Progressive Message

The Myth of the Spurned "Centre"

Robert Borosage — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:32:08 -0400

Clive Crook, columnist for the Financial Times, urges President Obama to “betray” his base, and lead from the “centre.” Brits offering political strategy for American presidents are a bit like Americans telling Italians how to improve their pasta. And Crook’s analysis is as divorced from U.S. realities as his spelling. But it represents what will be a cacophony of similar cant and is worth dissecting.

Crook argues that Obama’s economic policies have been good enough; it’s his politics that have proved ruinous. The reason? Obama catered to his progressive base instead of governing from the center.

Really? This doesn't survive even a cursory glance.

Crook suggests that the telling choices of Obama’s first months were the stimulus and health care reform. Not one word on the critical policy that has most bloodied the administration: the decision to rescue the big banks without reforming them or at least forcing a few heads to roll. Anyone remotely connected to this political season knows that voters are understandably livid that Wall Street is back to million-dollar bonuses while Main Street is still looking for work.

Then Crook argues that Obama would have been better off espousing tax cuts as part of the stimulus plan rather than ignoring them before accepting tax cuts forced on him by a handful of conservative senators. Ah, Clive, you should visit more often. You apparently missed the fact that Obama’s original stimulus plan included tax cuts for all Americans, which the president made a centerpiece of his pitch. What was added was largely the utterly egregious and wrong-headed lard, particularly the “fix” for the alternative minimum tax which the Congress passes every year—and which had nothing to do with stimulating the economy, since it is largely a benefit to affluent taxpayers who expect it in any case.

Then Crook suggests that president would have been better off denouncing the public option in health care reform, rather than espousing it until forced to abandon it. The fog must be thick over there in London, since, as polls show, the health care plan is unpopular more because it didn’t go far enough than because it went too far. People are understandably worried that their health care bills are going to go up because the insurance companies made out like bandits. The public option polled better than the entire reform throughout the debate. And, in fact, the president actually took Crook’s advice, stiffing “his base” by demanding taxes on comprehensive health care plans aimed directly at union health care benefits. That proved particularly ruinous in the Massachusetts Senate race, as union workers stayed home in large numbers while a majority voted for Republican Scott Brown.

Finally, Crook suggests the president should have embraced extension of all the Bush tax cuts rather than arguing for extending them to everyone on the first $250,000 they earn, but not extending the extra break for earnings over $250,000. In fact, drawing the line on the taxes was one of the few stances that made sense to voters. (Despite that, suicidal Senate Democrats abandoned even having a debate on the issue.)

Crook’s column is part of what will be a drumbeat of conservative commentary arguing that Obama went wrong by doing too much, governing from the left, catering to the Democratic base. The argument, sustained in the face of contrary reality and contrary polls, will be accompanied by advice for the president to “move to the center” and stiff-arm (“betray” in Crook’s term) his base. This simply is nonsense.

The reality is that the administration and Democrats have suffered from being too timid, not too bold. The bailout of the banks was ruinous politically and left concentrated zombie banks an obstacle to reviving the economy. The stimulus was too small, not too large, and too compromised with ineffective tax cuts. The sellouts in the health care bill—on negotiating bulk discounts from prescription drugs, on the public option, on taxing “Cadillac plans,” on preserving insurance company oligopolies—were bad politics and bad policy. The fact that the president abandoned his argument about building a new foundation for the economy to embrace premature deficit reduction only left voters stupefied about whether he had any theory for economic recovery at all.

And betraying the base? Maybe it isn’t clear in London, but the entirety of Obama’s base—the young, minorities, union members, environmentalists, LGBT activists and more—feel badly served by an administration that visibly holds them in low regard. And their disaffection has contributed directly to the “enthusiasm gap” that must be reversed if Democratic majorities are to survive in the November elections.

Crook's bad analysis may have more to do with his ideology than his nationality. He hails the new Tory-led coalition as governing from the “centre” with its drastic austerity plans. From across the ocean, I won’t comment, but let’s see just how well that works out for the country and the coalition.

The Obama Speech in Cleveland

Robert Borosage — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:41:44 -0400

President Obama traveled to Cleveland to deliver an address on the economy designed to highlight the "differences in governing philosophy" between his view and that of the Republican opposition. (A copy of the text is found here: http://www.oliverwillis.com/2010/09/08/text-of-obama-speech-in-cleveland.... )

This was a powerful presentation, one that we wish the President had done repeatedly from his first days in office. He summarizes the conservative ideas and policies that drove us over the cliff, and offers a contrasting belief in a government on the side of working people that rewards work and offers a "hand up."

