conservatism

Reaching The Wrongest Conclusion About Unions!

Dave Johnson — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:31:41 -0400

A letter-writer in my local paper today reaches the wrongest possible conclusion:

Public, private workers live in different worlds

The current issue of Time magazine includes a cover story on the increasing numbers of nearly bankrupt states and municipalities across the country. An important point made in the story is that public and private workers increasingly live in separate economies. Private-sector employees face frequent job change, relentless layoffs, flat wages and rising health care premiums, and they fund their retirement with 401(k) contributions. If they're lucky, their employers will match a portion. Many do not. Contrast that reality to public-sector employees, who enjoy relative job security, defined benefit pensions with guaranteed cost-of-living increases, and competitive wages that rise every year. Public employee unions have had a stranglehold on state and local elected officials for decades. This has to end, as the taxpayers are fed up and tapped out. Nancy Pyle needs to get a clue, as do others on the San Jose City Council.
A.S.
San Jose

Summary: Workers in the private sector have it harder and harder. They are increasingly losing benefits, pensions and jobs. Forced to work ever-harder in increasingly degrading work environments their wages stay flat and are starting to fall.

Meanwhile public sector workers have stong unions so they have good jobs with good working conditions, job security, pensions and raises.

Therefore ... we should get rid of public-employee unions? Wow! Talk about coming to a grossly wrong conclusion, and working against your own interests! Just wow!

It is a psychological truth that people would rather see others brought down than see themselves brought up, but come on! How hard is it to see that this person should be for strong private-sector unions instead of against public-sector unions.

And the letter-writer demonstrates the core of the conservative ideological argument: All the benefits of our economy to the top few at the expense of the rest of us.

Glenn Beck's Common Nonsense: An Interview With Alex Zaitchik

Sara Robinson — Mon, 24 May 2010 00:05:14 -0400

The change agenda at America's Future NOW!

Alexander Zaitchik will be featured on a panel entitled "Tea Parties, Beck, Bachman and Blarney"

REGISTER NOW
for AFN 2010

America has this long tradition of twisted, odd, widely beloved and yet darkly dangerous right-wing cultural impresarios that pop up out of our landscape like cultural tornadoes, leaving huge swaths of derangement and destruction in their wake. Aimee Semple McPherson. Father Coughlin. Joe McCarthy. Once in a while, when the cultural cross-currents intersect just so, they rise on the whirlwind, gather huge followings, and lead their followers on a furious high-velocity turn that blows across the countryside in desperate pursuit of a utopia only they can see. These maunderings are typically mercifully short and usually end in disaster, for both the people who started the storm as well as those who got swept away in it. And all is forgotten—until the next time.

The next time, in this case, arrived on 9/11/01; and the tornado took on the form of Glenn Beck. It only seems like Glenn Beck has been with us forever. It's hard to remember a time when his endless rants weren't filling hours of TV time on Headline News, and more recently dominating everything else on FOX. But Beck was basically going nowhere fast before 9/11—the event that saved his failing TV career, turned this know-nothing showman into a leading political theorist, and catapulted him into the very eye of the far-right's always-churning cultural storm.

LISTEN

Hear Sara Robinson interview Alexander Zaitchik about Glenn Beck's life story and his impact on today's politics.

Who is this guy? A precocious former Top 40 deejay with a longstanding drug problem, no discernible book learning, and a mean streak a mile deep. A "morning zoo" radio host known for his ruthlessness in ratings wars, yet unable to keep any job for more than a couple of years. A Mormon convert who immediately gravitated to the farthest edges of that faith's orthodoxy. The hottest host on cable TV. And soon, if all goes according to "The Plan," America's next great spiritual leader, stepping boldly forward to guide the Tea Party faithful in a complete re-making of this nation.

It's high time somebody took a critical look at the full arc of Beck's character and career. That somebody turned out to be Alex Zaitchik, who had already spent quite a bit of time covering the right wing. Zaitchik's book, Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance, hits the bookshelves this week. (Some of the chapters originally appeared as articles at Alternet.) Besides being an engaging telling of Beck's personal tale, "Common Nonsense" examines Beck's character and motivations in a way that might help progressives get a better handle on who he is, what he means to do to America, and what we're really up against.

Sara Robinson: I guess the first question is: what possessed you to write this book? Where did your interest in Glenn Beck begin? What did your research process look like?

Alex Zaitchik: It came out of a conversation I was having with an editor at Wiley about a rather different project -- about India, of all things. It could not have been more different. And we started talking about Glenn Beck shortly after his "we surround them" episode on Fox in March of last year. We were talking about how bizarre it was, and trying to figure where this guy was coming from -- we'd never seen anything like it.

