The Democratic divide on inequality is about message not substance

[bigtree]

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 01:55 PM - Edit history (2)

. . . Zachary Goldfarb writes for the Washington Post that leading Democrats are no longer talking about inequality in their political messaging. He connects this to an "ongoing dispute between the Democratic Party's liberal and moderate wings" but the striking thing about it is the extent to which the dispute is a dispute about speechwriting tactics and not public policy.

As it happens, I was at that "defining challenge" speech and immediately after the president finished speaking I got to talking to a wonk who was in the audience and whose views I knew to be well to the left of the key economic policy gurus in the White House. We agreed that what was odd about the speech was that while it unveiled a bold new framing of Obama's economic agenda, there was no new policy departure. What Obama stood for before inequality became the defining challenge of our time was exactly what he stood for after it became the defining challenge of our time.

In the speech, Obama touted the Affordable Care Act and food stamps, called for a higher minimum wage, said it's important to improve education, called for federally-subsidized preschool, called for corporate tax reform, and called for infrastructure spending. He reiterated his support for a budget deal that would rescind the sequester and reduce the long-term deficit. He defended Social Security and Medicare but also said "progressives should be open to reforms that actually strengthen these programs and make them more responsive to a 21st century economy."

. . . the next Democratic Party presidential nominee — whether it's Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren or whoever else — will run on those same ideas, whether or not they explicitly link them to income inequality (as Obama did in 2013) or not (as Obama did in 2008 and 2012). The simple fact of the matter is that today's Democrats don't disagree about very much. Every single Democrat in congress — and certainly any plausible national leader — regularly backs proposals to make rich people pay more taxes in order to finance more generous benefits for people in the bottom half of the income distribution. Depending on your tastes, you may see this as a sign that the party has a strong agenda or a sign that the party has become intellectually stagnant but either way it's not much of a debate.

Indeed, the extent to which questions about whether speeches use the phrase "inequality" and/or strike a populist tone are under scrutiny these days are mostly an indicator of how little is dividing Democrats . . .


read: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/8/5877163/the-democratic-divide-on-inequality-is-about-message-not-substance

Matthew Yglesias graciously took some time to answer questions about his article in the comment section at the bottom of the page (mine first . Some really interesting discussion there.

[el_bryanto]

1. That's an interesting argument

Makes a certain amount of sense, certainly I have seen us get really worked up on what is really very fine points.

That said there's another question here at DU which is how sustainable is the current capitalist system; some would argue that the assumptions of our economic system need to be evaluated and in some cases gotten rid of.

Bryant

[JDPriestly]

3. Is the TPP a fine point to you? How about NAFTA?

How about GATT?

Those agreements hurt American workers, took or will take American jobs. There is great disagreement within our party about such agreements. That is not just a matter of repeating catch phrases.

[el_bryanto]

7. I'm sorry - I should have listed every single disagreement and said whether or not

I thought it was a fine point or not. Obviously my failure to do so means that I don't really give a shit about the American Worker.

Bryant

[JDPriestly]

8. Well, now we agree.

[JDPriestly]

12. You said it. Failing to pay attention to the fine points is what gets ordinary Americans

into so much trouble. That's the only reason that so many voters go for Republicans. They read the glossy ads, the big promises, the easy answers and don't question the details.

That's why I brought a couple of the details up. There is the Communications Act that Clinton signed and then the repeal of Glass-Steagall that just gave banks room to throw their balls all over the football field in the middle of the game for so many Americans.

Bill Clinton's record is not something we Democrats should have to defend in 2016. He is a great guy, but his policies were far too conservative. They pushed the charts up for international corporate capital and down for American labor.

[el_bryanto]

14. Yep - I don't give a fuck about workers because I failed to list all the

failings of the Clinton administration.

Look around - my words on Hillary Clinton are pretty clear.

Bryant

[JDPriestly]

2. Was Obama thinking about disparity in income when he appointed Timothy Geithner?

Penny Pritzker? Reappointed Bernanke? Tom Visack?

Does he talk about the disparity in income when he invites his Wall Street buddies and business leaders to the White House? Does he talk to them about homelessness? About pre-school education? About giving holders of student debt a break? About paying back those homeowners who were cheated by mortgage companies and banks? About prioritizing full Social Security payments before maintaining tax cuts for the rich? About doing more to encourage unions, full-time work, and really get a higher minimum wage passed now when millions and millions of families need it?

About taxes on security transactions? About raising taxes on carried interest and capital gains so that the rich pay a higher tax rate, at least as high as they would pay if they earned their money from their work like most Americans?

I really don't think so.