What's missing in the speech is any explanation of why the economy hasn't recovered. He argues, correctly, that he acted to stave off a depression. He admits that the recovery hasn't come as quickly as he hoped.

He then doubles back to lay out the differences between his view and the Republicans on policy. He's for ending tax breaks for corporations; that take jobs abroad; they are not. He's for infrastucture spending; they are not. He's for ending the top end Bush tax cuts but extending those for the rest of Americans; they want to extend them all. They oppose somethings that they are for simply for partisan political advantage.

But he gives no clue as to why the recovery has been so slow. There is no real mention of the financial wilding that caused the economic bubble and bust. He does not repeat his powerful argument that the recovery is slow because we can't go back to the old economy, and shojuld not want to. It was built on debt and speculation. He doesn't argue that we need to build a new foundation for the economy to put it back on track. He doesn't lay out the case for reviving manufacturing in the US as a centerpiece of a new economy. He doesn't contrast a belief in the need to regulate finance with their deregulation, the need to curb the casino in contast with their license of all gambling. His repeated contrasts are between his tax cuts for business and theirs -- not exactly an appeal that will rouse the troops.

As I said, it's a strong speech. But the president is asking Americans to vote for Democrats to sustain the course we are on and not go back to the old failed ideas. For that to work, Americans need to hear a compelling argument of what that course is, why it is necessary, what we've learned from the torturously slow and halting growth we've experienced coming out of the freefall.

Borosage on ABC: Obama Should Lay Down The Gauntlet

Isaiah J. Poole — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:26:19 -0500

On ABCNews.com's "Top Line" political podcast, Robert Borosage today counsels the Democratic Party to "put down the gauntlet" on a progressive policy direction for the country, with President Obama using his State of the Union address to signal his rejection of suggestions to tack to the center.

"If you take the Evan Bayh strategy (referring to centrist Democrat Sen. Evan Bayh) and you retreat, and you let health care go by the boards and you produce nothing, then you are going to see a lot of people stay home or stay on their hands in the fall. I think if you draw the lines and you give people a choice, that will stoke the base. If you take on the banks and you start pushing for jobs—and let Republicans argue about deficits and against regulation—you’ll see people come out in the fall."

Borosage says that Obama should point out in his State of the Union address that we've inherited the worst catastrophe since the Great Depression, and that we have to continue the progressive policy solutions that have begun to dig the nation out. He should put forward a forceful jobs agenda and challenge Congress to pass it within two months. And he should assert that "the banks can't keep getting away with what they're doing" and that Congress must act to break up the banks so that they can never again compel a taxpayer bailout.

Borosage says he sees no political upside in Obama and Democrats shunning progressives to win over Republicans in Congress because "Republicans have made it clear they’re not cooperating. They’re not in the bipartisan game -- they are in an obstruction game, and it’s working for them."

Besides, "Democrats have the majority; it’s time to produce. We’re going to be held accountable for it and ... you’ve got to let people know the choice. The fact is we had a set of policies that drove us off the cliff, that created the worst economic condition since the Great Depression and we have a Republican Party that wants to go back to those. You’ve got to draw the line and draw the distinction.”

How Progressives Move From Jargon To Message

Bill Scher — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:09:34 -0400

I led a panel discussion at Netroots Nation in Pittsburgh Aug. 13 on how progressives can gain the offensive in talking about such issues as health care reform and federal spending. The panel—Campaign for America's Future bloggers Digby, Monica Sanchez and Dave Johnson—stressed that careful language and issue-framing is especially important now to counter increasingly vehement right-wing narratives.

Greider: Be Willing To Destabilize The Party

Isaiah J. Poole — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:39:38 -0400

Journalist and author William Greider is urging the labor movement and other progressives to get tough with the Democratic Party, even if that means putting the party's majority control in the House and Senate at risk.

Greider, who was at the AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington Thursday to discuss his latest book, "Come Home America," said that groups that have reliably supported Democrats over the years needed to more aggressively counter the ability of conservatives within the party to "blow the whistle" against reforms that working people are fighting to gain. In saying that, he bolsters the case of progressives who have argued that they must act as an independent force that alternately cooperates with and challenges Democrats, including President Obama.

Greider said that progressives should respond to those southern Blue Dogs and other conservatives by telling the party, "We are going to their districts and talk about what they’re for and what they’re against. Are they for whacking Social Security or aren’t they? Let’s put it on the table. Let’s have an honest debate about that. If that makes people nervous, that's good."

“Yes, I am for putting candidates into selected districts who themselves have no great prospects for winning, but who may very well destabilize that safe seat for an incumbent. I’m for that," he went on to say. "And if that leads sooner or later to Democrats losing their majority control, yes, that’s a real threat. And think about it, Democrats. If you want to do something about it, you can. If you don’t, we are going to try to destabilize your comfort.”

