to do a lot of good with the budget in the dot boom era. However, I don’t see a time coming where we have a huge surplus to work with. The surplus we have is our MIC money and everybody knows it. Until both parties face it or are thrown out we are going to keep burning money and oil for blood and destroy our beloved hostess. That is where the change must take place in either party.
And as for the two party system – perhaps more of a problem is the effective supermajority requirement to get past any threatened filibuster in the Senate. This, for example, has stopped labor reform legislation in its tracks – a coalition of Republicans and right-ish Democrats has been sufficient to block progress for the last couple of decades.
Dear Mr. Chait,
You wrote:
In reply, I would suggest that this is extremely remote from what really needs to be discussed. Today, the Republican Party is “the tip of imperialist spear”. All fiscal discipline appears to be cast aside by the Republicans as they line their pockets as militarists, security industry vendors and financial flim-flam artists (eg.: the sub-prime mortgage bankers attack on America’s lower middle class)
Republicans appear to be the most advanced guard of predatory capitalism in time, in genocidal effect and in acquisitiveness. Frankly, with the projected unfunded liabilities facing this country, the Republicans are more likely looking for genotypical biowarfare agents at their Ft. Detrick facility than for “pay-go” fiscal sanity. Any rational player looking at the U.S. current account, $9 Trillion national debt and unfunded liabilities approaching $70 Trillion in the next 40 years can see that the situation for this nation is hopeless as a going concern.
Far better for the Republicans to have a simple solution to this nation’s daunting financial future. As Grover Norquist puts it so inelegantly, we need to simply drown the federal government in a bathtub. Now that is a compelling economic solution. And in a decidedly ‘through the looking-glass’ sense, it is a means to fiscal responsibility.
And what of our hapless Democrats? Those who would lead us into the nirvana of social responsibility? One need only examine the record of this party from the Gulf of Tonkin forward to realize that genocidal indifference to the plight of foreign races is inherent to this spineless bunch of pandering public program promoters.
While the Democrats pander to the public by offering sops, slop and solipsisms, and the Republicans cravenly fear-monger the real issue that we all should be facing is this:
Shall the United States be an Empire or a Republic?
By that standard, it sure looks like both major wings of the corporate party are determined to destroy the concept of America and replace it with a feudal multinational corporate autocracy ruled from behind the curtains of K Street.
Today, I’m afraid discussions about Republican vs. Democrat are totally pointless.
What needs to be discussed is whether we wish to terminate America as a concept and replace it with the supra-sovereign corporate ownership of the planet. It’s pretty plain that this is acceptable to the leadership of both political parties, and for that I offer a curse upon both of their houses.
So, left, right or center the real issues that need to be discussed are the rise of militarized predatory capitalism, the concomitant theft of civil liberties and the fate of a humanity increasingly being enslaved to a corporate monstrosity overwhelming all other power bases on the planet.
Gosh, someone could write a whole book about this, I reckon. :)
Cheerio!
Jon, you write a lot in this book about Grover Norquist, a particular irritant to me. How did he get to the point where he has so much influence in DC? Was it purely luck, being in the right place at the right time to hook up with Abramoff and Reid? That unholy trio, IMHO, has a lot of responsibility for inflating and pushing supply-side economics. Is he still a true believer?
Eureka, I discuss in some detail how Eisenhower was a budget hawk (kept 91 percent tax rates) as was Ford (who vetoed tax cuts.)So if you put down the book because you doubt that Republicans were ever devoted to fiscal restraint, I suggest you pick it back up.
Being less ideological is not the problem that Ds have. It’s a long run strength (remember the Big Tent). The
D problem is backbone.
And, BTW, certain issues fall squarely into the right/wrong divide. No ideology required. Rs have been on the side of wrong on all of these issues for the last 7 years.
Sure, but fixing inequality in and of itself doesn’t fix a president who puts himself above the law, who treats the Constitution as if it has to submit to his droit de seigneur.
Taken a bit further, the ability to legislate changes to fix inequality can in theory be superseded by George Bush. He says so himself, in many a signing statement. So how can inequality be the most dangerous problem, when the fundamental means to address it is also under attack?
Mommybrain, Norquist is an effective operator whose ideas and priorities have come to shape the GOP’s politics. He also interviewed me about the book on C-Span — you can find the interview on their site if you want.