This is, of course, the famous episode where Beck started crying about how much he loved his country and feared for it and the rest of it. And the more I started looking into him after this conversation, the more I realized there was this culture forming around him, this "cult of Beck" with big viewing parties, meetups, this kind thing. And I sort of got fascinated by it, and wrote an article for Alternet, and the response was pretty overwhelming. There seems to be a lot of interest in this guy.

So I when brought the idea back to Wiley, we put the other idea on hold, and decided to do a book-length treatment on this phenomenon -- Glenn Beck.

SR: There's a lot in the book that's extremely damning. One of the things that struck me was your description of Beck's antics while working as a morning zoo DJ in Phoenix, which is one of the most over-the-top things I've read this year. But it also revealed the extent of Beck's essential meanness, as well as the extent he'll go to to win a ratings war. Can you talk about that?

AZ: One of the consistent threads running throughout Beck's career has been this rather vicious mean streak that has changed over the years. It now sort of masquerades a sort of political argument -- but in fact, at its base, it's the same kind of gut spleen that's constantly looking for new avenues of expression.

As a young DJ, he used to attack other people in the market for being overweight. Lately, of course, he's attacking people like Rosie O'Donnell for being overweight -- but now he says it's because she's a Democrat and a progressive, not just because she's overweight, which is what he used to do back when he was doing Top 40 radio.

Probably the most famous example of this mean streak that I was able to track down is the time he called up a competing DJ's wife on the air and proceeded to mock her for having a miscarriage the previous week. She had just come back from the hospital. He did this live on the radio, which is of course illegal -- he didn't notify her that she was on the radio -- and then there's the moral question involved. He was the bad boy of an already bad-boy genre.

SR: Did the local media cover any of this when it was going down? Was it widely known, or just known within radio circles around Phoenix?

AZ: It made him infamous in radio circles. He had quite a reputation nationally for being talented, but also a bit of a prick. So yeah, people were definitely aware of it.

He never lasted very long in any one market. I think his record was close to two years. He bounced around quite a bit; I think he had over seven jobs in the space of 20 years.

SR: One of the things that struck me about that whole description of his early career, Phoenix, Tampa, and elsewhere, is how vicious he gets when he's backed into a ratings war. I'm looking at that in the context of his newest schtick, "The Plan," which he announced last Thanksgiving and is planning to roll out this August on the anniversary of the "I have a dream" speech on the mall -- having his King moment.

What can you tell us about "The Plan"? Is this just another ratings stunt, or does Beck really have the wherewithal to pull off a Tea Party 2.0 kind of movement?

AZ: That seems to be what he's going for. It seems to be something quite on a different level than creating controversy for ratings. He sees himself now as not just a movement leader, but actually (if his words are to be believed) a conduit for the Word of God itself. The idea that God is giving him this plan for the saving of the Republic is, of course, a very Mormon idea -- the Constitution hanging by a thread, and Mormons will come to its rescue, possibly led by Beck. That seems to be where he's headed -- the idea that he's a sort of world historical religious figure who's actually going to be saving the country.

His plan is actually a little bit less exalted than that -- it's basically just your usual list of right-wing think tank talking points. If you had the Heritage Foundation and Cato come together and put their best minds together, it would look something like The Plan. He wants an 11% flat tax, abolishing most federal departments, cutting social services, that kind of thing.

He originally advertised the date to coincide with Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, but he's since pulled back from that and now he claims that he picked that date just because it's near Labor Day, and he wanted people to be able to bring their children and make it a family vacation. But clearly what happened is that somebody informed him that Martin Luther King was a famous progressive "cockroach" (in Beckian language), and of course he must have felt pretty embarrassed. He stopped talking about the King connection pretty quick.

SR: You also got several people on the record about Beck's struggle with mental illness. In one of his books, he's admitted to being a borderline schizophrenic; another is premised on his confession of multiple personality disorder. He's also copped to having ADHD, and taking medication for it. And of course there's this very long history of addiction. What did these folks tell you, and why do you think they were so forthcoming with this information? And what part does all of this play in his history?

AZ: One of the first things people used to say when Beck first arrived on the national radar is over the last few years is: This guy is obviously crazy. And, in fact, a number of his former colleagues said that they believed that Glenn was under treatment for some form of psychiatric problem. They didn't know exactly, but many believed that it was bipolar disorder, and he used to take medication that one person believed was lithium, and all the behavior traits seemed to be lining up in that direction. That was in the early 90s in Baltimore. And then from New Haven in the mid-90s, I heard another colleague say that that sounded about right. One of his old bosses in Baltimore said he always used to remind Beck, "Don't forget to take your pill."

So clearly, he's now or was at some point under treatment for something. But what that is is less important than the fact that he's able to command such influence over so many people while putting forward a sort of political version of his personal mental illness.

