Mark Penn

Occupy Wall Street Speaks For America: A "Centrist" Hit Job's Polling Data Helps Prove It

Richard Eskow — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:45:52 -0400

Thanks to a hit piece by one of those Beltway pseudo-"bipartisans" we can now state conclusively what many of us have long suspected: Occupy Wall Street speaks for the American majority. We've got the polling numbers to prove it. We now know where the real center lies.

It's easy to understand why people like Douglas Schoen are lining up to attack OWS. It shines a spotlight on their cardboard centrism - that think-tank designed, artificially-inseminated, vat-grown corporate ideology so widely rejected by the public at large. OWS represents the real American consensus, and that has them running scared.

But Schoen's Wall Street Journal editorial falls so far short of the mark that it elicits only a soft sense of pity. It illustrates nothing except the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of those out-of-step Democrats who sell themselves to conservatism under the 'centrist' or 'Third Way' banner.

Oh, wait. It also provides enough data to undermine his entire argument - and possibly his entire ideology.  Before we look at the numbers we should take a closer look at these "centrists" and why they're trying to kill Occupy Wall Street.

How to Succeed in ~~Centrism~~ Conservatism Without Really Trying

Douglas Schoen is an excellent case study in the right-wing careerism that masquerades as 'centrism' in Washington today. The formula's simple: First get yourself some Democratic Party credentials. That's easy enough to do inside the party's corporate wing. Next, get a gig with one of conservative media outlets. And after that, start making proclamations 'against type' about how corporate-driven conservatism is the true heart of America. That's when the cash really starts rolling in. Then, like any good syndicate, the centrist Cosa Nostra will tell you it's time to return the favor with a hit job or two.

Schoen followed this easy-cash formula to a T (or "Tea"). Democratic Party credential? Check. He did polling for Bill Clinton, then the company he cofounded with Mark Penn went to work on the Hillary Clinton campaign. Cushy gig with a conservative media outlet? Check. He's a Fox News "analyst." Proclamation "against type"? Check. He co-wrote a book with Republican pollster Scott Rasmussen calledMad As Hell: How the Tea Party is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System.

Unfortunately for Schoen, the premise of their book required him to promote at least four massive falsehoods. The first was that Fox News is, in fact, "fair and balanced," and the second was that Fox did not aggressively promote the Tea Party. (Karl Frisch of Media Matters decimates these two claims.) The third was that the Tea Party was a spontaneous citizen uprising, not a heavily orchestrated corporate and Koch-founded process directed by Republican operatives. (See here and here, for starters.) The fourth falsehood is the claim that the Tea Party represents the views of most Americans. We'll get to that one shortly.

As for that final rite of "centrism" - the hit job - Mr. Schoen's editorial demonstrates that he'll happily don the ankle holster and squeeze off a round from his derringer whenever the signal's given. Luckily for the country, we're dealing with the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

Red Dawn

Mr. Schoen warns that "President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement--and it may cost them the 2012 election." He bases this statement on a survey of demonstrators which he says was conducted by an associate of his. Unfortunately, he doesn't provide either the questionnaire used or the raw data, so we're forced to settle for vague Red-baiting assertions instead of hard information. Fortunately, as with his Fox/Tea Party claims, he quickly undermines his own claims.

Summoning visions of 1970, when Democrats were undone by association with anti-war "hippies," Schoen writes that "the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people--and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform."

What, exactly, are those values? "What binds a large majority of the protesters together ...," Schoen writes, "is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas."

In other words, they're Commies.

Now We Can Prove It: Occupy Wall Street Speaks for America

But the only actual policy positions Schoen mentions are these:

"Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement--no matter the cost. (emphasis mine) By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%)."

Hmmm ... how "dangerously out of touch" are these views with those of the general public - and those all-important independent voters? We've prepared a handy chart illustrating that point, for your convenience (and Mr. Schoen's enlightenment). It's called Occupy Wall Street Represents America: The Polling Data (Unlike some folks, we show our work - even though, as you'll see from the attached, exact comparisons are hard to come by, especially given Mr. Schoen's vague wordings.)

Here are the highlights:

The public agrees with OWS on health care: 65% of protesters believe government should guarantee health care for all. In the last major poll on the subject, 64% of voters said the same thing.

