Embracing Populism
Trying to predict what the next presidential election will "be all about" is usually a fool's game, especially when it's still so far in the future. The main theme of a national election can turn on a dime, due to a major world event or even due to the public's fascination with one unforeseen minor topic. But, at least for the time being, the 2016 election seems to be shaping up as a race centered on economic populism. This may change at any point, as I said, but I couldn't have been the only one who was utterly astonished to hear that Mitt Romney recently told a group of conservatives he might just run on a platform of helping the middle class and attempting to eradicate poverty in America. If even Mitt Romney (of all people) is now expressing Republican concern for the poor, then something has indeed radically shifted in our political debate. Up is now down, topsy is getting downright turvy, and Mitt Romney is now a populist!
It's pretty easy to poke fun at Romney's recent conversion to caring about regular folks (example, off the top of my head: "A car elevator in every garage!"), but to be scrupulously fair, Mitt's not the only Republican who has begun talking about subjects like poverty and income equality these days. People like Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and (to a lesser extent) Rand Paul have also made an attempt to figure out what a conservative political policy should be to help fix these ingrained problems. Ryan has already bowed out of the presidential nomination race, but Rubio and Paul are likely going to compete for the presidency alongside Romney (if he does actually run again, that is).
Of course, the movement in the political world towards addressing some real-life problems of the 99 percent has mostly been driven by Democrats. Senator Elizabeth Warren, in particular, has been at the forefront of pushing these issues onto the political stage in a big way. But from what President Obama has leaked about what is going to appear in tomorrow night's State Of The Union speech, it appears he's also gotten on board with a few populist policy ideas as well.
This is a fantastic playing field for Democrats to run on, it should be clearly noted. It fits right in with the core values of the Democratic Party, and many Democrats have come up with all sorts of interesting policy ideas which could help mitigate the basic inequality problem in our society. Republicans, on the other hand, will pretty much be starting from scratch. Since the 1980s, their political ideology can be summed up as: "Cut taxes on the wealthy and business owners, and eventually it'll trickle down to everyone else." This, manifestly, has not worked well (see: all economic data for the past three decades).
The imbalance between the parties on the issue is profound. In the past few weeks alone, President Obama has called for guaranteed paid sick leave and paid maternity leave, relief for first-time homebuyers, and two years of free community college for all. Those are just the most recent proposals, the ones now being teased to the media because they'll likely be major highlights of tomorrow night's speech. In addition, Democrats have traditionally been for raising the minimum wage (and adding a cost-of-living adjustment so that it would automatically rise from now on, instead of being tied to politics), spending some money on infrastructure, keeping student loan rates low, and keeping a tight rein on Wall Street by not watering down the Dodd-Frank reforms. Behind the scenes, the Obama administration is about to announce a big boost in guaranteed overtime pay for tens of millions of workers. The most contentious proposal Obama will make tomorrow will be to raise tax rates on capital gains (for the most wealthy taxpayers), inheritances, and hedge fund managers. Some of this money would pay for his other proposals (like free community college), and some would be used to boost middle-class tax credits for child care and working families. This is not even the complete list of Democratic proposals to aid the middle class and the poor -- you could also add in all the Obamacare subsidies and the expansion of Medicaid.
The Republican list of policy prescriptions for solving the problems of inequality and poverty is a pretty short one, by comparison. In fact, the party as a whole is much more known for what they've done to make poor people's lives harder, not easier. The prevailing viewpoint within conservative ranks is that if people are poor, it is largely their fault -- so, naturally, they should be punished for all their bad choices in life, not rewarded. Perhaps this is stating it a bit harshly, but it's not really that far from Romney's "47 percent" remarks not so long ago.
There have been a few creative ideas floated by Republicans, though. The one prevailing policy idea they've been pushing for decades is "school choice," which is kind of a Trojan horse aimed at destroying the teachers' unions and essentially giving up on public schools entirely. But no matter its motive within Republican ranks, the idea is a tempting one for inner-city residents who are scared to send their kids to the local public school, so it is indeed an anti-poverty program in a way (aside from its ulterior motives).
Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio have both attempted to address poverty and income inequality recently, to a varying degree (but also to their credit, since this is somewhat of a pioneering effort within their party's ranks). Ryan's big idea could be a fairly good one, although one with a limited impact. He wants to consolidate a number of federal poverty and job-training programs, to make it easier on the applicant (instead of bouncing from one program to another and having to deal with a new layer of bureaucracy each time, you'd just fill out one application and be considered for a wide range of programs). This would simplify things for millions, and make it easier to interact with such government programs -- if the same amount of funding were still provided for the consolidated program. If, in other words, it wasn't a stealth effort to slash benefits disguised as merely a paperwork-saving reform. But again, to Ryan's credit, at least it is an original proposal from a Republican.
Rubio has a few of his own ideas for reform (full disclosure: I have not read his recent book). One of these is nothing more than shuffling money around, but might indeed make life a tiny bit easier for those living paycheck-to-paycheck. Instead of handing out the Earned Income Credit on the annual income tax form (and refund), Rubio would instead break it up and distribute it over the course of the year, in each paycheck. Divided up this way, it wouldn't be much of a boost to a poor person's paycheck, but it would make a little positive difference, all year long. Of course, at the end of the year, they wouldn't get the money with their refund, so it's kind of a "borrowing Peter to pay Paul" scenario, but again (to give credit where it's due) it is an original idea that would directly affect millions.
But even bending backwards to give credit, that's still a mighty short Republican list of populist ideas to run on, compared to what Obama and the Democrats have been proposing. In addition (or perhaps I should say "in subtraction"), many Republicans are still fighting hard against a lot of very popular ideas that would benefit the poor, like expanding Medicaid. It's tough to argue your heart is in the fight against poverty when you are denying them medical care.
If Mitt Romney is correctly reading the political winds and preparing for the 2016 election by attempting to shift his party to an agenda that does address the concerns of the middle class and poor, it will be interesting to see what policy ideas accompany the lofty words. Talk is cheap, in other words -- it depends a lot more on what you stand up and fight for.
President Obama will introduce many policy prescriptions with plenty of fanfare tomorrow night. Everyone in Washington knows that pretty much all of what he suggests Congress should do will not actually get done. Republicans hold both houses and will set their own agenda, while mostly ignoring Obama's. But everyone also knows that what Obama will really be doing tomorrow night is unveiling the first draft of the Democratic Party's 2016 platform. He'll be laying down a marker: "This is what we're going to run on." Republicans can almost be counted on to either outright ignore or actively fight against any program Obama supports. But this time around they're going to run the danger of undermining their own presidential aspirants. It's going to be a lot harder for Mitt Romney (or any other Republican who flirts with populist language) to convince the country he's sincere if his fellow Republicans in Congress refuse to even consider an idea like free community college for all. Maybe he can thread this needle somehow by putting a "conservative-approved" stamp on a few of his own proposals on poverty or the middle class, but even if he can make this happen somehow it's hard to see how the Republicans won't be playing defense on these issues for the next two years. Tomorrow night, President Obama is going to launch a populist offensive, and if all the Republicans do in response is to retreat into their default "Let's give your boss a tax cut, that'll make your life better!" stance, then the choice for populist voters in 2016 is going to be obvious, no matter what Mitt is saying on the stump.
[Program Note: Join me over at my site tomorrow evening, after the State Of The Union speech, as I share my own immediate reactions to what Obama has to say.]
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Since the 1980s, their political ideology can be summed up as: "Cut taxes on the wealthy and business owners, and eventually it'll trickle down to everyone else." This, manifestly, has not worked well
Huh? It's been a nearly complete success, both as politics and as policy. We now have one of the highest Gini coefficients in the world, and full Republican control of Congress.
Nixon: Alright, listen up, nitwits. Who here is tired of illegal space aliens taking our good Earth jobs? [The crowd cheers.] Me too! So if I'm re-elected, I promise to big a really big Dyson fence across the Southern border of our solar system. [The crowd cheers.] And furthermore, by golly, I promise to cut taxes for the rich and use the poor as a cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel!