Greider made those comments during a question-and-answer session that followed a 20-minute talk about the themes of the book itself, which he finished just as the current economic crisis was unfolding. The book discusses what he calls the inability of elected officials in both political parties to enact the serious reforms the country needs to not only properly respond to the economic crisis but to address the nation's other long-term challenges. He says that the key to shaking up the political system is an independent, grassroots uprising.

"We can get to a better place on the other side of the crisis," he said. "I call it America the possible... But, here's the killer 'but.' It cannot happen unless the people step up in some unorganized, chaotic, unruly, occasionally angry manner, and reclaim their role as citizens.”

That could force the Democratic Party to address its own identity crisis, Greider says.

The Democratic Party is at its testing moment,” Greider said. For the past 25 years it has been wooing the allegiance of both working people and moneyed interests. “It tried to manage that straddle without choosing. Now is the moment where we will find out what side you are on, as they say.”

Rather than allowing Democrats to assume that labor and other reliably Democratic constituencies will be with the party no matter what, Greider says that the message of labor to the Democrats should be simple: “We will be with you if you are with us, and if you are not with us, we will step back and make our own politics."

Greider, who as Washington correspondent for The Nation has written extensively about the financial system, also is a strong critic of the Obama's administration's response to the financial crisis. Asked to respond to a recent speech by President Obama that rebuffed calls from progressive calls to take tougher action to break up and reconstitute "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions, saying that the government's posture should be to "first, do no harm," Greider responded, "They are doing harm. They're doing harm to the future."

Greider said that Obama sounds as if he wants "to recreate Wall Street as it existed before the wreckage….That is a fallacious goal. You can’t do it….And he shouldn’t do it."

Instead, "if the president made some personnel changes and came out and said, 'We are going to have to spend some money on burying the zombies and distributing the parts, but here's the banking system I want to leave behind four years from now, five years from now, eight years from now, people will be applauding in the streets."

The public will support a plausible plan for a new and more equitable financial system, Greider said. “As long as they are trying to restore the old order, they will have justified public anger, and they will probably fail.”

America''s Future co-director Robert Borosage offered strong praise for Greider's book. "He gives you a really distilled, clear and searing look at reality, and lays out the big obstacles or challenges we face, and writes well. And then he lays out public policy alternatives that makes sense, so there is a sense that there are ways out of this hole and a way to move to what he says is a new and better place.”

Obama's Summons

Robert Borosage — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:26:20 -0500

"A man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath."

It was not the words, but this transcendent reality that evoked the tears at Barack Obama's inauguration Tuesday. The somber eloquence of the new president, the presence of over a million people celebrating what they had done, the grace of Michele and Barack together, the infectious delight of their daughters, the relief felt in the long overdue departure of Bush and Cheney—all were overshadowed by the historic reality of Americans electing the first African-American president to lead them in this time of trouble. We see one another and the world sees America with new eyes as a result.

But Obama's speech should not be lost in that moment. Major presidential addresses are signposts, markers of an administration's priorities and perspectives. Each phrase is contested; what is said and unsaid have meaning. Political allies, aides and adversaries parse the text to claim mandates or define battles. This will be particularly true for Obama, a gifted writer who takes words seriously.

Most analysis focused on the president's somber warnings of "gathering clouds and raging storms," two wars and a weakened economy. Conservatives took solace in his embrace of moral virtues, and martial rhetoric that "our nation is at war," and promise to "defeat" our enemies. Others noted his call to service, a stark contrast to President Bush's summons to the nation to "go shopping" after September 11.

But this distorts Obama's message. The core of the speech was structured around a pointed critique of the "failed dogmas" of the last 30 years of conservative misrule, a sharp rebuke of the policies of his predecessor sitting nearby on the stage, and a summons to a new and bold era of progressive activism.

At home and abroad, the new president claimed a mandate for a dramatic change of course. Domestically, he dismissed the centerpiece of modern conservatism: its scorn for government and worship of markets. "The question... is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works..." We know that the market has "the power to generate wealth," but surely we have learned once more that "without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control."

But he did not stop there. The test for a government that works is "whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." This comes as close to the Franklin Roosevelt's call for an Economic Bill of Rights that we've heard since FDR issued that promise in 1944.

And the measure of markets is not simply a larger GDP or growth, but benefits that are widely shared. "The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy" depends on "the reach of our prosperity, on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart, not out of charity, but because it is surest route to our common good."