The public agrees with OWS on taxes: 77% of OWS participants want to raise taxes on the wealthy; according to the Marist polling organization, 68% of all voters - including 68% of independents - agree with them.

The public agrees with OWS on a secure retirement: 65% of protesters think the government should guarantee a secure retirement. 70% of all voters - including 73% of independents - agree with them.

Schoen may have tried to hide or skew his information, but he's given us enough to know that the demonstrators are smack dab in the mainstream of American public opinion. Their tax views are supported by an overwhelming majority of the public. Their views receive the overwhelming support of independents and are often supported by a majority of Republicans too.

And what about that Tea Party that Schoen's been pushing as the "new center" in American politics? Does the public agree with them, too? Er, not so much. The latest CNN poll shows that 53% of Americans disapprove of the Tea Party movement and only 28% approve. Those are the lowest numbers since the pollsters began tracking Tea Party popularity last year.

Oops. Looks like Schoen and Rasmussen will need to write a new book.

(One other thing: That CNN poll also shows that Hillary Clinton is still the country's most popular public figure. Just think what she might have accomplished if she hadn't used the firm of Penn, Schoen & Berland to run her last campaign.)

The Real Center

No wonder the faux-centrist/"Third Way" crowd hates OWS. The protests put the lie to phony notion that the "center" agrees with the corporate-funded policies they espouse. And they illustrate the fact that the real "center" holds opinions that are usually stigmatized as "progressive" inside the Beltway . Douglas Schoen characterizes those opinions as "a deep commitment to left-wing policies" --

-- that are frequently supported by most Republicans. A few more revelations like this and their whole scam will be exposed. That's why we're seeing the glint of hatchets swinging in the Potomac sun.

Schoen represents that partnership of pampered elites that is Beltway Bipartisanship, but the OWS protesters represents real bipartisanship. They speak for the genuine American majority, that movement that speaks for the people who have been misused, abused, and refused by powerful insider from both parties.

Schoen speaks as if this were 1970 revisited, but the players have changes places. Occupy Wall Street speaks for this year's Silent Majority - the 99% who have been disenfranchised by the corporate-driven political environment that spawned and feeds Mr. Schoen and his ilk. The moment for the triangulated tactics of the Schoen crowd has passed. The real center is waking up. It's corporatist policies, not the politics of protest, that will hurt a party's electoral chances today.

Politically speaking, they're the hippies now.

The President and his party wouldn't be foolish to adopt the rhetoric of Occupy Wall Street. It would be foolish to think this movement can be co-opted by words that aren't followed up with action. But the most foolish act of all would be to listen to compromised advice from a cadre of failed insiders who are quickly being left behind by the irreversible and irresistible flow of history.

A President's Choice: Resist Wall Street's "Shock Doctrine" Or Keep Listening to The Usual Suspects

Richard Eskow — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:59:14 -0400

Last night's real winner wasn't a party or an ideology. The real winner was Wall Street. Once again the wealthy and powerful have applied the Shock Doctrine to US politics, using a financial crisis to increase their power. The Democratic Party tried to accommodate the Wall Street crowd for two years and failed. Now Democrats must decide whether to adopt a new, bold and coherent strategy, or keep listening to the same advice that got them here.

They may need to decide quickly. The Party's Usual Suspects are already out in force, making excuses for themselves and peddling the same shopworn "centrist" wares. The President used the words "responsible," "responsibly," or "responsibility" thirteen times in today's press conference. It's admirable when someone takes responsibility for their actions. That's an act that will hopefully include taking stock of what went wrong and trying something different.

The Failure of Pseudo-Centrism

We're still suffering from the massive failure of a radical, free-market-run-wild ideology that devastated the economy. The public understood that, so they gave the Democrats an enormous mandate to change economic direction. Yet just twenty months later conservatives scored a huge triumph, leaving Democrats with a choice: Continue to blur the distinction between themselves and their opponents, or lay out a clear agenda for job creation and economic growth.