Fry: Yeah, that'll show those poor!
Leela: Why are you cheering, Fry? You're not rich!
Fry: True. But someday I might be rich, and people like me better watch their step!
-Futurama
There will be no PA system at Rmoneybot2016 campaign stops. All of his remarks will be relayed via mic check.
I hate to be a stick in the mud......
Awww, who am I kidding!?? I LOVE to be a stick in the mud!! :D
But seriously.. Ya'all go on and on about how the GOP is against the poor and middle class and the Democrats are the poor/middle class champions....
Yet the facts clearly show that, under Obama and the Democrats, the rich got richer and the poor and middle class got scrooed...
So, as I am wont to do, I would humbly suggest that the Left clean their own glass house first before casting stones...
I'm just sayin'...
Michale
[Program Note: Join me over at my site tomorrow evening, after the State Of The Union speech, as I share my own immediate reactions to what Obama has to say.]
I'll be here!! :D
I wouldn't miss Obama's Hope-Fest AKA Yes-We-Can-But-No-We-Can't funapalooza!! :D
Hope their's a laugh-track...
Yea, I know, I know.. I pick on Obama a lot. But ya'all gotta admit that he is NOT the POTUS *any* of us thought he would be... No one here can say with a straight face that Obama has fulfilled the promise he had in 2008...
Michale
dsws,
Kudos on the movie/tv quote...
The causality of my presence here is almost complete ... :D
Michale
Obama has fulfilled his promises.
I've no problem at all saying it. Or meaning it.
Obama is not King. His job is to administer America. He doesn't get to make the law. He doesn't get to determine the budget. Those major constraints on the Presidency are intentional. Their purpose is to limit the President's power to do things. Obama has met his responsibilities.
Wingers, like Michale, like to pretend that the President is responsible for what Republicans do. They claim the President owns the economic disaster Republicans created (but not the recovery Obama oversaw.)
That Obama is responsible for Republicans refusing to support anything supported by Obama. That Obama is responsible for Congress accomplishing not a thing for the people for two terms now. Even though Republicans promised not to support anything Obama supported on inauguration day, as a partisan strategy, not a response to any actual Obama initiatives.
Obama has indeed kept his promises to the best of his ability. The problem hasn't been Obama's lack of good faith, the problem has been the Republicans' lack of good faith.
That's "what the facts clearly show."
Obama has fulfilled his promises.
MONTAGE: 112 UNKEPT PROMISES FROM EARLIER OBAMA SOTU ADDRESSES
As President Obama prepares to make new promises tonight, here’s a look back at those not yet fulfilled
https://grabien.com/story.php?id=20735
Yea... SURE he has...
"ObamaCare will preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan."
-President Obama, STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH, 2010
Yea... SURE Obama has kept all his promises. :^/
That's "what the facts clearly show."
You have no facts...
You just have hero worship...
Michale
Obama has worst State of the Union record since Ford, study shows
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/20/obama-has-worst-state-union-record-ford-study-show/
Yea, I don't think ANYONE would buy into the total BS that Obama has actually kept all of his promises...
At least not anyone who has ANY semblance of being at least SOMEWHAT grounded in reality...
Michale
Like I said, Michale,
You wingers just lie. Have been for for years.
Obamacare did "preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan." Having a right to something doesn't mean the government will provide it. That's the lie you wingers gave been promoting. It's up to the individual to obtain what they want within the law.
You've a right to be a billionaire. Doesn't mean the government owes you all the money you could want. Or even a way to get it on your own.
Obama did his job. No one, including Republicans, had any right to expect Obama to determine our laws--Not his job. No one, including Republicans, had a right to make all our problems magically vanish--Not what he was elected to do.
Obama's job is to administer the laws passed by Congress. To set priorities, establish foreign policy, command the military, and see to the overall administration of the government.
The Presidency is only one-third of the government. Obama's promises were, and are, not about the government, they were about the Presidency. You wingers simply lie, Michale.
Like I said, Michale, you want to judge Obama, and blame him, for what Republicans have done. Not based on what Obama himself has done.