SR: Another thing that struck me is the crass way he manipulates his own family stories to elicit sympathy. He uses his daughter, who has cerebral palsy, as one of his props; and he tells people that his mother committed suicide when all the evidence points to a very straightforward boating accident. Even for someone like me, who's intimately familiar with the testimonial culture of the religious right, lying that your mom committed suicide for the sake of ratings is just beyond comprehension. You actually went out and tracked down the documents on that.

AZ: The police records record a drowning accident in 1979. His mother and a friend of hers were found dead in the water after they apparently went swimming. There was an empty bottle of vodka found in the boat; there was no sign of foul play; and there was no suicide note left that was left or referenced in the local papers or police records.

Family friends also seemed to think that it was just a tragedy. I tracked down one of Beck's closest childhood friends who was actually a pallbearer at the funeral, and he said that there was never any sign or discussion of a suicide at the time. So while I don't know for certain why the death occurred, it appears to be the case that Beck sort of embellished this tragedy to make a more compelling life story.

Which, of course, is one of his stock-in-trades. He's constantly talking about his personal redemption narrative, which begins with the tragedy of his mother, and continues through this sort of 700 Club arc to his brother's death, after passing through a valley of depression and despair.

SR: Which is, of course, the classic redemption narrative. There's a lot of incentive on the right to make those stories as dramatic as possible. That's how you get your cred in that highly emotional culture. You need that drama.

Tell me about Glenn Beck's America, the one that he wants to take us to. Is this really about a return to some mid-century Golden Age, and is that even possible?

AZ: He does sentimentalize the middle of the 20th century, and even the America of his youth. Which is an odd thing to sentimentalize, because that's the mid- to late 1970s, which most conservatives usually don't remember as the halcyon days.

But what I think is most interesting about his reveries about mid-20th century America is that this was the social democratic peak of the country's history. I mean, this was when the New Deal and the post-New Deal programs gave the country its most egalitarian tax structure. There were more dollars flowing down the income pyramid than ever before.

This was the nation that FDR built -- and of course, the America that [Beck] would like to build looks nothing like the America that was built by New Deal policies. So he seems to want to have the benefits -- the sense of social purpose, the middle-class fantasy -- without having the economic policies that really are alone capable of leading to this kind of society that he remembers as a kid.

The policies he advocates result in Detroit today, not Mt. Vernon in 1955.

SR: What influence do you think his conversion to Mormonism had on Beck? And how do Mormons view him?

AZ: Mormonism has, I think, had a pretty big impact on Beck in a couple of ways. First, he didn't have much of a political education before he went to talk radio. There was a big void that needed to be filled. He sort of poured the liquid from right-wing Mormonism, in the form of this guy Cleon Skousen, into this empty vessel. That's what formed the bedrock of his political education.

Cleon Skousen's this very right-wing Mormon involved with the [John] Birch Society and later got more and more into conspiracy culture. In the 50s, 60s, 70s and into the 80s, he was a very influential guy in Mormon circles.

SR: Although he was also something of an embarrassment to the Mormon elders as well, wasn't he?

AZ: He became so, yes. He became too extreme, and he was causing problems for the church. But he did manage to drag the church fairly forcefully to the right, and now you have this orthodox Mormon culture that is in many ways the product of Cleon Skousen. And it's the same Mormon culture that embraces Beck. So that's one way that the conversion deeply influences his development.

Another thing: I have a chapter in the book where I talk about this very Mormon ritual known as "bearing testimony," which involves members of the ward house getting up and telling what amount to radio monologues. They talk for a couple of minutes about some sort of gut knowledge that they have, and very often they get emotional and tear up. It's very stylized. If you look at video of church leaders doing it off the LDS website, often they look like they're imitating Glenn Beck. It's a very Mormon thing.

So it seemed that he sort of embraced that aspect of Mormonism, and it's informed his persona, which is very much tearful, and has this sense of having direct access to spiritual truths.

SR: Why does Glenn Beck cry?

AZ: I think that, at bottom, there's a really fundamental emotional neediness in Beck that's come out over the course of his career in different ways. To some extent, you see it in a lot of entertainers -- people who've always had audiences and always sought them out. Even as a young kid, Beck was on stages performing magic; and then he was on the radio from age 13. He loves to be heard, to be the center of attention.

And crying is a way to not just be the center of attention, but to hush the audience and draw them in emotionally and connect with them in a way that is unique. That's something he's really trained himself to do well. That's one of the reasons why his success has been as striking at it is: he does manage to connect with his radio and television audiences and his live audiences and his readers in ways that most people doing conservative commentary cannot or dare not.

Beck's willingness to go there is one of the keys to his success. And it's not just a media strategy; it also dovetails with his personality and his deepest needs.

SR: OK, this is a long question, so bear with me. One of the things that's got progressive right-wing watchers most concerned is Beck's real skill in co-opting the language and symbols of American patriotism. The right has done this systematically for 40 years -- but Beck is a genius at it.

