http://select.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/opinion/19krugman.html?th&emc=th
Class War Politics By PAUL KRUGMAN NY Times Op-Ed: June 19, 2006 In case you haven't noticed, modern American politics is marked by vicious partisanship, with the great bulk of the viciousness coming from the right. It's clear that the Republican plan for the 2006 election is, once again, to question Democrats' patriotism. But do Republican leaders truly believe that they are serious about fighting terrorism, while Democrats aren't? When the speaker of the House declares that "we in this Congress must show the same steely resolve as those men and women on United Flight 93," is that really the way he sees himself? (Dennis Hastert, Man of Steel!) Of course not. So what's our bitter partisan divide really about? In two words: class warfare. That's the lesson of an important new book, "Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches," by Nolan McCarty of Princeton University, Keith Poole of the University of California, San Diego, and Howard Rosenthal of New York University. "Polarized America" is a technical book written for political scientists. But it's essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what's happening to America. What the book shows, using a sophisticated analysis of Congressional votes and other data, is that for the past century, political polarization and economic inequality have moved hand in hand. Politics during the Gilded Age, an era of huge income gaps, was a nasty business - as nasty as it is today. The era of bipartisanship, which lasted for roughly a generation after World War II, corresponded to the high tide of America's middle class. That high tide began receding in the late 1970's, as middle-class incomes grew slowly at best while incomes at the top soared; and as income gaps widened, a deep partisan divide re-emerged. Both the decline of partisanship after World War II and its return in recent decades mainly reflected the changing position of the Republican Party on economic issues. Before the 1940's, the Republican Party relied financially on the support of a wealthy elite, and most Republican politicians firmly defended that elite's privileges. But the rich became a lot poorer during and after World War II, while the middle class prospered. And many Republicans accommodated themselves to the new situation, accepting the legitimacy and desirability of institutions that helped limit economic inequality, such as a strongly progressive tax system. (The top rate during the Eisenhower years was 91 percent.) When the elite once again pulled away from the middle class, however, Republicans turned their back on the legacy of Dwight Eisenhower and returned to a focus on the interests of the wealthy. Tax cuts at the top - including repeal of the estate tax - became the party's highest priority. But if the real source of today's bitter partisanship is a Republican move to the right on economic issues, why have the last three elections been dominated by talk of terrorism, with a bit of religion on the side? Because a party whose economic policies favor a narrow elite needs to focus the public's attention elsewhere. And there's no better way to do that than accusing the other party of being unpatriotic and godless. Thus in 2004, President Bush basically ran as America's defender against gay married terrorists. He waited until after the election to reveal that what he really wanted to do was privatize Social Security. Pre-New Deal G.O.P. operatives followed the same strategy. Republican politicians won elections by "waving the bloody shirt" - invoking the memory of the Civil War - long after the G.O.P. had ceased to be the party of Lincoln and become the party of robber barons instead. Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic presidential candidate, was defeated in part by a smear campaign - burning crosses and all - that exploited the heartland's prejudice against Catholics. So what should we do about all this? I won't offer the Democrats advice right now, except to say that tough talk on national security and affirmations of personal faith won't help: the other side will smear you anyway. But I would like to offer some advice to my fellow pundits: face reality. There are some commentators who long for the bipartisan days of yore, and flock eagerly to any politician who looks "centrist." But there isn't any center in modern American politics. And the center won't return until we have a new New Deal, and rebuild our middle class. *** by Garrison Keillor, author and radio host of "A Prairie Home Companion." June 7, 2006 People who live in mud huts should not throw mud, especially if it comes from their own roofs. As Scripture says, don't point to the speck in your neighbor's eye when you have a piece of kindling in your own. I see by the papers that the Republicans want to make an issue of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in the congressional races this fall: Would you want a San Francisco woman to be speaker of the House? Will the lectern be repainted in lavender stripes with a disco ball overhead? Will she be borne into the chamber by male dancers with glistening torsos and wearing pink tutus? After all, in the unique world view of old elephants, San Francisco is a code word for g-a-y, and after assembling a record of government lies, incompetence and disaster, the party in power hopes that the fear of g-a-y-s will pull it through in November. Running against Pelosi, a woman who comes from a district where there are known gay persons, is a nice trick, but it does draw attention to the large, shambling galoot who is House speaker now, Tom DeLay's enabler for years, a man who, judging by his public mutterances, is about as smart as most high school wrestling coaches. For the past year, Dennis Hastert has been two heartbeats from the presidency. He is a man who seems content just to have a car and driver and three square meals a day. He has succeeded in turning Congress into a branch of the executive branch. If Mr. Hastert becomes the poster boy for the Republican Party, this does not speak well for them as the Party of Ideas. People who want to take a swing at San Francisco should think twice. Yes, the Irish coffee at Fisherman's Wharf is overpriced, and the bus tour of Haight-Ashbury is disappointing (Where are the hippies?), but the Bay Area is the cradle of the computer