The Washington Times piece says Obama has the worst record getting his "policy requests enacted into law."
That's a reflection of the Republican Congress, not of Obama not keeping promises.
Obama's "promises" are promises to pursue policies with Congress. The President simply hasn't the power to enact most policies on his own.
Obama simply isn't to blame for the Republicans' refusal to work with the President--on anything!
Obamacare did "preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan." Having a right to something doesn't mean the government will provide it.
No one is asking for the government to provide it.. But, because of TrainWreckCare, MILLIONS of people lost insurance they were PROMISED they wouldn't lose..
What's so hilarious is that YOU are the only person on the planet who thinks Obama kept his promises..
Now THAT's funny.. :D
Michale
Obama's job is to administer the laws passed by Congress.
I wonder if you realize how utterly frak'ed up that sounds, considering how Obama has ignored Congress and did whatever the hell he wanted....
Michale
The Washington Times piece says Obama has the worst record getting his "policy requests enacted into law."
That's a reflection of the Republican Congress, not of Obama not keeping promises.
Of course it is..
Obama The Messiah is perfect and walks on water. He doesn't make mistakes, he is never wrong and everything is the fault of the evil terrorist Republicans..
Riiigggghhhhhtttttt...
I wonder if you really believe that crap....
Michale
I don't know what it's like on your planet, LD...
But here on Earth, when someone says, "I promise to do A, B and C" without ANY conditions and exceptions and those promises are not kept, THAT is a broken promise...
Like I said... On your planet, it might be different..
Michale
Michale,
The problem is that if you believe that Obama's promises are "without any conditions" then you are ignorant and, or, delusional. No one has to tell you the limits of Presidential power. It's your obligation as a citizen to know them.
If you're voting for the President of the United States and you don't even know what that means, or what constraints and "conditions" that entails, it isn't the President who's at fault for misleading you. It's you who are at fault for being too ignorant to meet your obligations as a citizen to make informed and rational decisions about our governance.
Obama has never ignored the law. It's not his job to obey Congress. The President is the equal of Congress. He is not under the supervision of Congress.
And exercising prosecutorial discretion is administering the laws and the government of the United States. Which is precisely what we have a President for.
As I've said, you wingers have simply been lying. And you continue to do so.
When Bush was President he was the "Unitary Executive", "The Decider." He had a right to the people of his choice on his team. He wasn't responsible for anything that happened on his watch. The Republican majority had a "mandate" from the people to do whatever they wanted.
Obama wins election and suddenly the President has no authority to decide anything. He's not entitled to appoint anyone Republicans object to for any reason at all. Even if none of their objections have anything at all to do with the appointees' qualifications. Obama isn't even entitled to a team, much less a team of his choosing. But Obama is responsible for anything that happens anywhere. And Republicans have a sudden "duty" to be "the opposition party."
Funny isn't it. When Republicans win an election they've a "mandate" to do as they please. When they lose an election they've a mandate to do as they please.
No matter what happens, in Wingnutistan its always "heads I win. Tales you lose." Because they are all simply chronic liars.
But here on Earth, when someone says, "I promise to do A, B and C" without ANY conditions and exceptions and those promises are not kept, THAT is a broken promise...
No matter how much hero-worship and I LOVE OBAMA and OBAMA IS MY GOD you inject into the discussion, the fact remains..
When someone says, "I promise to do A, B and C" without ANY conditions and exceptions and those promises are not kept, THAT is a broken promise...
Obama lied.. Obama broke promises...
These are the facts..
Michale
Funny isn't it. When Republicans win an election they've a "mandate" to do as they please. When they lose an election they've a mandate to do as they please.
No matter what happens, in Wingnutistan its always "heads I win. Tales you lose." Because they are all simply chronic liars.
And with Democrats, everything is the Republicans fault, even when Democrats have a SUPER MAJORITY and a LOCK on all aspects of government..
So, what's yer point??
As I said, LD.. You are the ONLY person on the planet that believes Obama never lied...
That should tell you something about your "facts"...
Michale