Both/And Not Either/Or

With regard to the split between the Economic Policy Institute's populists and the Hamilton Project's centrists, I would hope that both sides of this debate would see that they need each other. On issue after issue, there's simply no way you're going to build a constituency, politically speaking, for Hamilton-style technocratic tinkering unless moderate Republicans and the business community see a credible risk of something more far-reaching happening. On trade, for example, if folks thing anger at the downside of these agreements really may cause the agreements to fall apart then suddenly you'll find its possible to do lots of stuff to mitigate downsides.

Conversely, it's useful to populists for there to be a moderate left out there offering non-sweeping proposals for progressive change. Absent some kind of giant crisis, the odds of congress finding itself inspired to make a giant leap to social democracy are just incredibly tiny. I'm all for universal health care and most of the rest of this agenda, but while some folks are off building support for sweeping reform, it's good to have other people around slicing the salami thinner such that something could actually be achieved in the short run.

One area where the rubber really does hit the road here is the deficit. If Democrats take the view that first we must balance the budget, then we must bring the budget into surplus, and then we can institute new programs, the country is going to be stuck forever in the Reagan-Clinton-Bush loop where the time for new programs never comes. On fiscal responsibility, it takes two to tango, and insofar as the GOP doesn't want to dance, Democrats can't afford to take sole responsibility.

Comments

Right. Some threat of radical action is necessary to move the policy-making middle. The same is true in foreign policy. If we dont have a full-throated anti-war faction, the Dems will drift into Baker Commission/ did-we-just-bomb-Iran? mode. Similarly, our ability to get the right policy on Israel-Palestine would be much assisted by a sizable 'one state solution'/'Israel as an apartheid state" faction, because there's simply no way you're going to build a constituency, politically speaking, for any sort of just and sustainable two-state solution unless Israeli lobby factions see a credible risk of something more far-reaching happening.

Posted by otto | November 27, 2006 9:48 AM

Soon to be a Michael Bay summer movie: Think Tank Wars: The Beginning.

Posted by norbizness | November 27, 2006 11:26 AM

I agree with the first part, but the second part not so much. In fact, I think this is the key point that Clinton understood: if we are to use government as a tool to ameliorate some social ills, then the Dems need to be the party of responsible government. [This is what makes Clinton important even for those who are farther left.] Keeping the budget balanced in the absence of an actual recession is one part of this. Ironically, since the right doesn’t want government interference of any sort, they have no need to make government responsible, just low cost. So we had better get used to the idea that keeping the budget near balance will be a higher Democrat than GOP priority.

Posted by Matt Newman | November 27, 2006 11:34 AM

OK, but won't this delay the revolution?

Posted by JP | November 27, 2006 11:50 AM

Wouldn't it make more sense for the populists to sneak into the centrist bunker in dark of night and cut the centrists' throats while they slept? No muss, no fuss, end of story.

Posted by John Emerson | November 27, 2006 11:54 AM

"OK, but won't this delay the revolution?"

Maybe worse than that. The German and Italian Left circa 1920 let their base get in front of them, with world-historical consequences.

Ezra over at Tapped says Rubin is educating Dems on economics. Looks like the plan is to appease Wall Street on trade, probably while attempting the big ameliorative social programs Congress knows will get vetoed. They think that will fool the workers for long enough to fill the campaign '08 war chests.

Rubin. Jesus.

Posted by bob mcmanus | November 27, 2006 11:58 AM

The opportunity is in health care. A truly comprehensive plan that took out the insurance/hmo middlemen and provided health care for everyone, in the style of the VA, would be very popular.

The trouble is that the Emmanuel wing would not be in favor of a broadly based, government supported health care plan. But I think this is the thin edge of the wedge for progressives undercutting the KStreet democrats, as well as the republicans.

Posted by JayAckroyd | November 27, 2006 12:14 PM

"So we had better get used to the idea that keeping the budget near balance will be a higher Democrat than GOP priority."