It is not just about the message. It is not just about writing and delivering pretty speeches. It is about doing something.

Where and how is Obama going to reach the poor in the South and get them to vote for Democrats this Fall? He is not going to get very far on his health care poln if he is selling to them a health care plan that excludes them because their Republican governor denies them access to the Medicaid. He is not going to get very far talking to the many people who were foreclosed or are being foreclosed on Obama's watch while bankers got their bonuses.

The divide between what Obama and Hillary are saying and what Elizabeth Warren wants to do is very wide. And I haven't even started to talk about trade agreements. Because there, Elizabeth Warren gets it, and Obama and Hillary do not.

[geek tragedy]

4. oy.

Where and how is Obama going to reach the poor in the South and get them to vote for Democrats this Fall?

To start, he'd have to bleach his skin white.

[bigtree]

5. I believe the president does address those issues you described

. . .in your first paragraph. I don't really expect most of the critics here to recognize those efforts; or even acknowledge their importance when they're pointed out.

Sure, there are bound to be differences in degree or specifics of policy, but the interest and effort is there from the President and the party. As Matt pointed out in his article, it always has been.

I doubt the divide between Warren and Hillary is as wide as you describe. Warren's stated her support for Hillary several times; at the same time she's said that these issues of the economy are her most important concern. I can't imagine she'd be as critical of Hillary's policies and beliefs as most folks here are, asserting that there's some wide bridge between the two. I really doubt this, because Clinton's overall economic record or proposals haven't strayed very far from those of her progressive peers in Congress.

[JDPriestly]

9. My congressman is a progressive. He did not vote for the Iraq War Resolution.

Hillary did.

i don't think that Hillary is the rigorous critic of ideas that are presented to her that we need. She is not as independent in her thinking as we need a president to be.

She is great on women's issues, but she is really lousy on trade issues and not nearly as good as Kerry on foreign policy issues. On economic issues, Hillary has not shown that she has much to offer. Elizabeth Warren has shown that she has answers to economic problems.

And right now, the economic problems of the US and the world are what are important. Most of our other problems arise from the economic disparity between rich and poor around the world and especially in the US.

[bigtree]

6. something from the author of the article which agrees with your response to me

fullwood (me)

Matt, our discussion group has made this one of their defining issues, based mostly on Goldfarb’s article which led with the claim that Obama had trimmed his message.

What I’d like to ask is, are there other more defining issues associated with income inequality which are being ignored by the WH or Democrats? The arguments against the president have expressed that his efforts outlined in your article aren’t enough to address the income gap. Is there something more specific the President or Democrats should be doing to address this?
Posted on Jul 8, 2014 | 10:10 AM


Matthew Yglesias

This is a great point. Something I probably should have said in the article is that one reason Obama’s rhetorical switch to talking about inequality and then away from talking about inequality hasn’t made a huge difference is that Obama never really endorsed an agenda that included any clear inequality game-changers.

What could those look like? Well, you could imagine confiscatory tax rates (90% or higher) above some income threshold. Or a huge push in the direction of more union organization. Or some kind of heavy-handed regulation of CEO pay.


http://www.vox.com/2014/7/8/5877163/the-democratic-divide-on-inequality-is-about-message-not-substance#comments

[JDPriestly]

13. Thanks. The global economy has enabled the rich to reduce the cost

of labor. Thus the rich, the large shareholders in corporations, the CEOs, etc. have shifted the burden of establishing global markets on the American poor and middle class. In the meantime, the rich have taken nearly all of the political power. They accomplished that by grabbing the microphone. I recall that when we had Air America, the US experienced a broad political shift from right to left. That paved the way for Obama's presidency.

Unfortunately, Air America did not receive the support from advertisers that Rush Limbaugh did at one time. And their are no rich sugar-daddies to keep liberal talkers going. The sugar-daddies are all bent on twisting the political conversation in America to the right.

I would like to see taxes on imports. We would have to abandon a lot of trade agreements to do it. But it may be the only way that the American people can save our democracy and live in dignity.

[winter is coming]

10. No, the divide is about message *versus* substance.

From post #6 in this thread:
"Obama never really endorsed an agenda that included any clear inequality game-changers"

The divide is between the Dems who believe that increasing the minimum wage will lift up the middle class and Dems who believe that increasing the minimum wage will lift up the middle class but the middle class shouldn't be defined as "people working minimum-wage jobs while CEOs get even richer". The Dems in the latter category don't shrink away from the "class warfare" label because they acknowledge that war is being waged against the 99% and the 1% isn't going to magically play nice if we stop making them uncomfortable.