From these principles, Obama outlined his priorities. His recovery plan will be grounded on public investment in areas vital to our future—from bridges to electric grids. He'll return science to its proper place, a slap at Bush's ideological assault on science. He'll launch a concerted drive for new energy—to "harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories" so we can reduce a dependence on oil that serves only to "strengthen our enemies and threaten our planet." And finally, he pledges a transformation of "our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of the new age."

As to national security, Obama begins by rejecting the "false choice between our safety and our ideals," dismissing Bush's use of September 11 to trample our constitution. He discards the bellicose unilateralism of the Bush neoconservatives, evoking earlier generations that knew "our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. ... Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, and tempering qualities of humility and restraint." He paints an America "ready to lead again" by rejoining the world, with a new respect for "sturdy alliances and enduring convictions."

From these principles, he lays out his priorities. First, he will "responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan," somewhat reassuring phrasing for those of us worried that the dispatch of more troops to Afghanistan could trap us in a costly occupation. He places priority on reducing the nuclear threat, and rolling back "the specter of a warming planet."

Then after pledging the defeat of those who seek to terrorize us, he moves once more to seeking a "new era of peace," beginning with offering the Muslim world a new way forward, based on "mutual interest and mutual respect," watchwords for the Iranian leaders, among others. Rather than Bush's pledge to spread democracy at the end of a smart bomb, Obama offers to extend a hand to those "who cling to power through corruption and dissent and the silencing of dissent" if "you are willing to unclench your fist."

Also significant is what was left on the cutting room floor. There was no mention of raising the military budget, or reforming the military to expand its expeditionary forces. There was nothing about cutting back Social Security, Medicare or other parts of our social contract, the "grand bargain" that conservatives in both parties have been pushing for. Progressives looked in vain for words on reforming our unsustainable global economic posture, and the need to move from creating global markets for investors and multinationals to regulating them for the rest of us. Items marked urgent in his inbox—restructuring a banking system once more on the verge of collapse, and providing mortgage relief to millions facing foreclosure—received only the most oblique reference.

Events transform intention, as George Bush discovered when the collapse of Bear Sterns threatened to bring down the global economy. Movements force change that might otherwise never take place. No one speech defines the future. The fight over priorities and presidential attention has only begun.

But Obama used this speech to raise the bar. While the president understands how far we have come with the fact of his election, this journey is only beginning. He calls Americans to a new age of responsibility, a new commitment to service, to put aside petty and partisan politics to address the stark challenges we face.

But his "post-partisan politics" is not about moving to the center, finding the least common denominator, and splitting the difference. In his inaugural address, the new president boldly summoned us to construct a new era of reform on the ashes of the failed conservative policies of the last three decades, with its foundations grounded on a progressive belief in activist government, regulated markets and shared prosperity at home, and a foreign policy that reflects our values. Each of us is called to "pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America." It is a challenge that we cannot afford to ignore.

This article originally appeared in The Huffington Post.

How to Frame the 2008 Campaign

Bernie Horn — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:46:45 -0400

Barack Obama just telegraphed the entire 2008 election. He revealed the only campaign theme that McCain can successfully employ. Here’s what Obama said:

“So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me… What they’re going to argue is I’m too risky.” Associated Press

As we fight over individual issues in this election season, let’s not lose sight of the big picture. Unlike partisans, persuadable voters are not much interested in candidates’ specific issue positions. Issues don’t matter to them unless they are illustrative of a larger theme. (And remember, you’re hearing this from someone who works on issues every day—like all of these.)

What kind of theme persuades undecided voters?

The theme of the 1992 Clinton campaign was “the economy, stupid.” You knew that! James Carville and company turned that election into a referendum on the question of which candidate would better repair the nation’s economy. It’s the question that mattered. If, by voting, Americans were answering that question, then Bill Clinton was the obvious choice. If voters thought their ballots were answering the question “Who’s best on foreign policy?” Bush would have been the answer. So the Clinton campaign highlighted economic policies, not as a laundry list but as illustrations of its “the economy, stupid” theme.

Similarly, the theme of the 2004 Bush campaign was strength. Karl Rove knew that Americans were deeply affected by 9/11; their sense of security had been shaken. He also knew that George Bush was perceived as a strong leader, someone who was supremely confident of his direction (even when all evidence pointed the opposite way). So Rove set out to frame the election as a referendum on which candidate was stronger. While Bush played the macho cowboy, his campaign pulled out all the stops to portray John Kerry—who won a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam—as a weakling.

The book Take It Back, by Carville and Paul Begala, includes a heart-breaking account of behind-the-scenes decision making in the Kerry campaign. Kerry focused on a laundry list called J-HOS, which stood for Jobs, Health Care, Oil, Security. As Carville and Begala lament:

“That, of course, is a litany, not a narrative. Calling ‘J-HOS’ a message is like calling a supermarket full of food a gourmet meal.”