I'm thinking specifically of the way he's hijacked Tom Paine, who was easily the most progressive of the Founders. Paine was the first one to propose social security and welfare. The 19th century elites found him so threatening that they wrote him right out of history. Most Americans didn't even know who Tom Paine was until FDR and Eleanor put him back in the pantheon, for reasons of their own.

Another example is how he's publicized Jonah Goldberg's revisionist idea that the Nazis were somehow left-wing welfare statists. Can you speak to this?

AZ: What makes that that founder appropriation possible is relative ignorance on the part of his fan base. Also: Beck himself has only recently started to learn about this stuff, and he's really not a scholar on early American history. So it's an easy sort of touchstone for him to seem like he's representing the deepest and most consistent traditions in American history.

Of course, if you went back to exactly what the founders believed -- Paine being perhaps the most glaring -- it's just absurd that he would claim that mantle. Another one is Ben Franklin. [Beck] has a picture of Ben Franklin on his TV set a lot, and also in his radio studio. Of course, Ben Franklin was a giant of the Enlightenment: this is not a guy who'd have had very much patience for Glenn Beck had they been contemporaries. And Beck himself would probably not have idealized Ben Franklin.

And you can just go down the line. Thomas Jefferson, of course, believed in a pretty radical egalitarian view of society. He belief in limited government isn't limited government for its own sake, but limited government for the sake of a society of equal citizens, in which there weren't massive concentrations of economic wealth like the kind we see today -- which Beck not only glorifies, but openly worships. There's few things that'll quiet Glenn Beck faster than a kind word or the presence of a multi-billionaire industrialist.

SR: Beck has set himself up as this sort of revisionist history and civics teacher. What do you think it means for the country that we've got two million people watching his fractured-fairy-tale versions of history every day?

AZ: It doesn't speak very well for the state of conservatism, that's for sure. It wasn't that long ago that those people representing conservatism in high-profile positions were people like Bill Buckley, who -- disagree with him as you might have on the issues -- was fairly educated, and didn't make statements that were so wildly at odds with reality. So I think first and foremost, it's a statement on conservatism more than it's a statement on the country.

You also need to keep it in perspective that it's only a very small percentage of the country at large that's watching this guy, and those people tend to be the more hardcore conservatives.

And to the extent that it is a reflection on the country, it's a sign of the fracturing of media into these niche communities where people get their politics -- and in this case, their ignorance -- reinforced. The old gatekeeper system is, of course, done. You no longer have people producing what used to be called "quality television." You don't have three networks and PBS deciding what goes on television. Now you have FOX producers, and people like Glenn Beck, who are able to draw audiences -- who formerly were forced to go on community television or become street corner preachers and stuff -- are now on FOX News.

SR: Having written this book, do you think Glenn Beck really deserves the attention the left wing lavishes on him? And knowing everything you've told us about him, what's the best way for progressives to deal with this huge Glenn Beck phenomenon going forward?

AZ: It's certainly important that his statements -- and those of his peers, like Rush Limbaugh -- are taken seriously and debunked. To some extent, I'm glad there are organizations like Media Matters out there doing fact-checks on these guys.

At the same time -- and I may be a weird messenger for this, having just spent the better part of a year thinking and writing about Glenn Beck -- I do think that at some point you have to start asking yourself what the opportunity costs are of fixating on every absurd statement coming out of the mouths of Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Limbaugh, and the rest. I mean, it takes a lot of time to mock and/or fact-check every idiocy that is said these days. Sometimes, when you tune into radio or blogs, it seems there's a real lot of time spent talking about this stuff.

And while it's important to know, and counter, I think we need to ask ourselves sometimes how much is enough, and realize that it's much more important to come up with a positive agenda that is educative and based in reality to counter the profusion of lies. Ultimately, what this amounts to is diversionary programming coming from the right wing message machine, of which Beck has emerged as a central component.

The High Cost of Conservative Intellectual Bankruptcy

Isaiah J. Poole — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:20:13 -0400

WSJ Calls for More Regulation

Robert Borosage — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:56:54 -0500

Yes, the apostle of free markets, the scourge of regulation and taxation, the bastion of nutcase supply side economics – the Wall Street Journal editorial page – has come out foresquare for more regulation…

For Haiti, at least. The Journal editorial contrasts the toll of the Haitian tragedy with the comparatively slight toll of a 1994 Northridge quake of similar power. “The difference,” the Journal writes, is that a wealthier society “can afford, among other things, the expense of proper building codes.”

Got that right. And the expense of proper financial regulation, environmental and consumer protection, protection against fraud and more

Has the Wall Street Journal gone, in the immortal words of Margaret Thatcher, “wobbly” on us? Or did the horrors of the Haitian tragedy simply lift the blinders of ideology if only for a nanosecond?

