medicinal
02-26-2007, 09:42 PM
Edwards Rejects Clintonomics; will Obama?
by david mizner
Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 05:02:17 AM PST
John Edwards is doing something important. It??s so important that it??s eluded the attention of the political press. While pundits handicap the horserace and assess hairstyles, Edwards is quietly yet thoroughly rejecting the economic philosophy that??s dominated the Democratic Party for the last fifteen years.
More important, he??s rejecting it in favor of a bold progressive populism, the likes of which haven??t been advanced by a serious contender for the White House in a long time. Ezra Klein in Raising the Bar in the latest American Prospect, a publication not prone to hyperbole, says Edwards is ??the most populist presidential candidate we??ve seen in many decades.?
david mizner's diary :: ::
Now, labels like ??populist? and ??progressive? don??t do justice to the complexity of the issues and individuals involved. Few pols fit neatly into an ideological niche. But there??s a fundamental choice that must be made, a fork in the political road. Do you stand with People or with Power? Edwards has made his choice. Asked by the American Prospect??s Ezra Klein if here were a populist, he said. ??...[I]f being a populist means standing up for regular people so they don't get ... stomped on by powerful multinational corporations, the answer is, Yes.?
I like Bill Clinton. I admire his intelligence, his success, and his ability to reveal the silliness of Republicans. The netroots, let??s not forget, emerged in opposition to the GOP assault on the Big Dog. But he wasn??t a progressive president.
You could argue, and some have, that Clinton was as progressive as his time allowed, and that by applying progressivism in small successful doses, he restored its credibility. In any case, it??s time to move on. With inequality and poverty rapidly expanding, the country is ready??it??s aching??for economic policies more progressive than those championed by Clinton.
What would later be called Clintonomics??or, if you prefer, Rubinomics??was developed, as most of you know, in the late-1980s and early-1990s by groups like the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the Concord Coalition. Here??s a layman??s explanation of Clintonomics (the only kind I??m capable of giving): limited, targeted social spending??especially on education, research, and science??combined with an obsessive commitment to ??free? trade and yearly balanced budgets.
It??s no wonder that multinational corporations and Republicans find much to like in Rubinomics. It pushes ??free? trade agreements that lack sufficient protections for American workers and austerity measures that weaken Dems?? chief political weapon and moral mission: delivering programs that help people.
Edwards is tipping over the two sacred cows of corporate-sponsored Clintonomics: ??free? trade and yearly balanced budgets. Instead, he??s promoting fair trade and an activist government that helps the middle class, the working class, and the poor.
Edwards isn??t abandoning fiscal responsibility, not by any means. For one thing, to pay for his programs, he??ll return tax rates on the wealthy to Clinton era rates, reform the tax code, and go after corporate welfare. For another, his investments in programs and people will increase revenue that will balance budgets in the long term.
Unlike adherents of Rubinomics, Edwards refuses to fetishize short-term balanced budgets. He believes there is something vastly more important than balanced budgets: people. He would make vital social programs??like universal health care??a higher priority than balanced budgets, and, just as important, he??s honest about the need to make a choice.
Here he is, at a town hall in Iowa (as quoted by Ezra Klein), responding to a questioner who wants to know what he??s going to do about the deficit.
...[P]oliticians who say 'I'm going to give you a big tax cut, and give you health care, put more money into education, and oh by the way, we're going to balance the budget in the process,' it's just make-believe, it isn't the truth. So I think there's going to be hard judgments that have to be made??my commitment is to have universal health care, to do things that have to be done about this energy situation and global warming, because I think they're enormous threats, not only to the people of America but to the future of the world, for America to lead on some of these big moral issues that face the world, and I think America has to do something about poverty, I just do. Those are higher priorities to me than the elimination of the deficit. I don't want to make the deficit worse and I would like to reduce the deficit, but in the short-term, if we don't take a step to deal with these other issues, it in my judgment, undermines the ability of America to remain strong in the 21st century.
Refreshing, no? But it??s more than just refreshing. Here??s Ezra Klein on the bold and intellectually honest philosophy underlying Edwards?? position:
It's the opposite of Clintonomics, which took deficit reduction as the transcendent priority and, as Robert Reich long regretted, forsook most investment spending. It's different than most campaigners, who both promise deficit elimination and heightened spending, and so offer no real clue of how they'll conduct themselves in office. Indeed, it's a relatively rare progressive moment in national politics: A forthright argument for the importance of, and an increase in, public spending, one not shackled by a desire to drive the deficit into nothingness just so the politician can say it's been done. In addition, Edwards answer was a direct refutation of his questioner's premise, and not what many in his audience probably wanted to hear.
As for trade, Edwards is the most prominent voice in an ever-loudening chorus of dissent. Along with other populist Democrats like the just-elected Senators Jim Webb and Sherrod Brown, Edwards is taking on the Establishment, which is so uniform in its opinion on this issue that support for ??free? trade is known as the Washington Consensus.