But accepting this seems to mean that we have to accept the fact that Democrats will have to use most of their political capital on fixing the basic fiscal situation, while Republicans can then squander that good fiscal situation and use their capital on other things. At least if the past couple decades are any guide.

The realities of our system are that short-term pain has a big political impact, and there are so many veto players in the system that avoiding responsibility is relatively easy. If we had a UK-style parliamentary system (not great in several ways), in 1992 Clinton could have instituted deficit reduction, and neither he nor his parliamentary majority would have had to stand election until the budget was nearly balanced in 1996. As it turned out he got the deficit reduced, but at the cost of his congressional majority. The GOP on the other hand simply dragged their feet, and were rewarded for it in the midterms.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | November 27, 2006 12:19 PM

I don't see the problem.

One side wants market solutions wherever they can be found, while the other wants to reduce inequality of wealth, income and opportunity.

Sounds like Dean Baker to me.

Posted by jasper emmering | November 27, 2006 12:19 PM

The pattern of the last 30 years, since Carter, is for Democrats to sacrifice Democratic programs in order to clean up Republican fiscal messes. Carter and Clinton both had their versions of austerity, and Reagan, Bush II, and Nixon all were fiscal disasters.

The next Democrat can't continue the pattern. I say, balance the budget by heavily taxing Republican voters and Republican industries.

Posted by John Emerson | November 27, 2006 12:27 PM

A balanced budget is the only safe haven for the middle class. When there's a deficit, the economy slows down and employment suffers. When there's a surplus, the rich skim it off for themselves, "it" being the cash the middle class put into the treasury.

Posted by abc | November 27, 2006 2:11 PM

Regardless of whether it's playing into the loop, Democrats have wasted so much energy blasting the GOP for running up the thing that if they become "Defecits don't matter" Party #2, I don't think it will bode well for them.

Posted by DRR | November 27, 2006 2:19 PM

If you reversed the Bush tax cuts except for the 10% bracket, how much more would you need to make up?

Posted by JP | November 27, 2006 3:33 PM

I don't think becoming the "responsible" party is a bad thing, at all. Yes, for a while that means that the Repubs will squander the fiscal gains made while the Dems are in power, but once that becomes a pattern it will hurt the Repubs long term. Right now, the Clinton era is an aberration, not a pattern. Once the Dems have a history of being the responsible party, it will be a tremendous club to hit the Repubs with every election.

For decades, the Repubs have attacked "tax and spend liberals". If the Dems become the responsible party, you not only take that weapon away from them, you can then campaign against the credit card conservatives.

Until Dems have working majorities in the House, Senate and the Presidency, or until you have changed the playing field so that the Repubs have to play along, you won't be able to pass substantial new programs. It took decades for the conservatives to discredit liberalism, and it will take decades to build up the popular trust and the funds to implement costly social programs.

Posted by DMoore | November 27, 2006 7:14 PM

Once that becomes a pattern it will hurt the Repubs long term.

I don't know what to call this. Stockholm Syndrome? Submissive wetting? The Cringe-till-you-win Strategy?

My point was that by fiscal irresponsibility Republicans can nullify all possible Democratic programs while running their programs through unimpeded. That's just intolerable. To wait another 30 years for the voters to get wise, while continuing to let the Republicans run wild from time to time, would be the quintessence of silliness.

Posted by John Emerson | November 27, 2006 8:31 PM

"Right now, the Clinton era is an aberration, not a pattern. Once the Dems have a history of being the responsible party, it will be a tremendous club to hit the Repubs with every election."

Whether it's better to be known as the "Mommy Party" or the "Daddy Party" is arbitrary and debatable. But being known as the "Grownup Party" could yield returns for decades. The Dems now have the advantage of being not only the party that will better peoples lives through government, but also the party of fiscal sanity & realistic defense. That's simply unprecedented. We would be fools to squander it.

