Sometimes the most interesting thing is what is not the subject.
Trump changed the GOP from a conservative party into a populist one. Progressive economic and distribution policies have a wide-open field.
Trump made populism mainstream. People like getting money from the government.
 |
| Democrats have an opportunity |
It does not attempt to create complicated programs. That is the old way, with bureaucracies attempting to make sure that we distinguish between the deserving and undeserving. The Biden bill makes being a citizen the qualification, excepting only the already wealthy. Citizens don't get cheese or milk powder or vouchers for school lunches or onto waiting lists for rent-subsidized apartments. They get money, to spend how they want. Simple and fast. Some people already have money deposited to their accounts.
The new law does not re-distribute wealth. It is still a winner-take-most economy. The bill doesn't take from the rich; it borrows from the unrepresented future. Democrats may be able to address that issue with new, progressive tax legislation if they can get it done soon.
The Biden COVID bill is opposed uniformly by Republicans. But in the aftermath of the law's passage, notice what all the public fuss is about: Dr. Seuss, COVID among immigrants; Portland riots; transgender rights; guns; blue states getting more of that money than red states; some people not yet being credited with the money while others have gotten theirs; who gets the credit; Biden is senile.
Notice what it is NOT about: We are giving money to Americans without requiring anything from them, and it is morally wrong.
Donald Trump changed the GOP. It abandoned its conservative agenda against socialism at home and abroad into a populist one built around culture war resentments. Trump attacked the word "socialism," but not government largess to citizens. Populists want to do the popular thing, and getting money is popular.
The enemies of the refashioned GOP are cultural elites and their Democratic political allies. There is significant overlap between cultural elites and economic elites. Trump discredited elites with a broad brush, so Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, now the Murdock family, the owners of pro sports teams, and the many businesses that rushed to acknowledge racial injustice are all on the enemies list. After all, those billionaires want to infect us with micro chips, lie to us, and make us knuckle under to woke liberals.
Democrats could lose badly in the mid-term elections. It may not be an "economy, stupid" election. The fact that Republicans are not making unearned money for citizens the centerpiece of their attacks is both an opportunity and a warning signal. That issue won't be top-of-mind. Republican officeholders and candidates are talking about cultural resentments. If the issue is whether woke, scolding Democrats go too far in fussing over micro-aggressions, Republicans can be certain to find instances to condemn. It is outrage politics, and the groundwork has been laid here, too.
Democrats have a short time window. Some of the beneficiaries of the money will use a bit of it to buy a Gadsden flag to put in their window. Darned if they want transgender guys barging into women's bathrooms. Now that they can pay the rent, that may be the issue on their minds.
5 comments:
"We are giving money to Americans without requiring anything from them, and it is morally wrong."
Without going into the fact Republicans spouting about morality is "oxy-moronic", this is at the heart of the conflict now.
I would disagree and say we are giving money to Americans and requiring them to spend it!
In a democracy the role of government is to insure the common good and a primary way that is done is through the distribution of resources, or what some call "taxes". The accumulation of wealth by individuals is not evenly spread in society and in order to avoid a descent into tyranny, (remember King George?) the government monitors and regulates the wealth creation sectors of the economy.
It's a necessity and is proving to be difficult. Republicans have from the beginning been antithetically opposed to democracy, and now have abandoned all pretense, recently elevating perhaps the most pathologically greedy American in history to the Presidency.
No one seeks to be financially insecure; this is why we work. But some of us have a glitch, where the accumulation of money and its attendant power is an obsessive quest that supersedes all other aspects of life. They will lie, cheat, and steal to build their fortunes with little regard for whatever suffering they leave in their wake and unfortunately they have a political party that will accommodate them.
It's also unfortunate that "Socialism", has become a pejorative, with Regressives pointing at the failure of the Soviet Union while ignoring the rest of Europe. Because of our unique history, perhaps our very diversity, social democratic progress has been slow in America, a country that excels in many other ways. Some of this is due to the worship of money, and a class system built on slavery and exploitation that erodes the quality of life for a majority of citizens and clouds the futures of their children.
No, I don't "hate America". We are at heart good, moral nation. Just not all of us...
Wow, Peter, dire warning! And it is justified. It is, as you often say, all about the branding. So, how can the democrats take credit for this progressive legislation, and focus people's attention on this, rather than on the republican's attacks? I see what you mean, and if we cannot get the credit for these actions, we will indeed lose in 2022.
I think it's actually good that the two parties have now aligned themselves with the two major political tendencies that exist in this country. The previous version of the Republican Party was not well-aligned with a significant political tendency.
The two major political tendencies are: socially liberal/fiscally liberal (the Democrats), and socially conservative/fiscally liberal (the populists, and now the Republicans). Previously, the Republicans were pushing a socially conservative/fiscally conservative message that did not have widespread appeal. The other quadrant, socially liberal/fiscally conservative (Libertarians), has never had widespread appeal.
Donald Trump was the first major candidate to appeal to the populist political tendency. A good part of why he won in 2016 was that no one else was even competing for that segment. None of other the Republican candidates reached out to the populists. Hillary called the populists "deplorable."
Trump would have won in 2020 were it not for his awful personality and the COVID pandemic. A more appealing and competent populist has a great chance of winning in 2024. I will most likely vote for whoever that turns out to be. (The category does not include Ted Cruz.)
I am interested in what sort of populist can win the Presidency in 2024, in the absence of racist, nativist, homophobic anti-scientific, or misogynistic dog whistling.
Post a Comment