I grow tired of this sort of thing. The Boston Globe reports that a number of political scientists got together to discuss ways of overcoming what they reportedly call a “democratic deficit” in this country. That deficit undoubtedly exists, and some of its causes, such as huge amounts of money from sources representing only one set of interests, and gerrymandered districts, were correctly identified. But, I cannot allow this to pass unnoticed:
No one suggested that democracy be replaced with some other system. But many urged that fundamental elements be reshaped to repair what they called the nation’s “democratic deficit,” aiming to make a Congress dominated by extremes better reflect the public’s more centrist viewpoint.
via The Boston Globe
Now, lets consider this. If Congress is “dominated by extremes” then it stands to reason that there is a powerful extreme right and a powerful extreme left. There certainly is a powerful extreme right. It is called the Republican Party. Where, I ask, is this extreme left that, presumably, would be to the left of the allegedly “centrist” views of the public? It would be helpful if the reporter sought to place any actual issues that are out there today on a left-right spectrum, and demonstrate how the public is allegedly in the “middle” between two articulated extremes. Rather, we are given a graph showing the distance between the “most liberal” and “most conservative” legislators, where we learn to our shocked surprise that Bob Casey is the most liberal person in the Senate. Thus, the “center” is explicitly defined as the mean distance between the most “liberal” (Casey?) and the most conservative member of each body, thus assuring that the “center” shifts ever rightward as the Republican Party grows more reactionary and the Democratic Party, at the behest of the Washington punditry and its Wall Street donors, grows ever more “moderate”.
Let's look at reality for a second. I’ll go with my favorite hobby-horse, Social Security. We all know that it is the fervent wish of the right to destroy Social Security root and branch. We know that they have been at it for years, ginning up a fake crisis, etc. We also know that Social Security has no short term problem, but in the long term, it will have to trim benefits if something is not done about its funding. The primary force driving that problem, by the way, is the fact that back in the 80s, when steps were taken to preserve Social Security's funding, the actuaries doing the math had no idea that income inequality would increase to the extent that it has. If incomes had been distributed as they expected (i.e., as incomes were distributed when the actuaries did the math), there would be no long term problem at all. Since so much income has been shifted to the top, and since those at the top only pay Social Security taxes on the first $100K of income, there is a long term funding problem.
The obvious solution is to raise or abolish the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes. This would hurt no one but the rich, and it would be the merest of scratches, and mostly to their pride. It's a given that the Republicans would oppose such an increase. It seems to stand to reason that it is exactly what the “extreme” on the other side should be proposing, and proposing loudly and vigorously. And, according to our intrepid reporter, who feels honor bound to honor the “two extremes” meme, the public should be somewhere in the middle. And yet…
There are Democrats who favor this approach, but they keep their mouths shut, or speak only in whispers (the “radical” Elizabeth Warren excepted). The President, the leader of our extremes apparently, sees the solution in cutting Social Security, by enacting the chained CPI, which has substantial support in (indeed was first proposed by) the rightward extreme.
So where does the public stand?
The public is quite comfortable with raising the Social Security tax. This means that the “centrist” public is to the left of almost every member of Congress.
How about the chained CPI, the theory that as the general public gets poorer, the elderly should be dragged down with them? How does the “centrist” public feel about putting granny on a catfood diet? The Globe reporter might be surprised to learn that once again, they either agree with the leftmost members of Congress, or are to the left of them. Granted, it's a bit closer here, because the issue is less fully understood. But those with the most interest in understanding it oppose it the most.
Even on health care, when one drills into the numbers, the opposition to Obamacare is as high as it is only because there is a substantial portion of the opponents who think it does not go far enough toward the system of single payer care that we deserve. Opponents to the law are usually lumped together and placed in a right wing bag, but that is not the case in reality.
In any event, the fact is, that there is no one with a semblance of power in this country articulating extreme left, or even doctrinaire left positions. I put the word “radical” in quotes when I referred to Elizabeth Warren not as a knock on her, but because the supposedly radical positions she is taking are positions that would have been considered unexceptional until recently. Prime among them is her “radical” proposal to reenact Glass-Steagall, which 83% of the centrist public supports and which will go nowhere, because it lacks support across the spectrum in this Congress. So where, I ask, is the extreme left in our Congress? Where are the legislators demanding a return to 1950's tax rates on the rich? But that's fairly moderate. Eisenhower was fine with those rates. Where are the legislators demanding confiscation of the vast fortunes stolen from the rest of us by the bankers and hedge fund managers? Where are the legislators demanding socialized medicine, never mind single payor? Who is standing up for the unions? Where, we finally must ask, are the guillotines? People who understand the meaning of the word “extreme” in the political context want to know.
Post a Comment