Breaking Down the Status Quo in Six Easy Steps

Sara Robinson — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:04:18 -0400

One of the things I'm really liking about the new regime is the way the stark, terrified silence of the Bush years is giving way to noisy, energetic public discussion of subjects that would have been considered hardcore political pornography just a year or two ago.

Mr. Obama himself may not want to talk about single-payer health care or employee free choice or special inquiries into CIA torture practices, but the American people are definitely going there, with or without him. We seem to have recovered our moral voice, and relocated our own interests. And the powers that be, along with their paid minions in Congress, are feeling very, very nervous about it. I admit it: I'm enjoying watching them squirm.

Watching the rhetorical give-and-take between activists, change agents, and just plain fed-up Americans on one side, and those defending a very profitable status quo on the other, I've noticed that there's a repeating pattern to the way subjects that were once considered politically obscene move onto the public agenda, and how the defenders of the old regime respond to public demands for change. And it occurs to me that understanding the phases they go through -- and how their behavior shifts at each stage -- might allow us to respond more strategically and effectively to each stage, spending less political capital overall but getting far more for it in the end.

My first rough sketch of this process (I'm open to suggestions for refining it) involves six stages through which changes that our corporate masters never even wanted to discuss eventually become wholly-owned parts of their history. The steps I'm seeing go like this:

1. Backstopping the Overton Window. This disreputable idea is so far outside the bounds of acceptable discourse that sane, rational people will never, ever discuss it. The fact that you even dared to say it out loud in mixed company is incontrovertible proof that you're a certifiable loony. Anybody who could even think such a deranged thing is probably a danger to self and others. Please leave quietly, before you lose control and make a scene and we have to call the cops. And don't even imagine that you'll ever be invited to nibble cocktail shrimp in this town again.

2. Getting it out on the table. In spite of the Overton Window taboos, a small but insistent cadre of unimpeachably credible people dares to publicly discuss the idea anyway. They back up this bold transgression with an early round of solid research, along with a handful of real-world examples to prove that the concept might actually be economically and politically sound. Lining up the facts and people to kick off these discussions is usually the work of think tanks. Being one of these people once too often can put some real dents in an otherwise sterling reputation—or enshrine you forever among the visionary political avant-garde, depending.

That's because once the idea is out on the table and being discussed by reasonable people (which does not, of course, include the mainstream media), the defenders of the status quo react by making a wild, scrambling lunge to push it back off again. This always involves undermining the credibility of the proponents, their research, and their examples; and reminding everybody once again, in the most hysterical terms, that this idea is completely nuts and utterly impossible.

It's preposterous, they sputter. It will destroy the economy. It will put an end to the American way of life. Hillary Clinton will pick your doctor. You'll be forced to power your entire household off a windmill in your back yard. Al Qaeda operatives, along with the entire Mexican state of Oaxaca, will be bivouacked in your tool shed. Anybody who sides with these pathetic losers is probably a Communist, an intellectual, or siding with the terrorists. These are real and serious threats; and anybody who says otherwise is irrational and making shit up.

3. Clouding the issue with facts. You can tell that the initial attempts to discredit the idea have failed when the rhetoric gears down a notch, becoming less hysterical and more practical. The name-calling eases off, and opponents start coming back with studies and facts of their own. At this stage, the media have picked up on the issue and the politicians are starting to pay attention, so crazy talk stops and the debate is joined in earnest.

Numbers begin to be bandied about. This change will cost XX thousand jobs. It will reduce the tax base XX percent. It will affect industries A, B, and C. We'll be forced to move our factories to China and our headquarters to the Cayman Islands. No, seriously; it's a bad idea.

Even if the data the opponents offer is self-serving and slanted, the very fact that they're putting it forward and engaging in real-world debate is a good sign. It means they're taking the threat of change seriously enough to hire consultants and commission studies. Which also means they're quietly beginning to seriously explore what this change will mean for them, and are laying the strategic groundwork to prepare for it. As that process unfolds, they usually start to see where their next opportunities lie, and discover some real competitive advantages to making the change (though they'll never admit this publicly, out of fear of tipping their hand to their competitors, and giving up too much ground too soon.) The goal is no longer trying to prevent the change; it's now about trying to control what shape the change will take, and what the time frame will be.

4. Real negotiations. You know the old regime has made their peace, formulated a plan, and is ready to move forward when their arguments come down to two essential points: 1) We can do it, but it's going to cost a hell of a lot of money to retool for this; and 2) We can do it, but we'd be running afoul of a shelf full of government regulations that were designed to manage the outgoing order. This sounds like they're still balking, but it's actually a capitulation to the fact that change is coming -- and the opening gambit in serious, formal negotiations over what concessions they can get in exchange for dropping their fight.

"We can't do it because of regulations" means "We'll do it if you change or lift the existing regulations to make this even more profitable for us than doing business the old way." "It's going to cost too much money" means "We'll do this if you offer subsidies, grants and tax breaks to reduce our risk and make it worth our while." At this final point of resistance, they're just looking to auction off their cooperation to the government for the best price they can get.