Well we could begin a redistrubution of wealth by raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, steeply, and putting into place temporary anti inflation price controls.
Another Oscar winner, this time in the “Verbal Elegance” category.
Mommybrain – there is a very interesting discussion of Norquist’s role – and in particular of his semi-infamous weekly breakfast meetings, written by Thomas Medvetz which I posted a while back at http://www.henryfarrell.net/weeklyties.pdf. There’s some academese to be ploughed through if you are not familiar with pol sci and sociological terminology, but the main discussion is crystal clear, and very helpful I think – Medvetz attended some of these meetings and gives a good picture of how they work in reinforcing a specific ideological consensus.
Yes, eCAHN, but ideology seems to provide some spine. What do we stand for? Oh, we can’t stand, we have no backbone.
We could stop the Iraq war and save around $12,000,000 per month and raise taxes sharply.
How is this not an inherently elitist position, whereby a stable equlibrium or status quo sustains a privileged class in power in Washington, effectively neutering any political party?
Moreover, is this not itself an inherently ideological position, albeit one whose pursuit sustains the anti-populist elitism I ask about in my previous question?
#75:
Obviously that should read $12,000,000,000.
That takes principle and courage. Both in very short supply these days.
Jon:
Dems are less ideological, perhaps, but another thing they are is less bloodthirsty. We on the Left seem to have a built-in distaste for the kind of personal attacks the Right routinely use from “Willie Hortoning” to Swift-Boating to the push-polling used agains McCain in 2000.
Sometime I wish we were a little more mean. But then again, no.
Ideology is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for spine. It may be convenient, but that can be dangerous, as we observe in the Rs now & in many authoritatrian states in the past & present.
Are the missing trillions mentioned by Rumsfeld on 9/10/01 considered part of the deficit?
Parachutech, I don’t think it’s necessarily elitist. You have some pretty loaded language. But I am recognizing that the role of elites can be a positive one. John Judis wrote a book a while back, The Paradox of American Democracy, which argued that social reform has come about when the US had strong, responsible elites. He sees the irresponsibility of modern elites as the cause of many of our problems. John is an old labor liberal out of the socialist movement.
You’re correct also that I’m fairly moderate. I probably disagree with many of the ends of people here, but we’re unlikely to get to the point where the center of US politics is even as far left as me, let alone further, anytime soon.
Steve, my feelings exactly about the paradox.
Obviously the solution to all these short and long term economic problems is to print more money and raise the debt ceiling and sign even bigger loan notes to foreign countries.
Perhaps a much better word than ideaology would be principle.
I’m not sure where’s the line between “heretic hunting” and outing false-flag liberals, e.g., those so-called “liberal” journalists who are constantly calling for “bipartisanship” and repeating RNC talking points. These are generally not doctrinal disputes.
Do you see the thrashing that Glenn Greenwald has given Joe Klein and say Diane Feinstein as being “heretic hunting”?
The slide in middle and working class income reinforces the anti-tax mentality of those groups. As their circumstances deteriorate, people resent taxes because they cannot control either the imposition or the amounts of their tax burden. Couple this with the rancid attacks of the competence of government, and add a strong dose of obviously incompetent government, and the rabid tax-cutters look like saviors.
Have to agree with Mr. Chait on this one. Pach, you’re buying into the anti-intellectual, anti-scientific R meme. What’s the point of having expertise of studying problems to find solutions if not to better inform policy? The “elites” as you refer to them, have the additional job of informing the population, so that they vote responsibly.
Now don’t go giving me a laundry list of when “elites” have been wrong. I’m talking about the way you want the system organized, not that it works in every particular case. The alternative is mob rule.
And never forget that Social Security taxes are one of the most regressive.
I hear you.
Though it’s true that the word elitist is a loaded one, particularly in American politics, there is always a role for elites. For example, one of the great hindrances to any stable or functioning government in, say, Iraq, is due to the flight of the professional classes from the country.
I was trying to give you an opportunity to respond to the question, loaded or not.
I thought voters were supposed to vote their pocket books.
Yes sir, you did. And we all know what Eisenhower said in his farewell address. Since that time, MIC and progressive taxation, well you know what happened, and I don’t see the Republican party returning to Eisenhower or Lincoln for that matter, any time soon. Though I hope your dream for that aspect comes true. Unfortunately the only dissent I see inside the GOP is Ron Paul and I have listened to Ron Paul, he is no Eisenhower.