and software industry, which continues to create jobs for our children. The iPod was not developed by Baptists in Waco, Texas. There may be a reason for this. Creative people thrive in a climate of openness and tolerance, since some great ideas start out sounding ridiculous. Creativity is a key to economic progress. Authoritarianism is stifling. I don't believe that Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard were gay, but what's important is: In San Francisco, it doesn't matter so much. When the cultural Sturmbannfuhrers try to marshal everyone into straight lines, it has consequences for the economic future of this country. Meanwhile, the Current Occupant goes on impersonating a president. Somewhere in the quiet, leafy recesses of the Bush family, somebody is thinking, "Wrong son. Should've tried the smart one." Five years in office and he doesn't have a grip on it yet. You stand him up next to British Prime Minister Tony Blair at a news conference and the comparison is not kind to Our Guy. Historians are starting to place him at or near the bottom of the list. And one of the basic assumptions of American culture is falling apart: the competence of Republicans. You might not have always liked Republicans, but you could count on them to manage the bank. They might be lousy tippers, act snooty, talk through their noses, wear spats and splash mud on you as they race their Pierce-Arrows through the village, but you knew they could do the math. To see them produce a ninny and then follow him loyally into the swamp for five years is disconcerting, like seeing the Rolling Stones take up lite jazz. So here we are at an uneasy point in our history, mired in a costly war, a supine Congress granting absolute power to a president who seems to get smaller and dimmer, and the best the Republicans can offer is San Franciscophobia? This is beyond pitiful. This is violently stupid. It is painful to look at your father and realize the old man should not be allowed to manage his own money anymore. This is the discovery the country has made about the party in power. They are inept. The checkbook needs to be taken away. They will rant, they will screech, they will wave their canes at you and call you all sorts of names, but you have to do what you have to do. *** http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/19/BAG8QJGCDN1.DTL&type=politics San Francisco Chronicle June 19, 2006 Dellums victory signifies a sea change in Oakland politics By Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross The election of former Congressman Ron Dellums as Oakland's mayor marks the revival of a black- progressive-labor coalition that many thought was on its last legs after eight years of Jerry Brown. Not only did the revived alliance win the mayor's slot, but the Dellums groundswell also helped the congressman's former aide Sandre Swanson win the Democratic primary for the East Bay's 16th Assembly District, now held by the soon-to-be termed-out Wilma Chan. "The power of the people beat the power of the machine," said former Alameda County Supervisor Mary King, now assistant general manager at AC Transit and herself an alumna of Dellums' political academy, having served on his local advisory committee before winning election to office. "And if you add in the votes that went to Nancy Nadel (a City Council member and philosophical ally of Dellums who ran third in the mayor's race), then you have a multiethnic coalition that must be reckoned with," said businessman and activist Geoffrey Pete, one of the first to urge, "Run, Ron, Run." If the past is any indication, decisions in the Dellums administration will be made through consensus -- a sharp contrast to Brown's single-handed style of governing. As political operations go, the Dellums group -- forged in the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s and '70s -- has always been run more as an ideological family than a machine. "He never sat down and said: 'In a year we need this person here or that person there,' " former Dellums aide Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson said. Still, over the years, the Dellums coalition was always a major player in Oakland politics -- that is, until age and the city's changing demographics took their toll, with an influx of Latinos, Asians, gays and young whites lessening the African American old guard's clout. "They felt they were truly slipping under Jerry Brown," said Councilman Larry Reid, whose district includes East Oakland, which is still largely African American. And in fact, they appeared to be. After having worked with Mayors Lionel Wilson and Elihu Harris, both African American, many black leaders felt out of the loop when it came to making decisions, appointments and development deals under Brown. The mayor also pushed out two of the city's most prominent African American officials, Police Chief Joseph Samuels and City Manager Robert Bobb. Even though Dellums' congressional seat was filled by yet another former Dellums staffer turned state assemblywoman turned state senator, Barbara Lee, there was still a feeling that the "dominance in the East Bay by African Americans had hit a wall, and looked to have been stymied," former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said. Things didn't figure to get better if the man Jerry Brown endorsed as his successor, City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente, won the mayor's job. But Dellums provided the old left-labor-African American coalition something it hasn't had for several years in mayor's races -- a charismatic leader. "Hopefully this will serve as a wake-up call for corporate media like The Chronicle and the (Oakland) Tribune, and the moneyed interests," Pete said. However, state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D- Oakland -- a big backer of Dellums rival De La Fuente -- said it's too early to read much into the results. "I'm not sure that many people pay that much close attention to local politics," Perata said. "If anything, it's more of a response to celebrity. Oakland had eight years of stardom, and while they may have tired of Jerry Brown, they just grabbed another well- known figure again to lead the city." Whatever the case, Dellums is back at the dance -- and so is the coalition that bought him. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/U0DZdC/lOaOAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
