Amid a Painful Economic Meltdown, Will Obama Be Bold Enough to Win?
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on September 13, 2008, Printed on September 13, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/98495/
Voters may not follow every twist and turn of the election -- they
may not brush up on each of the candidates' policy proposals -- but
they know when they're hurting economically, and almost unprecedented
numbers now say the country is on "the wrong track."
The Bush years have been bad. In fact, as economist Jared Bernstein
noted, when one compares the economic peak of the past cycle, in
2000, with the high point of the business cycle that just ended in
2007, households in the middle actually lost ground, earning $300,
adjusted for inflation, less than they did in 2000. The worst this
group had done in previous business cycles occurred during the 1970s,
when median income "only" increased by about $2,000. In comparison,
the income for a family in the middle rose by almost four grand
during the 1990s.
It's the first time since they started keeping records of family
income after World War II that the economy has gone into a recession
before the middle class, those iconic "American families" that
dominate our political discourse, had rebounded fully from the
previous downturn. That represents an immensely painful double-dip
for those in the middle and at the bottom -- only those in the top
fifth of the economic ladder have seen any gains whatsoever since the
last recession (officially) ended in 2001. (The wages of the bottom
fifth fell by 6 percent, while those in the top 1 percent saw their
incomes rise by about 50 percent during what some conservative
pundits have called the "Bush Boom").
But it's important to understand that Bushenomics only represents an
extreme iteration of the ideology that's prevailed since the 1973
energy crisis and the dawn of the "Reagan Revolution." The pain that
working America feels today is the culmination of a far longer trend.
An analysis by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez offers
perhaps the most compelling indictment of neoliberal economics. They
sliced and diced the American economy, going back to the beginning of
the last century, and they found that between 1973 and 2003, despite
several periods of healthy growth, the average real income of all but
the top 10 percent of the economic ladder -- 9 out of 10 American
families -- actually fell by about 4 percent over those 30-plus
years. Meanwhile, the incomes of the top 10 percent of American
households increased by around two-thirds.
It's a unique moment in history, with the country facing a deep,
structural energy crisis, with a tattered reputation and dwindling
influence abroad and a sputtering economy at home. But in moments of
crisis, there is often opportunity. The public now appears to be
uniquely receptive to a bold progressive agenda, more so than at any
other point in recent memory.
The question that will be answered over the coming weeks is how
aggressive the Obama campaign will be in articulating such an agenda
-- whether a campaign that has moved to a steady but generic drumbeat
of "change" can widen the discussion from the failures of the Bush
administration to the disastrous consequences of the larger
conservative project over the past 30 years and offer the voters some
concrete proposals to restore Americans' tattered sense of economic security.
What Kind of "Change" Are We Talking About?
The neoliberal project -- the idea that business, when largely
unregulated, has some sort of magical virtue that renders the idea of
a healthy social safety net a quaint but antiquated notion -- has
failed, and done so spectacularly over a long period of time.
Noam Chomsky has said (and I'm paraphrasing) that for the adherents
of neoliberalism, the answer to each and every one of its failures is
more neoliberalism, and John McCain epitomizes that approach. His
economic prescriptions are as simple as they are familiar: Cut taxes
for top earners, privatize as many chunks of the public sphere as
possible, and let "the market" deal with whatever dislocations
result. To keep the masses from becoming unruly, throw some crumbs
their way -- job retraining, trade "adjustment assistance," maybe a
grudging increase in the minimum wage (actually, McCain has voted 19
times against raising the minimum).
McCain's problem is that the American people aren't so ideologically
rigid. Over the past year or two, an extensive body of public opinion
research has shown that Americans -- including those crucial white
working-class voters who have been largely loyal to GOP candidates
since their benevolent Saint Reagan told them that government was the
problem -- are hungry for real, substantive change in our nation's
economic course.
That hunger runs deep. According to the American Dream Survey -- a
study of the non-managerial workers who make up about 80 percent of
the workforce -- released last month, Barack Obama, who's already
polling well among that group, "can capture even greater support
amongst working voters, including 'Reagan Democrats,' as well as the
emerging Obama Republicans with a program of economic populism."
The study found that an overwhelming majority of working people --
about 8 in 10 -- think it's becoming harder and harder to attain the
"American Dream" -- defined as "jobs with pay that can support a
family, access to quality health care, chances for your children to
succeed, and a secure and dignified retirement." (Respondents were
far more pessimistic this year than they were last year, when I wrote
about the annual survey in some detail.)