In calling on Bush to suspend negotiation for a ??free? trade negotiation with South Korean, Edwards wrote:
Instead of stubbornly pursuing policies that put Americans out of work, the Administration should focus on making sure new agreements include real labor and environmental protections and should enforce our rights under existing trade agreements. And the Congress should make it clear to the President that it will override any agreement that does not protect American jobs and American interests.
What??s more, Edwards has hired as his campaign manager, David Bonior, who, The Nation says, ??was the leading House foe of the corporation-friendly trade policies favored by the last two administrations.? It??s partly because of Edwards position on trade that he??s emerging as Labor??s favorite candidate.
A candidate??s embrace of PPP (progressive populist policies) is no small thing. It??s what most politicians most abhor: a risk. His campaign represents a direct challenge to the DLC, conventional wisdom, and corporations??including those that give money to Democrats. Big Money will spend big money to try to stop him from winning the primary, and if he wins the primary, it will spend an obscene amount to try stop him from winning the presidency. Republicans will call him a tax and spender, a big government liberal, a protectionist??you know the drill; we??ve been here before.
Or have we? Not for a generation or two. An Edwards presidency would be the most progressive since Lyndon Johnson??s, and considering their respective eras, you could argue that Edwards would be relatively more progressive than Johnson. You??d have to go back to FDR or late-stage Harry Truman to find a precedent.
People in the netroots (me included) like to wax romantic about bold ideas and transformational change. Well, look no further, Big Idea Dems: I have seen the progressive revival and his name is John Edwards.
What about the other leading contenders? Hillary Clinton has shown no sign that she??s willing to abandon triangulation and Rubinomics. But where Barack Obama stands is an open question. The early signs are not promising. He recently headlined the kickoff event for the Hamilton Project??the Wall Street backed group that seeks to quash progressive reform of America??s trade policy. (In his remarks (pdf) Obama called the group a ??breath of fresh air,? as if it weren??t funded and staffed by the usual centrist suspects.) In addition, Obama voted against an effort to crack down on exorbitant credit card interests rates. And he voted for the oil industry-written Energy Bill, the Oman Free Trade Agreement, and the tort reform bill that limits citizens?? ability to seek justice from corporate abusers. These votes start to paint a picture of a candidate that is anything but populist.
But Obama??s positions remain vague, and it??s early: I??m willing to wait for him to figure out what he believes. Will he stand with Edwards, unions, the netroots, and the American people? Or will he stand with Big Money, Hillary, the DLC, and the Hamilton Project?
The outcome of the primary may depend on the answer.
by david mizner
Mon Feb 26, 2007 at 05:02:17 AM PST
John Edwards is doing something important. It??s so important that it??s eluded the attention of the political press. While pundits handicap the horserace and assess hairstyles, Edwards is quietly yet thoroughly rejecting the economic philosophy that??s dominated the Democratic Party for the last fifteen years.
More important, he??s rejecting it in favor of a bold progressive populism, the likes of which haven??t been advanced by a serious contender for the White House in a long time. Ezra Klein in Raising the Bar in the latest American Prospect, a publication not prone to hyperbole, says Edwards is ??the most populist presidential candidate we??ve seen in many decades.?
david mizner's diary :: ::
Now, labels like ??populist? and ??progressive? don??t do justice to the complexity of the issues and individuals involved. Few pols fit neatly into an ideological niche. But there??s a fundamental choice that must be made, a fork in the political road. Do you stand with People or with Power? Edwards has made his choice. Asked by the American Prospect??s Ezra Klein if here were a populist, he said. ??...[I]f being a populist means standing up for regular people so they don't get ... stomped on by powerful multinational corporations, the answer is, Yes.?
I like Bill Clinton. I admire his intelligence, his success, and his ability to reveal the silliness of Republicans. The netroots, let??s not forget, emerged in opposition to the GOP assault on the Big Dog. But he wasn??t a progressive president.
You could argue, and some have, that Clinton was as progressive as his time allowed, and that by applying progressivism in small successful doses, he restored its credibility. In any case, it??s time to move on. With inequality and poverty rapidly expanding, the country is ready??it??s aching??for economic policies more progressive than those championed by Clinton.
What would later be called Clintonomics??or, if you prefer, Rubinomics??was developed, as most of you know, in the late-1980s and early-1990s by groups like the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the Concord Coalition. Here??s a layman??s explanation of Clintonomics (the only kind I??m capable of giving): limited, targeted social spending??especially on education, research, and science??combined with an obsessive commitment to ??free? trade and yearly balanced budgets.
It??s no wonder that multinational corporations and Republicans find much to like in Rubinomics. It pushes ??free? trade agreements that lack sufficient protections for American workers and austerity measures that weaken Dems?? chief political weapon and moral mission: delivering programs that help people.
Edwards is tipping over the two sacred cows of corporate-sponsored Clintonomics: ??free? trade and yearly balanced budgets. Instead, he??s promoting fair trade and an activist government that helps the middle class, the working class, and the poor.