Of course, that's been the choice all along. But the President and many other senior Democrats chose to take the advice of the "centrist" experts within their party by adopting unpopular Republican positions and getting nothing in return. After last night's rout, what are these experts advising?You guessed it: More of the same so-called "Centrism." That's an odd word to use for policies that most Americans oppose, like cutting Social Security or allowing bankers to enrich themselves by endangering the economy, but theirs is an Alice-in-Wonderland world.

Real centrists would defend Social Security and do more to rein in Wall Street, since those positions are popular across the political spectrum. It's a good thing the President said today that he wants to spend more time with the American people. Bankers and the Deficit Commission aren't "centrists" where most Americans live.

If Democrats want to keep passing bills that include unpopular right-wing ideas, Republicans and their Wall Street patrons will be happy to let them do it and suffer the consequences. They've done it before, most notably when they let Dems take the fall for their unconditional bailout of the big banks. We saw the results yesterday. And yet, incredibly, the Usual Suspects are still pushing the same failed approach.

The Usual Suspects Respond

If the President wants new ideas, he won't get them from the ever-predictable Mark Penn. He's the mastermind who ended Hillary Clinton's nearly invincible run for the Presidency with the same "centrist" pablum he peddled to Obama today. After noting correctly that "Republicans and the Tea Party won the turnout war" while Democrats' core constituencies of young voters and minorities stayed home, Penn nonetheless (and inevitably) concludes that the party must "move to the center." How will that increase turnout? Penn also says that "President Obama got out of step with the voters" - apparently by enacting a few of the policies that voters elected him to carry out. The idea that Obama didn't enact enough of them never comes up - but then, that wouldn't be very "centrist," would it?

Paul Begala's election response - "A Centrist Democratic Agenda: More Jobs, Less Corruption" - isn't as wrongheaded as Penn's, but it's convoluted and somewhat confusing. That's probably because Begala's Prime Directive, which seems to demand a "centrist" approach, conflicts with some vestigial common sense that he can't shake long enough to deliver the conventional wisdom.

Even as he advises moving to the "center," Begala correctly notes that the President's first responsibility is to create jobs. That's absolutely right: This election was about jobs, not ideology, and the Dems will continue to get hammered until people see some movement toward creating them. Begala's also right to suggest that Democrats stop using the word "stimulus" and keep repeating "jobs" instead.

Here's the real problem for Begala, and for all the other "centrists" who have rightly said that this election was about jobs and the economy: Doing more to create jobs and help the economy is a progressive agenda. It requires more government action (unless you believe in invisible tax fairies, which reputable economist does.) But moving to the "center" means embracing less government action.

Call it whatever you want. To win elections Democrats need to get the economy moving, and you can't do that in a "centrist" way. With Congress now able to block every sensible economic move, the Democrats must lay out a clear path toward more jobs. They should compromise when they must, of course, but this time they need to make it clear that they are compromising.

Making Excuses Instead of Making History

The centrists knew they'd have to defend themselves once the votes were counted. Maybe that's why political strategist Brendan Nyhan has been preemptively trying to stifle criticism with an approach that blends cogent arguments with a barrage of derision and dismissal. His "preview of post-election storytelling" even included a bingo card that mockingly laid out every possible explanation for the anticipated Democratic failure, including those of progressives like Robert Kuttner, in a way that makes all of them look equally absurd -- except Nyhan's, of course.

Unfortunately, Nyhan's explanation is just a slightly better-articulated version of the typical bag of excuses: A bad economy, the passage of time, and the fact that the party in power almost always loses a midterm election (more about that "almost" later). Nyhan even described President Obama as "a victim of circumstance." (This group of Democrats seem regrettably comfortable with the language of victimology and the use of the passive voice). (1)

The excuse makers also keep reminding us that the party in power always loses in mid-term elections. That's using history to set the bar as low as possible. In this argument, history isn't just prologue: It's destiny, a fate as certain as Heaven or Hell in a Cotton Mather sermon. Two years ago we overthrew history's precedents when an African American named Barack Hussein Obama ran for President and won. According to the standards set by this excuse, he shouldn't even have bothered.