5. A Brave New World begins! We are making this change! And we are so wonderful and forward-thinking to be out there cooperating with the government and the people and the planet in this way, and making life better for everyone! Splashy PR campaigns put the happiest possible face on changes they had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to make.

6. History, Rewritten. Looking back five years later? Well, of course, we were for this all along. In fact, we took the lead in initiating this bold, innovative shift in the way business gets done. We were the visionaries who had the foresight to stand up to those balky, closed-minded government regulators who opposed us every step of the way. We forced them into it, and the country is better off because we did.

Our profits are up. Our business is better than ever. Weren't we incredibly smart to see this opportunity? Weren't we noble and daring to step out over the opposition and do the right thing, and damn the risks? Isn't America blessed to have a free enterprise system where brave entrepreneurial companies can instigate such audacious and progressive changes? And just think how much more we might accomplish if government would just stand aside and let us do what comes naturally!

♦ ♦ ♦

Four months into the new Congress and administration, I'm noticing that several of the discussions that were covered with the steamy, overheated froth of Stage 2 just weeks ago are starting to cool down into Stage 3. Hysteria is giving way to more solid, fact-based debate. The beneficiaries of the old status quo—weakened by the economy and increasingly confronted by the people and their government—are coming to terms with the need for deep structural change, and are starting to seriously consider their options and strategies. At the same time, the next wave of subjects that have been utterly unspeakable for 30 years are re-entering national conversation, moving from the shadows of Stage 1 to the sunshine of Stage 2. With any luck, this could go on for years. It's messy and contentious—but it's how change happens.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are proving so far to be disastrously feckless at Stage 4, which is the moment of greatest government leverage over the process. At that point, they're negotiating against an opponent who's accepted the need for change, and is simply asking them to set the terms under which the new order will unfold. The decisions made here often stand for decades, so it's a moment that calls for boldness and tough bargaining. Unfortunately, until we get real campaign reform, the bitter truth is that this will continue to be the moment when massive amounts of taxpayer money get moved into private pockets, with no real change demanded in return.

But the most galling stage of all may be Stage 6, which was first pointed out by Rick Perlstein. In the end, conservative politicians and business leaders always to do their best to take credit for instigating changes that, in reality, they fought with everything they had. Those billions we spent on lobbyists and PR folks? Just a cost of doing business. And those absurd scare stories? I never said that, you can't prove it, and besides, I was taken out of context.

Fortunately, in an age of Google and YouTube, it's a lot harder to rewrite history that way. Still, as the changes start coming down, we need to be hyper-vigilant in watching for this kind of revisionism, because every time they succeed, they're underwriting the conservative frame that unfettered business is the only meaningful driver of innovation, and that all government can ever do is obstruct progress. At the same time, they're also depriving thousands of hard-working activists and citizens their rightful share of glory, which in turn deprives the rest of us of the inspiration of their example.

In an age when government is reasserting is role in defining and defending the public good -- and citizen activists are the real visionaries in creating a survivable future—that's not a win we can allow them to have.

Analyzing The Center-Left Majority

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:03:06 -0400

A joint report by the Campaign for America's Future and Media Matters for America details the solidification of a center-left political majority, one that is supportive of a greater role for government in helping to rebuild the economy and in meeting such progressive goals as universal access to health care. Robert Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, details the key findings of the report and explains why so many pundits still erroneously claim that America's electorate is centrist-conservative.

Borosage says that the report should embolden President Obama as he pursue his legislative agenda, and it should embolden the progressive movement to push the White House and Congress to be true to their more progressive promises..

America: A Center-Left Nation

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 27 May 2009 10:35:42 -0400

» Read the full report
» Blog: "Center-Left America"

Audio: Robert Borosage explains the report's findings..

Then-Sen. Barack Obama promised change during his White House campaign, and he ran on a distinctly progressive platform. Clean energy, affordable college, comprehensive health care reform. Obama’s victory capped off several years’ of sweeping Democratic electoral wins, each more progressive than the last.

But conventional wisdom still calls America a “center-right” nation. Immediately after the election, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham insisted that to govern successfully, Obama had to become a center-right leader in order to match America’s “instinctively conservative” streak.

Conventional wisdom is wrong.

America is more progressive than many people think. Public opinion shows the popularity of progressive policies. Demographics show the rise of progressive demographic groups. The new report we are publishing with Media Matters for America documents the trends and challenges the mainstream media to recognize reality.

Public opinion

Our report examines public opinion on a range of issues, from the role of government to universal health care.

Health care: "In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?"— CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, Feb. 18-19, 2009

Favor	72 percent
Oppose	27 percent

Energy: Would you prefer the government to increase, decrease, or not change the financial support and incentives it gives for producing energy from alternative sources such as wind and solar? —Gallup, March 5-8, 2009.