Like it or not the heart and soul of the country will play out in the near term through the Democratic party.
wigwam, I’ve thrashed Feinsteina and Klein myself — the latter comes in for extended ridicule in Chapter 5 of my book. So disagreement, ridicule, etc. is all good.
My point about heretics is a mentality where you’re in a movement and anybody who disagrees on anything is the enemy. As opposed to, boy is this person wrong about X, Y or Z.
Thanks, Henry. I’ve bookmarked it.
Simple, lower the rate and raise the cap to $250,000…
How do you define “center”? If we define via the polls, the average is far to the left of the democrats in congress, at least on foreign policy matters.
In that regard, both sides have had their Movement Nazis. I think one of the good points about the Left is that we’re not as doctrinaire as the right, and mostly tend to do as you said: criticize a person for being wrong about X.
You haven’t hung out at FDL enough. Plenty of thrashing out different POV here. No one feels (I hope) that they have to adhere to some authoritarian meme set by Jane & Christie. But I think you would NOT find and Lieberman defenders here.
Yet another winner. We need to save this thread for posterity so that all future generations realize how prescient we are.
A major issue for the Democratic Party is whether people who disagree on things morally laden issues like torture, rule of law, surveillance, corporate personhood, etc. can ever not consider each other enemies. Is the Big Tent vision viable?
If we can take just one example of potential public policy — universal health care. How does that get played out in this framework (both what’s likely to happen, and what you’d like to see happen)? It seems to me the dichotomy of a party of social justice versus a party of fiscal responsibility doesn’t capture questions like the role of government, how this gets paid for, and how one thinks about “mandates,” which is the current focus in the Obama/Clinton/Krugman discourse. There are missing frames, such as whether/how mandates should be structured and how enforced? What’s the role of govt in deciding which elements of “care” are covered and which not? What role does/should govt play in trying to affect pricing/costs? Don’t we need a broader framework than “justice” versus fiscal responsibility to even think about these questions?
Mr. Chait, there is a tradition here at FDL (tradition, not requirement) that we put our money (or phone calls & emails) where our mouth is. Consequently, I have made good on my promise to buy your book by placing an amazon order on another window. Mazel tov.
I think most people can figure out the the policies that are in their best interest. For many people, a tax cut, which puts cash in their pockets without additional work, is a great outcome. The problem is that most people cannot project the results of this kind of thinking, this very personal way of thinking about economics. Elites, leaders, are supposed to be able to see past the momentary result, and to be able to explain it clearly enough for everyone to understand, and vote in their long-term best interests. This is not happening, and corruption and greed are a great explanation.
And just to add some salience to my point, there are discussions about the WaPo story on high-level Dem knowledge of torture going on as we speak on progressive blogs with comments to the effect that “a vote for the Dems in 2008 is a vote for evil”.
How about a vote for the “lesser of two evils?”
Geez, I don’t find that convincing.
Mr. Chait, that’s why one of our mottoes is “more & better Ds.”
ecahn, alright! hope you like it.
We in this house work hard for our money. I’m very weary of subsidizing the rich. I’m going to go and fix supper. And then I’m going to write checks to pay the bills.
kiddo, I’ve been cooking while participating here, and I’m a pretty poor multitasker. Roast chicken with potatoes.
You may not want to know what other books were in my shopping cart that I bought at the same time.
scarecrow – I think that is right (but I’m not sure that Jonathan would disagree with you on this specific issue).
Another FDL tradition. We share. May we hold out our plates?
Came late so apologies in advance if it has been covered but Bush’s own budge people admitted that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. While the press has occasionally mentioned this, they never seem to pick up on how this blows out of the water the whole rationale for Bush’s tax cuts. Nor do they do so every time Bush or the Republicans call for yet another one. Neither did they do a good job or any job at pointing out that fixing the AMT wasn’t a conspiracy to raise taxes on the middle class but to raise them on the rich. So now we have an AMT cut that isn’t paid for, kicking the cost down the road to our children.
I also wanted to point out that non-partisanship is something of a chimera. If one group says the earth is flat and the other side says it isn’t, how can you have a non-partisan approach to that?
Mmmmm…that sounds so good!! Enjoy it!!