Crisis Management

There have been at least two major exceptions to this "midterm setback" rule. One was the Congressional election of 1934, when Roosevelt's party gained seats in both the House and Senate halfway through his first term. (That was before he listened to the "centrists" who suggested he dial down on government activism, leading to an upturn in unemployment and a loss of seats in 1938.) The other was 2002, when the nation was still reeling from 9/11 and was preparding for wider war. That's different, say the centrists. We were in a crisis, and the nation rallied around its leadership. The only rational response to that argument is: Don't you think we're in a crisis now?

The Excuse Makers dismiss 2002 as an exception by insisting, as Nyhan and Jonathan Chait do, that economic forces inevitably determine the outcome of midterm elections. But a President with solid majorities in both houses should have been able to do more to change those economic forces, or at least lay out a clear agenda for changing them. They can't take that position, though, because it undermines their version of "centrism." So we're left once again with the Excuse Makers' two best friends: a victim mentality and the passive voice.

A Time to Choose

It was heartening to see the President stand up and take responsibility for last night's events, avoid any hint of victimology or passivity. The next step is to see the common thread that links Franklin Roosevelt's 1934 Democrats with George W. Bush's 2002 Republicans. Both parties were governing in a time of crisis, and both of them acted like it. Their leaders understood the power of the Shock Doctrine, whether or not they'd ever heard the term. In Bush's case, he used it cynically and destructively. But Roosevelt saw how important it was to act decisively, with a clearly articulated agenda and bold government action.

The President and his fellow Democrats have a choice. They can listen to the architects of yesterday's defeat by enacting policies on Social Security and Wall Street that most voters - Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative - don't want. The Usual Suspects call that "centrism." (In an even more Orwellian phrasing, Nyhan even labels Markos Moulitsas' advocacy for widely popular policies "extremism.")

Or Democrats can learn from experience and choose a different approach. They can articulate a clear vision for the nation and its economy. A battle has been lost, but the war continues. Wall Street's shock doctrine tactics worked this time, but they've been defeated before and can be again. Let's hope the President continues to take responsibility in the best way possible: by learning from experience and then leading his party in a new and more effective direction.

____________________________________________

(1) Nyhan also offers a more interesting, more technical excuse: " ... demand for government tends to move in the opposite direction of the party in power -- increasing during the Eisenhower years, declining after the Great Society ..." Note the phrase "declining after the Great Society." That's a sleight of hand meant to distract the reader from an important fact: Demand for greater government did not decline during the Kennedy/Johnson years, until late in Johnson's presidency when his popularity plummeted because of the war and urban unrest. (The war in Vietnam was Johnson's most "centrist" policy, while other "centrists" blocked him from sending more aid to the inner cities.)

This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project and the Strengthen Social Security campaign.

Roosevelt or Hoover? The Most Important Speech the President Has Ever Given

Richard Eskow — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:22:57 -0400

Tomorrow President Obama will return to Cooper Union in New York, where he gave a speech on financial reform as a candidate two years ago. We're told that his advisors want him to "go big" in his speech, as he did when he addressed a joint session of Congress on health reform. But if he follows the same course he followed in health reform - "going big" on rhetoric and then "acting small" on policy - he's not just courting political blowback: He's running the risk of going down in history as this century's Herbert Hoover.

Sound harsh? People often forget that Hoover was a fine man -- intelligent, altruistic, and deeply bipartisan in his temperament. The structural problems that led to the Great Depression didn't occur on his watch. But by failing to act boldly and decisively he endangered the economic foundation of the country. He was an eminently reasonable person, but there is enormous danger in having the right temperament at the wrong time. We're living in unreasonable times.

How unreasonable? George Soros, who has made billions of dollars predicting economic disasters, thinks we're headed for another disaster. ""Unless we learn the lessons, that markets are inherently unstable and that stability needs to the objective of public policy," he said, "we are facing a yet larger bubble." And a blue-ribbon group of regulators, economists, and Democratic policy leaders had this to say in a joint letter signed this week: "Neither the bill passed earlier this year by the House, nor the one currently under consideration in the Senate would have prevented the crisis. Without serious restructuring, they will not prevent a future crisis."

The common-sense ideas proposed in that letter provide a foundation for meaningful reform. So do the comments of Bernie Sanders, who wants to break up the big banks, cap credit card limits, and allow the American public to find out what the Fed's been doing. These ideas aren't just good policy. They also make enormous political sense. The only real "bipartisan" sentiments in the nation are anger at Wall Street and fear for our financial future. A watered-down, lobbyist-influenced bill would be politically devastating for the Democrats.