Despite impassioned pleas by both authors, Kerry would not adopt a frame. Carville and Begala explain that this played right into the Bush strategy of defining John Kerry as “weak, waffling, and weird.” The Bush attack worked—Kerry was painted as a cartoon image of a liberal—because voters didn’t know what Kerry stood for, really. Moreover, they believed he didn’t know himself. (Don’t your ears still turn red just thinking about 2004? What a nightmare!)

That brings us to 2008. What is McCain’s theme? How would he like to frame the question that the voters answer on Election Day? It’s fear! Which candidate are you afraid of? Which is the greater risk? Which is inexperienced in a time of terrorism and war? Granted, this is a pretty pathetic reason to vote for McCain—but it’s the only thing he has. McCain can’t win based on a positive message. Nobody believes he’ll change anything in Washington; just about everyone realizes he would continue Bush’s policies. That explains McCain’s recent campaign tactics, including going so negative so soon. He can’t win any other way.

Accept the fact that persuadable voters are uncomfortable with Obama at present. Because they’ve been paying little attention to the campaign until now, they hardly know who he is. (At a recent focus group of undecided voters, I watched behind the one-way mirror as one participant insisted that Obama is a minister.) If McCain and his pals spend enough money on it—and his friends in the media repeat charges instead of debunking them—their tactic could succeed.

Obama’s theme is change. You knew that, too! Americans are fully aware that our country is careening wildly down the wrong road. They desperately want change. But change is, by definition, risky. Change is scary. That’s why Obama has been trying so hard in recent weeks to act and speak like a mainstream candidate. That’s why he’s veered away from some of the populist language he used in the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, and gone back to the values-based language used in his books. It sounds reassuring; it counters the McCain fear-mongering.

Terrorism and war are the issues that best fit McCain’s theme because persuadable voters remain fearful that their families could be killed by terrorists. Seriously! According to a recent CNN poll, 35 percent of Americans think “acts of terrorism in the United States” are very or somewhat likely “over the next several weeks.” In another poll, nearly 40 percent responded that they are very or somewhat worried “that you or someone in your family will become a victim of terrorism.” See both polls here. So expect McCain to come back to life-and-death issues again and again.

Domestic economic issues best fit Obama’s theme. If we make the election about changing the way our nation addresses education, energy, health, housing, infrastructure, trade, and wages, Obama—and progressive candidates across the nation—will win.

So let’s all do our part by repeating the change mantra while trumpeting these issues. But let’s also frame our policies as mainstream and commonsense, so persuadable voters will understand that we offer nothing they need to fear. How? The talking points can be found right here at our Making Sense 2008 website.

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the recent book, Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People.

Bill Scher

Bill Scher — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:51:20 -0500

"I'm Bill Scher, online editor for Campaign for America's Future. In addition to my blogging here, I have my own blog at LiberalOasis.com. I'm also the author of Wait! Don't Move To Canada!: A Stay-and-Fight Strategy to Win Back America, a contributor to The Huffington Post and Bloggingheads.tv, and a fellow of the Commonweal Institute.

Following my graduation from Oberlin College in 1994, I headed to DC and worked as an environmental policy analyst for big-shot investors wanting to know how proposals on Capitol Hill could affect the markets. By 1998, I fled the Beltway and moved to San Francisco, mainly to follow my now-wife Gina-Louise. There, I joined a public relations firm specializing in “issues management” and “crisis management."" Come 2001, I had become adept at the ways and methods of the corporate world, and decided to apply my communications expertise to advance liberal ideals.

Gina-Louise and I moved to Brooklyn, NY, and I joined the nation’s oldest women’s legal rights organization, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund (now-named Legal Momentum), as Deputy Communications Director. My efforts focused on combating coercive government marriage promotion, domestic and sexual violence, and employment discrimination.

In 2002, I started LiberalOasis.com, one of the early liberal blogs. I managed to become the first blogger to interview a presidential candidate (thereby giving me something for my obit), part of the first group to blog the Democratic National Convention, and one of the first bloggers to regularly contribute to the nationwide liberal talk radio network Air America.

In 2005, Gina-Louise and I took our two cats (The Governor and Maru), ditched the big city, and settled in Northampton, MA, where I finished my first book, Wait! Don't Move To Canada!. After getting married in the summer of 2006, I spent three months traveling the country on a book tour. When I returned home at the end of the year, I was fortunate enough to be able to join the great team at Campaign for America's Future and continue working to take back America."