Mr. Chait,
In the event of a Democratic victory in 2008, where
do you think the Republican party is going to go:
(hypocritically) demandig fiscal discipline from the new administration,
or pushing for yet more tax cuts?
Will this tension cause further fissures in the party?
Yep. My point exactly about SOME issues having a right/wrong side. Unfortunately, w gave a bad name to that framing.
allan, just like ‘93, they’ll say tax hikes will just create more spending, lowever revenues and higher deficits.
If
I thought Michael Moore said itbest. When it comes to defense, we don’t ask, well, how much does it cost. We just do it. The same should apply to healthcare. This doesn’t mean that both defense and healthcare aren’t amenable to rational decision making. They are and should be. It says a lot about our society that healthcare is treated as some kind of privilege, instead of a fundamental description of who and what we are as a nation.
Although they were WRONG WRONG WRONG in 93.
The last report I wrote on Wall St before I left in 2/00 was titled “Surpluses Are Worse than Deficits” because the Clinton surpluses would give the next administration all the fuel they needed to misbehave. I had no idea how much.
See, Kiddo @ 107 is exactly what I’m talking about. Kiddo sees that he is subsidizing the rich, but he has no way to fix it. No one pays any attention to the fact that the entire system is rigged for the rich, as a quick review of the excellent reporting of Gretchen Morgenson in the NYT will show. Check this link. The guy backdates options, gives back some, but keeps $800,000,000 worth. This is a perfect example of the elites in action. What the heck are we actually going to do? Anybody got an idea about fixing it?
Analogy between defense & medical care doesn’t work. Defense is to save us from an existential threat (or at least that’s what the wingnuts & the MIC would have us believe) and that is not true for medical care. The major problem with the latter IS its cost (U.S. does not get value for money), so that must be an intrinsic part of the fix.
OK, everybody, the kids are ready to eat so i have to go. Thanks for having me here, thanks to henry for the great and flattering comments, and thanks to all who came by.
I might be able to check in later quickly, but I think it will be bathtime so it’s unlikely. (Bathtime for my kids, not me.)
Thanks for joining us Jonathan. Best to you and the kids!
Bye bye & thanks for coming by.
Much of the blame rests with Andrea Mitchell’s lesser half,
with his public fretting about the horrors of paying off the national debt,
which would deprive him of his big stick. How Freudian can you get.
Jon, Henry, thanks for coming to the Lake and spending some time.
Thanks very much for being here today. It was great to have you and we appreciate you taking the time.
We use the department of defense for many other things than existential threats. That we have forces in more than a hundred countries has to do with the extension of American power not its existence. Defense should not be a privileged case. We have a national commitment to education for example. And with regard to existential threats, a biological one is probably more likely nowadays than a thermonuclear one.
many thanks to all – like Jonathan I have a hungry offspring calling …
I have a hungry stomach calling. Thanks to Jon and Henry!
Mahalo, Henry and Jonathan, for your time and efforts!
New threadiness…
http://firedoglake.com/2007/12…..o/#respond
A final note, the need for a super-majority is just a talking point and an excuse for inaction. Pressure could be put on the Republicans and Bush if the Democrats wanted to fight it out on any of a host of issues. When the Democrats were in the minority, they said just wait until we are in the majority. Now that they are in the majority, they now say we need a super-majority (an the WH). Even if they got all this, the next thing they would be saying is that we need a super-super-majority because not all of the Democrats vote with us on every issue. What they really need is a spine and a willingness to fight it out on their core issues.
Thank you so much for the wonderful discussion, Mr. Chait and Mr. Farrell!
Yep, that was one of Greenspan’s more remarkable irresponsibilites. Read somewhere recently that he was both arsonist & firefighter. Think that’s apt.
It’s a pretty good book. Enjoable, entertaining read while providing a new and unsettling insight.
@ Hugh:
It’s not an excuse. Do you think the Dems have not put pressure on the Republicans to switch their votes, or at least to allow full debate to take place, which would undoubtedly have flushed out more Republican votes? But they have been shut down — obstructed — by more filibusters this year than the previous records for two years. A perfect example was Webb’s bill on redeployment. Warner said he would support it, so that extracted more conciliatory language in the bill. If Warner had come in, others would have come in with him. And then he left Webb hanging out to dry. We made the compromises they wanted, and they left us cursing like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.