Increase	77 percent
Decrease	8 percent

Stimulus: “Which do you think is more effective in stimulating the nation's economy and creating jobs: An economic agenda focused on returning money to taxpayers through tax cuts, or an economic agenda focused on spending for improvements to the country's infrastructure such as roads, bridges and schools?” Los Angeles Times, December 6-8, 2008[i]

Infrastructure	54 percent
Tax Cuts	33 percent

Demographics

We examine population demographics, which are also pointing left. The bedrock voters of the conservative movement are growing older and declining in number. America is becoming an increasingly diverse, younger and more metropolitan.

Younger voters: People under 30 chose Obama for President by a full 34 point margin over McCain (66 percent to 32 percent). Even more impressive than the margin was the diversity. Obama scored a 91 point margin among young African Americans (95 percent to 4 percent), and a 57 point margin among young Hispanics (76 percent to 19 percent). He even won young whites by a 10 point margin (54 percent to 44 percent), a strong contrast to his 14 point deficit among whites aged 45 to 64 (42 to 56 percent).

Hispanic voters: Two-thirds (65 percent) of registered Hispanic voters identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. The gap is driven by the same issues that drive white voters — a general dissatisfaction with the state of the country, and their priority issues of education, health care and jobs. In the 2008 presidential election, Obama won Hispanics by 36 points (67 percent to 31 percent).

Unmarried Women: Women as a whole tend to lean Democratic, and Obama outscored McCain among women by 56 percent to 43 percent (compared to 49 percent to 48 percent among men). But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The most important hidden block is unmarried women, who chose Obama by a stunning 41 point margin (70 percent to 29 percent). Unmarried women are growing in number, and registering to vote in record numbers.

What it means

The wind is at our backs. It’s safe to push. It’s important that we do. We need to channel the energy of our center-left nation, and achieve the promise, not the compromise. The crisis is great, bold action is needed, and the people are hungry for progressive change.

The Toxic Legacy Of Senator Jesse Alexander Helms

Cliff Schecter — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:54:42 -0400

It is almost fitting that Senator Jesse Helms - longtime US Senator from North Carolina, onetime right-wing political commentator and a constant conservative voice on both domestic and foreign policy issues in American politics for the past half decade - passed away during an election year that may indeed see the demise of the conservative coalition that he was a key player in building.

Ronald Reagan gets the monuments. Richard Nixon is credited with the "Southern strategy". But no single politician - save perhaps Strom Thurmond - embodied as did Helms the manipulation of race, religion and the overarching set of issues known simply as "family values" to bring the once-solid Democratic South into the GOP fold.

Helms, using resentments as old as the South and as new as the racial tension seething in major American cities in the 1960s, built a coalition of social and foreign policy conservatives in service of the economic agenda completely at odds with the majority of those who ended up voting for him and his colleagues. The foot soldiers in this revolution were rallied to the cause based on a mutual hatred for liberals, "integrationists", homosexuals and most often the easy to apply, one-size-fits-all moniker of "Communist".

Jesse Alexander Helms was born in Monroe, North Carolina, the son of a police chief. While he never did receive a university degree, he discovered he had a talent for anti-establishment political agitation, which he began to utilize as a right-wing commentator for radio and television stations in Raleigh, North Carolina. There he fine-tuned his pitch, calling civil-rights supporters Communists, and otherwise earning himself a place in the race-baiting hall of fame.

Helms possessed tobacco and banking connections (he was the executive director of the North Carolina bankers' association from 1953-1960), and understood the power of an emerging array of New Right organisations that relied upon corporate money and a message decrying social decay at home and Communism abroad. He tapped into both, along with the newer technology of targeted mail, to build a formidable war chest that allowed him to squeak by in a number of divisive campaigns, to win and hold onto his senate seat while never receiving more than 54.5% of the vote.

To pick one of many infamous examples of the Helms campaign method, in his 1990 Senate election Helms ran an ad blaming his African-American opponent, Charlotte city mayor Harvey Gantt, for supporting "racial quotas" which cost whites jobs while giving them to a "less qualified minority".

His overall impact on American politics cannot be overstated. In 1976, when after the former California governor Ronald Reagan had been defeated in a number of primaries by incumbent President Gerald Ford, Helms resurrected Reagan's career by helping engineer a win for Reagan in the North Carolina primary. Ford ultimately received the GOP nomination that year - but when he lost in the general election Reagan became the party's heir apparent.

Legislatively, Helms unsuccessfully filibustered the enactment of a Martin Luther King memorial holiday, because of King's supposed "Communist ties". He fought tooth and nail against federal financing of Aids research and treatment, infamously uttering: "There is not one single case of Aids in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy." As a member of the Senate's foreign relations committee, he fought against the US paying its financial dues to the UN. These and many other acts of legislative obstruction earned him the sobriquet "Senator No."

