Tuesday, November 21, 2006
America's New Dawn- Part Deux
or
Will Pelosi and effete John Kerry really change the national language to French?
Answer: Mais oui
A few weeks ago I asked about what this new America in Washington DC would look like and asked for implications for policy and direction. I would like to quote from Bill Maher and William Greider. Ok, so neither got in touch with me directly, but I kinda stumbled upon them as they were pondering the same issue.
I guess the consensus at this point to answer this pressing questions is "unclear, ask again later."
Bill Maher's piece in the Boston Globe points out the obvious:
"Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this election brought new thinking to Washington. It didn't. It brought Democrats, who are often just Republicans slowed down a step by a sense of shame. But they're not revolutionaries, and they're not really diverse."
Greider takes it even further, laying out specific pitfalls and problems the newly-elected Congress faces:
"Republicans lost, but their ideological assumptions are deeply embedded in government, the economy and the social order. Many Democrats have internalized those assumptions, others are afraid to challenge them. It will take years, under the best circumstances, for Democrats to recover nerve and principle and imagination--if they do.
But this is a promising new landscape. Citizens said they want change. Getting out of Iraq comes first, but economic reform is close behind: the deteriorating middle class, globalization and its damaging impact on jobs and wages, corporate excesses and social abuses, the corruption of politics. Democrats ran on these issues, and voters chose them."
Read both articles. Maher's is clearly the funnier of the two, but then again he's a comedian. Both try to get to answers left unformulated at this time. Can the Dems really convince the American people that liberal or leftist policies actually benefit the majority of them and begin to have that majority begin to self-identify as liberals? Greider's right when he says the whole political landscape has been dominated by the GOP for so long that Dems tend to think in their frames (thanks, Lakoff). Consider this quote from Bill Scher's book, Wait! Don't Move to Canada from his liberal oasis website:
Oh well, at least it's our party. We can always cry of we want to.
or
Will Pelosi and effete John Kerry really change the national language to French?
Answer: Mais oui
A few weeks ago I asked about what this new America in Washington DC would look like and asked for implications for policy and direction. I would like to quote from Bill Maher and William Greider. Ok, so neither got in touch with me directly, but I kinda stumbled upon them as they were pondering the same issue.
I guess the consensus at this point to answer this pressing questions is "unclear, ask again later."
Bill Maher's piece in the Boston Globe points out the obvious:
"Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this election brought new thinking to Washington. It didn't. It brought Democrats, who are often just Republicans slowed down a step by a sense of shame. But they're not revolutionaries, and they're not really diverse."
Greider takes it even further, laying out specific pitfalls and problems the newly-elected Congress faces:
"Republicans lost, but their ideological assumptions are deeply embedded in government, the economy and the social order. Many Democrats have internalized those assumptions, others are afraid to challenge them. It will take years, under the best circumstances, for Democrats to recover nerve and principle and imagination--if they do.
But this is a promising new landscape. Citizens said they want change. Getting out of Iraq comes first, but economic reform is close behind: the deteriorating middle class, globalization and its damaging impact on jobs and wages, corporate excesses and social abuses, the corruption of politics. Democrats ran on these issues, and voters chose them."
Read both articles. Maher's is clearly the funnier of the two, but then again he's a comedian. Both try to get to answers left unformulated at this time. Can the Dems really convince the American people that liberal or leftist policies actually benefit the majority of them and begin to have that majority begin to self-identify as liberals? Greider's right when he says the whole political landscape has been dominated by the GOP for so long that Dems tend to think in their frames (thanks, Lakoff). Consider this quote from Bill Scher's book, Wait! Don't Move to Canada from his liberal oasis website:
"[President Bill] Clinton's deficit reduction plan [which included higher taxes]
worked. In 1996 the deficit had been cut by 60 percent and the economy improved,
creating 10 million jobs. Republicans who had been preaching that Clinton's tax
policy would bring about economic apocalypse looked foolish.
That's the kind of sea-changing development that can be used to reframe a debate.
Instead of continuing to accept the Republican frame, Clinton could have articulated that Democrats support levels of taxation that are fair to people at all income
levels and adequate enough to carry out the responsibilities that the people ask
of their government. Republicans, on the other hand, support inadequate
taxation, so our government can't properly function, with unfair tax giveaways
to their corporate donors and those who make more than $200,000 each
year.
That's a frame consistent with the principle of representative,
responsive, and responsible government. It does not say that tax cuts are always
good, or that tax increases are always good. It simply makes the commonsense
point that a responsible level of taxation, properly financing our government,
is healthy for our overall quality of life. However, Clinton did not seize the opportunity. He stuck with the Republican frame and continued to argue that
tax cuts are the path to economic growth.
At an October 1995 fundraiser, Clinton told the crowd, "I think I raised [taxes] too much." He then campaigned for re-election on another promise of tax cuts, though he distinguished his plan from his opponent's by promising fiscally prudent "targeted tax cuts," as opposed to a "risky $550 billion tax scheme" which would lead to cuts in
Medicare and Social Security. It became a debate over whose tax cuts were
better, and with a good economy at his back, Clinton won.
The same debate repeated itself in 2000. Then-Texas governor George W. Bush honed the argument against targeted tax cuts by accusing Al Gore of being a "pick and chooser," while Bush would cut taxes for "everybody who pays taxes." This was no knockout punch -- again, Bush's arguments did not win him the most votes -- but it did find the rhetorical weakness in the case for "targeted tax cuts." If tax cuts
were so wonderful, why shouldn't everybody get them?And so, after three
elections in a row where one professed tax cutter faced off against another,
President Bush was unabashed at claiming a mandate for huge cuts. Democrats,
having accepted the benefit of tax cuts, had no principled foundation with which
to fight back. Bush quickly rammed a tax cut bill through Congress with
bipartisan support.
Even though Clinton put the nation on sound fiscal footing, he left his handiwork extremely vulnerable by not articulating the guiding principles that got the job done. Bush took full advantage and put Clinton's balanced budget in the shredder."
Comments:
Post a Comment