A successful lawsuit against Goldman Sachs would be politically popular, and would illustrate the fact that there is probably a lot of criminal behavior taking place. As Sen. Ted Kaufman pointed out, there is fraud at the heart of Wall Street. But lawsuits like the SEC's fail to illustrate the fundamental problem we face: Most of the behavior that endangers our economy and batters the middle class - including most of the deceptive acts that a reasonable person would call "fraud" - is perfectly legal under today's rules.

That's why these experts are so concerned. The next failure, if it comes, could be far worse, and its effects would fall on an already-battered economy. President Obama's place in history may hinge on his ability to create meaningful, substantive reform before it's too late.

To do so, he must fight a pervasive sense that the Democratic Party is beholden to its Wall Street ties - whether that means the generous donors who helped them win the White House and Congress in 2008, or the never-ending revolving door between the Party's leadership and financial lobbyists. The President is a pragmatist, and it won't be an easy job to wean politicians from their donors (and possible future employers) enough to present a strong bill. But it must be done, to protect the nation and (parenthetically) to protect his party.

Today's passage of Sen. Blanche Lincoln's tough derivatives bill may point the way forward for the President. Lincoln's committee beat back a swarm of 1,500 lobbyists to pass that amendment. Rather than allow his Treasury Secretary to resist stronger derivatives rules, the President could embrace these rules. He has already said he will veto a bill without strong derivatives protection. Now is the time for the President to get even more specific on what he needs to see in a bill. He has allowed Chris Dodd to play the same role in this area that Max Baucus did in health reform, and it has failed dramatically. He needs to draw a line in the sand tomorrow and be prepared to defend it.

He can't keep using Tim Geithner or Larry Summers as spokespeople on the issue anymore, either. He has to sell reform himself - strongly, forcefully, and specifically,

There's no reason why he can't succeed. Sen. Chuck Grassley voted for the Lincoln amendment, and other Republicans are likely to defect too. Republicans have painted themselves into a rhetorical corner, and some of them realize they can't be seen as blocking tough reform initiatives. This is the moment that the President must seize. This is the moment he can pass the laws that will protect the country - and his legacy.

That's the "don't be Hoover" strategy. Now, about that Roosevelt part ... do we mean "trust-buster" Teddy or Depression-healer FDR? The answer is: a little bit of both. Teddy was not the runaway trust-buster of historical memory, but he didn't hesitate to go after the big combines when it was needed to protect the country. Obama should channel Teddy by breaking up the top four banks and regulating the rest.

As for FDR, we all know things are good right now for Wall Street ("very, very, very, very good for Corporate America," to quote Jamie Dimon). But huge groups of Americans no longer inhabit a livable economy. If the President's speech is to be truly "big," he must explain how the big financial institutions are strangling the economy, borrowing money at little or no cost from Fed and the Treasury Department while doing very little lending to the productive sectors of the economy. The President needs to address the structural flaws that allow non-productive financiers to prosper while the rest of the country languishes.

In the President's last Cooper Union speech he said "we need a shift in the cultures of our financial institutions and our regulatory agencies." Instead he's given us Larry Summers and Tim Geithner leading the regulatory effort, and kind words for Jamie Dimon and other financial executives. That must end tomorrow. He needs to outline the scope and nature of that cultural shift, and back it up with concrete deeds. The stakes are too high. The danger is too great. The time has come, not just for great speeches, but for speeches followed by great action.

It will be disappointing if we see White House advisors on television tomorrow afternoon telling us what a great speech we just heard (although it undoubtedly will be). There will be more reason for optimism if those advisors - maybe even the same ones who tell us he plans to "go big" - explain exactly what he intends to do in the coming days and weeks to ensure that America gets the reform it so urgently needs.

___________________________

(As for as the politics of of the issue, one good rule of thumb is to find out what Mark Penn thinks should be done and then - given Penn's track record - do the opposite. Penn suggests holding off on financial reform until after November. Case closed: Act now, Mr. President!)