Jesse Helms may be gone. But if you follow politics, he cannot be forgotten. For every time Republicans win a state in a presidential election by placing a gay marriage ban on the ballot. Every time you hear a member or associate of the McCain campaign question Barack Obama's patriotism. Every time Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sets a new record for obstruction by filibustering another bill. The presence of Jesse Alexander Helms on the American political stage can still be felt.

Cliff Schecter is the author of The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him And Why Independents Shouldn't

Creative Conservatism

Digby — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:19:19 -0500

Dave Roberts of Grist takes a look at Newt Gingrich's innovative new environmental proposals which, unsurprisingly, looks like another fantastic opportunity for rich people to bleed the taxpayers:

[W]hat Gingrich recommends is, in Sean's phrasing, pro-business, not pro-market. He wants to ladle out public money to favored corporations while shielding them from any regulations....This is what passes for conservative in today's party of economic royalists, but it is not conservative in the original sense.

It leaves Gingrich with very little to offer beyond media-friendly rhetoric. Look at the answer he offers Sierra Magazine (in a roundtable well worth reading) on what the next president and Congress should do first:

Americans are concerned about global climate change, but they want legislation that does not expand the size and severity of federal control of business enterprise. American businesses want to be part of the solution, and they have good ideas that are being implemented. Our business community is already ahead of the American government, so government must become a facilitator of innovation. The federal government could enact creative legislation that keeps businesses on task as we work to develop clean and sustainable alternatives to petroleum. Americans will elect candidates who support real changes in energy policy and market-based innovations that will lead the world to import clean American technology.

Rhetorical fluff aside, it seems that "facilitator of innovation" is the key concept here, and in Gingrich's mind, that translates to "dispensers of subsidies and tax breaks."

That would be in keeping with everything we saw the conservatives do for the last few years. From "faith-based" programs to Blackwater and everything in between, conservative businesses collected a very nice tithe from the American taxpayer for the past few years.

It's a testament to the pragmatism and creativity of the right that when they find themselves on the losing side of an issue they always find a way to use it anyway to deregulate business and funnel tax dollars to their contributors — and keep up the fiction that they believe in small government. Clearly, Gingrich sees the new Green Conservatism as another opportunity to use tax dollars to benefit their wealthy contributors without the inconvenience of regulations and oversight. (Plus, he's always thought of himself as something of a "futurist," so this issue this is tailor made for him.)

The truth is that "small government" was always hype. After all, the modern conservative movement was built on the idea of the need to build and maintain a large and very expensive police and military state to combat the commie boogeyman. The GWOT has brought that back with a vengeance.

Here's the small government philosopher king Gingrich in 2005:

We ought to say to [state university] campuses, it’s over…We should say to state legislatures, why are you making us pay for this? Boards of regents are artificial constructs of state law. Tenure is an artificial social construct. Tenure did not exist before the twentieth century, and we had free speech before then. You could introduce a bill that says, proof that you’re anti-American is grounds for dismissal.

Big government, conservative style. The amount of money being spent on Homeland Security and skimmed through war profiteering alone is enough to make a Roman Emperor jealous. Indeed, they've appropriated so much money they can't figure out how to spend it. It was reported not long ago that even small Alaskan fishing villages were being absurdly outfitted with surveillance tools intended for anti-terrorist activity:

So eyebrows were raised in January when the first surveillance cameras went up on Main Street. Each camera is a shiny white metallic box with two lenses like eyes. The camera's shape and design resemble a robot's head.

Workers on motorized lifts installed seven cameras in a 360-degree cluster on top of City Hall. They put up groups of six atop two light poles at the loading dock, and more at the fire hall and boat harbor.

By mid-February, more than 60 cameras watched over the town, and the Dillingham Police Department plans to install 20 more — all purchased through a $202,000 Homeland Security grant meant primarily to defend against a terrorist attack.

True, this was undoubtedly part of the Alaska congressional delegation's amazing ability to lard on the pork, but it illustrates the fact that there has been a huge amount of money specifically designated for very intrusive police agencies, and much of it is not being adequately monitored. If little Dillingham, Alaska, has 60 surveillance cameras, it's hard to imagine what kind of surveillance the Big Brother conservatives approved for the big police agencies in major cities.

This is a big, modern country with a large government sector and it always will be. The difference between the two competing American political philosophies is how government should be run and for what purpose. Modern conservatives believe in using government as a patronage machine to expand police and military power while dispensing tax money to (and protecting the interests of) big business and the wealthy. Modern progressives believe in using openness and transparency to protect civil rights and civil liberties, expand security and provide necessary services the markets can't adequately provide to average citizens.

So since it's clear that both conservatives and progressives agree on the fundamental question of the size of government, the only real question for citizens today is what they want their big government to do.