What's most striking about the results is the degree to which these
working-class voters -- the subject of so much discussion on the TV
gab shows during this election season -- explicitly reject the
Reaganite economic principles that have held so much sway over both
parties over the past three decades. They say, explicitly, that they
want the government to take an active roll in protecting their
interests; according to the study, "Working Americans believe
government can help (them) achieve the America Dream but has failed
to do so over the past 8 years." Eight out of 10 respondents said the
best way to restore the American dream is for the government to
"guarantee access to health care for all Americans"; a similar number
says that "government (should) make sure employers keep their
promises to employees, including protecting their pensions and health care."
One of the crucial takeaways from the survey is that so-called
"Reagan Democrats" -- a constituency that has been easily swayed by
conservative messages on social issues -- are up for grabs in this
election. As the authors note, "A shift in voting behavior among
Reagan Democrats could signal a transformation in U.S. politics and
the end of the conservative era that Ronald Reagan began."
Those attitudes were confirmed by a poll of "middle-class families"
released by the Drum Major Institute last month. It found broad
support for key policies that might rebuild the working class, even
among Republicans and even among those who say they plan to vote for
the GOP ticket in November:
Despite media depictions of a sharp red and blue divide, the
nation's middle class displays broad consensus on a range of public
policies aimed at easing their economic squeeze: They support a
universal national health insurance plan, requiring employers to
provide paid family and medical leave, making it easier for employees
to join labor unions and allowing bankruptcy judges to change
mortgage payments to keep homes out of foreclosure. A majority of
middle-class adults -- whether they are Democrats, Republicans or
independents and whether they are supporters of John McCain or Barack
Obama for president -- believe that these policies represent good
ideas for the country.
Looking at these trends, veteran Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg
and Andrew Baumann released a memo in August that concluded that
voters today see parallels with the 1930s, and they want bold
proposals, reminiscent of FDR's New Deal, to restore their sense of
economic security. Greenberg and Baumann noted that the depth of
dissatisfaction with our current economic course is almost
unprecedented, and that the country is undergoing fundamental and
historic changes. The key finding was that voters are unmoved by
proposals that tinker around the edges of the problems America faces
today. "This belief that the country is undergoing fundamental
change," they argued, "combines with the depth of pessimism voters
currently feel about the direction of the nation to create an opening
for candidates who can offer major changes and a bold new direction
for the country. Just 35 percent of voters say we can solve America's
problems with minor changes, while nearly two-thirds believe it will
take 'major changes' to bring about solutions."
According to their polling, bold economic proposals can compete
head-to-head with McCain's emphasis on his heroic resume, his
full-throated defense of American power and his promise of protection
in what he frequently calls a "dangerous world." Greenberg and
Baumann found that voters see a clear and direct connection between
restoring the economic strength of the country and its standing as a
shining "city on the hill" -- a leader of the "free world."
A remarkable 82 percent find truth (nearly half finding a great
deal of truth) in the idea that America's greatness is waning because
of the decline in the middle class and that a "dramatic change" in
our economic policies is required to reverse the situation. Moreover,
85 percent find truth (43 percent a great deal of truth) in the idea
that the decline of the middle class is "reducing our standing in the
world (and) leaving our way of life under assault."
Can Obama Deliver?
Obama's economic prescriptions are significantly more far-reaching,
and more progressive, than those ultimately enacted during the
Clinton administration.
He supports most of the key policy proposals cooked up in Democratic
circles in recent years, including calls for a shift toward "fair
trade," support of the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would
allow workers to join a union without fear of reprisal from their
bosses, and the cornerstone the "green jobs" program that advocates
say would create millions of new, well-paying jobs while weaning the
United States off hydrocarbons.
It would be wrong to dismiss those proposals as just so much centrist
tinkering -- they're not -- but it's also true that with very few
exceptions, progressive thinkers outside the orbit of the Democratic
Party have criticized them as coming up short, either because of
their fundamental design or due to insufficient funding (and, in some
instances, their vagueness).
But in a political climate in which perception often outweighs
policy, the question remains whether Obama, who is a genuine mediator
at heart and firmly believes in bringing all sides of an issue to the
table to work out a compromise, can articulate the kind of new
approach for which Americans hunger right now.
There have been some positive signs -- signs that the campaign gets
it -- in recent weeks. During his nomination acceptance speech, Obama
referred to "that old, discredited Republican philosophy -- give more
and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles
down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership
Society, but what it really means is: You're on your own. Out of
work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into
poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps -- even if you don't
have boots. You're on your own. Well it's time for them to own their failure."
It remains to be seen whether the campaign keeps hitting that message
consistently, and hard, and, if so, how that will play with Obama's
image as a "post-partisan" candidate. But it's clear that given the
choice between culture war and class war, there are a lot of
low-hanging votes out there that can be won over by unapologetically
opting for the latter.
Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