Edwards isn??t abandoning fiscal responsibility, not by any means. For one thing, to pay for his programs, he??ll return tax rates on the wealthy to Clinton era rates, reform the tax code, and go after corporate welfare. For another, his investments in programs and people will increase revenue that will balance budgets in the long term.
Unlike adherents of Rubinomics, Edwards refuses to fetishize short-term balanced budgets. He believes there is something vastly more important than balanced budgets: people. He would make vital social programs??like universal health care??a higher priority than balanced budgets, and, just as important, he??s honest about the need to make a choice.
Here he is, at a town hall in Iowa (as quoted by Ezra Klein), responding to a questioner who wants to know what he??s going to do about the deficit.
...[P]oliticians who say 'I'm going to give you a big tax cut, and give you health care, put more money into education, and oh by the way, we're going to balance the budget in the process,' it's just make-believe, it isn't the truth. So I think there's going to be hard judgments that have to be made??my commitment is to have universal health care, to do things that have to be done about this energy situation and global warming, because I think they're enormous threats, not only to the people of America but to the future of the world, for America to lead on some of these big moral issues that face the world, and I think America has to do something about poverty, I just do. Those are higher priorities to me than the elimination of the deficit. I don't want to make the deficit worse and I would like to reduce the deficit, but in the short-term, if we don't take a step to deal with these other issues, it in my judgment, undermines the ability of America to remain strong in the 21st century.
Refreshing, no? But it??s more than just refreshing. Here??s Ezra Klein on the bold and intellectually honest philosophy underlying Edwards?? position:
It's the opposite of Clintonomics, which took deficit reduction as the transcendent priority and, as Robert Reich long regretted, forsook most investment spending. It's different than most campaigners, who both promise deficit elimination and heightened spending, and so offer no real clue of how they'll conduct themselves in office. Indeed, it's a relatively rare progressive moment in national politics: A forthright argument for the importance of, and an increase in, public spending, one not shackled by a desire to drive the deficit into nothingness just so the politician can say it's been done. In addition, Edwards answer was a direct refutation of his questioner's premise, and not what many in his audience probably wanted to hear.
As for trade, Edwards is the most prominent voice in an ever-loudening chorus of dissent. Along with other populist Democrats like the just-elected Senators Jim Webb and Sherrod Brown, Edwards is taking on the Establishment, which is so uniform in its opinion on this issue that support for ??free? trade is known as the Washington Consensus.
In calling on Bush to suspend negotiation for a ??free? trade negotiation with South Korean, Edwards wrote:
Instead of stubbornly pursuing policies that put Americans out of work, the Administration should focus on making sure new agreements include real labor and environmental protections and should enforce our rights under existing trade agreements. And the Congress should make it clear to the President that it will override any agreement that does not protect American jobs and American interests.
What??s more, Edwards has hired as his campaign manager, David Bonior, who, The Nation says, ??was the leading House foe of the corporation-friendly trade policies favored by the last two administrations.? It??s partly because of Edwards position on trade that he??s emerging as Labor??s favorite candidate.
A candidate??s embrace of PPP (progressive populist policies) is no small thing. It??s what most politicians most abhor: a risk. His campaign represents a direct challenge to the DLC, conventional wisdom, and corporations??including those that give money to Democrats. Big Money will spend big money to try to stop him from winning the primary, and if he wins the primary, it will spend an obscene amount to try stop him from winning the presidency. Republicans will call him a tax and spender, a big government liberal, a protectionist??you know the drill; we??ve been here before.
Or have we? Not for a generation or two. An Edwards presidency would be the most progressive since Lyndon Johnson??s, and considering their respective eras, you could argue that Edwards would be relatively more progressive than Johnson. You??d have to go back to FDR or late-stage Harry Truman to find a precedent.
People in the netroots (me included) like to wax romantic about bold ideas and transformational change. Well, look no further, Big Idea Dems: I have seen the progressive revival and his name is John Edwards.
What about the other leading contenders? Hillary Clinton has shown no sign that she??s willing to abandon triangulation and Rubinomics. But where Barack Obama stands is an open question. The early signs are not promising. He recently headlined the kickoff event for the Hamilton Project??the Wall Street backed group that seeks to quash progressive reform of America??s trade policy. (In his remarks (pdf) Obama called the group a ??breath of fresh air,? as if it weren??t funded and staffed by the usual centrist suspects.) In addition, Obama voted against an effort to crack down on exorbitant credit card interests rates. And he voted for the oil industry-written Energy Bill, the Oman Free Trade Agreement, and the tort reform bill that limits citizens?? ability to seek justice from corporate abusers. These votes start to paint a picture of a candidate that is anything but populist.
But Obama??s positions remain vague, and it??s early: I??m willing to wait for him to figure out what he believes. Will he stand with Edwards, unions, the netroots, and the American people? Or will he stand with Big Money, Hillary, the DLC, and the Hamilton Project?
The outcome of the primary may depend on the answer.