Posted by DRR | November 27, 2006 10:43 PM

Jeremiah J.:

You write a narrative of the Clinton years that reads like fiction to me. I remember it like this: the voters elected Clinton the first time on "it's the economy stupid" and he partly stressed health care as a cost to the economy and in particular, business and jobs. They re-elected him and elected a GOP Congress in 94 because a majority saw attempts at balancing the budget by both as the route to a healthy economy.

At Clinton's first run, the deficit and debt was a concern of many in the polls, most people thought that the government should balance their budget just like they had to.

fter the "Hillary care" proposal, mid-term voters who suddenly started to fear Clinton as just another liberal who was going to let Congress spend us further into debt came out in force.

Among the general public, the deficit and debt was a concern of many in the polls, most people thought that the government should balance their budget just like they had to.

After a short period of despair, Clinton started to ride herd on every budget, micro-managing by caterwauling and cajoling and hassling Congresspersons late into the night.

Among the general public, the deficit and debt was a concern of many in the polls, most people thought that the government should balance their budget just like they had to. Clinton's approval rating began to rise.

Clinton shut down the government in a fight with Congress over the balancing the budget. There were few employees at the White House during those days, and an intern, Monica Lewinsky, brought him a pizza. This resulted in an impeachment. Clinton enjoyed high job approval ratings (approx. 2/3) all through the impeachment, mainly because he was making sure the budget was being micro-managed and balanced.

Clinton hired Rubin. With him, he started micro-managing world trade, and they continued to try to make sure the budget was balanced.

Among the general public, the deficit and debt was a concern of many in the polls, most people thought that the government should balance their budget just like they had to.

Clinton left office with a high approval rating. Whatever the real reason that surpluses starting appearing, Clinton got the credit for it by being tough with Congress about balancing the budget. Because a majority believe that balancing the budget is what makes the country's economy healthy.

Check the polls, you remember it wrong. Clinton won both times and the GOP won Congress in 94 mostly because people wanted deficit spending stopped. It's not that they believe in "small Federal government" per se. It's that they don't think deficit spending is wise,.especially not without planning to find a "balance" of some kind in a few years. The deficit spending went on for decades, and our economy suffered either high inflation or unemployment the whole time. People saw a connnection, whether real or not. It's an incredibly popular populist theme with boomers and greatest gen especially and has nothing to do with party identification. Over spending without income does have a strong association with the word "liberal," whether the Bush GOP has gotten that taint permanently now remains to be seen.

Posted by artappraiser | November 28, 2006 5:07 AM

DRR, if being the permanent party of fiscal responsibility means being in charge of cleaning up Republican messes forever, that is a pretty worthless kind of victory. I also dispute your idea that the "Grownup Party" meme will be very effective in the long term.

the main thing that Democrats need to do is campaign better and, above all, get their message out better. Playing to the current state of public opinion has been a loser overall. DLC Dems maintained control of the party at the party's cost, and they made no effort to transform public opinion because moving the Democrats to the right was their primary goal -- not winning. They were deliberately weak on party-building and message-development.

Posted by John Emerson | November 28, 2006 1:53 PM

On fiscal responsibility, it takes two to tango, and insofar as the GOP doesn't want to dance, Democrats can't afford to take sole responsibility.

So why don't the GOP and the Dems cooperate on driving the country towards economic ruin? The Dems will benefit by this, and become the permanent ruling party.

That this will make the lives of everyone worse won't matter.

I love the frank admission that progressive politics is really a salami strategy intened to move us to a socialist state. Man, is this a great blog.

Posted by Nemo Ignotus | November 29, 2006 9:32 AM

Regardless of whether it's playing into the loop, Democrats have wasted so much energy blasting the GOP for running up the thing that if they become "Defecits don't matter" Party #2, I don't think it will bode well for them.

Posted by kral oyun | April 6, 2007 2:18 PM

Good news

I hope everybody read this article

thank you for infos

Posted by kraloyun | April 6, 2007 2:19 PM

I agree with you.

Posted by kral oyun | April 10, 2007 1:52 PM