I swear, if I hear the president, a pundit or blogger use the word "compromise" in any way that is not derisive, I will spray my laptop with green puke while my head spins. If I hear the word "centrist," that puke will boil and turn purple. And, if I hear again how the President is a genius because he's locking up those "independent" voters by being so moderate - my fucking head will explode.
This is a narrative from the 1990s, this talk of independents, centrism and compromise. This narrative in the 1990s brought you Clinton's triangulation, with banking deregulation and millions of jobs shipped overseas. And yet in the flush economic times of that bygone decade, it was passed off as the political genius of Bill Clinton. What it was, was a bipartisan sellout to the same oligarchs who are now using the same narrative to finish the robbery, and take America back to Gilded Age economics. And the Media in America is part and parcel of the robbery.
And by the media I mean largely cable and network TV news. There are plenty of blogs that tell the story. I am partial to the Young Turks version of events, but there are several good articles on the Huffington Post, Alternet and in other publications. Jon Stewart makes fun of the media, and there are media critics who have also pointed out how they worship compromise and centrism as positions free of value or ideology. And that's the problem. These terms, compromise, centrist and independent [voters] have ceased to have meaningful definitions in the second decade of the 21st century.
Let's work backwards, and take "independents" first. I see this as a coded word, one that includes race. When politicians and especially pundits say "independent voters" they mean white, middle class voters, generally in the midwest. I am speaking not from some deep academic research, but as a media consumer. These are the voters who have not made up their minds between the two parties. The media generally paints these as "centrist" voters too, and that may have been true in the 1990s.
In the 1990s, these were "soccer moms." They were concerned about education and public safety, and a little suspicious of the government. They were split on issues like choice and gay rights, depending largely on their religious identity, but voted largely on the interests of their families. Bill Clinton was able to successfully go after these soccer moms mainly because he could speak to their concerns. These families expect the economy and the country to work for them, because they are part of the dominant culture. And in the 1990s, it largely did, so wedge issues and dog whistles were a big part of going after these votes.
I don't think this group is the same any more, and their issues are not the same either. If you look at who would qualify as "independent," look at the elderly. A majority of them voted for Obama and the Dems in 2008, but went for Tea Party Republicans in 2010. By working to cut Social Security and Medicare, Obama leaves the door open for Romney to point that out over and over again in the 2012 election. Look at the under 25 vote. They largely agree with more liberal positions. They don't "swing" so much between voting Democratic or Republican. They swing between voting Democratic and not voting at all. Political leaders and their advocates can tsk-tsk all they want about this demographic's civic engagement, but it won't matter. The bottom line is that Obama and the Dems need their votes, not the other way around. This group also turned out in 2008, but not in 2010.
There is another demographic that "swings" this way - the Latino vote. They share some cultural values with conservative Republicans, but have been vilified so much by the right wing that they are lost to them. This demographic also came out and voted, to a degree, for Obama and the Dems in 2008. However, they largely stayed home in 2010. The other thing completely left on the table in 2010 was Latino citizens who were eligible to vote, but didn't bother to register. It is true that Republican governors and state legislatures worked hard to suppress this voting bloc. But where was the push-back from the Democrats? Latino voters know the Republicans hate them. They're not sure about the Democrats. They are independent as they wait for Democratic leadership to push for policies that they want, like the DREAM Act, and then actually fight for it effectively.
I've said it in several recent posts - Latino Americans are the fastest rising demographic. If most of the eligible Latino voters went Democratic, Dems would have Florida and Texas. They would also take districts in the midwest and the south that only Howard Dean could dream of. I believe they leave these votes behind because they think the soccer moms they lust after share the xenophobia that drives Republican politics, and they might be right. But guess what...with 9% unemployment you are not going to get their votes anyway. These folks are feeling the pressure of changing demographics and a changing economy. They feel their cultural dominance slipping, and they'll blame the black guy in the White House.
A changing nation means a changing face of independent voters. The soccer moms will vote for Romney, accept it Dems. Accept it and move on. Give up Indiana, and take Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Texas instead. Independents are not necessarily "centrist" anymore. These are groups that have issues that are in sync with the Democratic Party platform - fight for them!
And, the way that the term "centrist" is used is virtually meaningless. If pundits want to argue that Obama is taking the political center, the fair question, which is never asked is "center of what?" Bill Clinton was the master of "triangulation." He would have his party establish a position, find out the Republican's position and find a place somewhere in the middle, the "center" if you will. But he seemed to have a position to begin with. Our current president doesn't even stake out a position. He rushes to adopt the Republican position on the issue, and then move to the center from there. The House Progressive Caucus, about 100 members, is NEVER consulted. Their positions are never part of the triangle. The "center" of today's political spectrum is between the initial Republican position, and the one they drag the Democratic leadership to in the end.
It seems centrist to come into a fight with a real position, and then find middle ground. But we have a floating center, and an executive that seems to have being in the center as the main goal of any legislation. Centrism should not be the goal, it is the compromise. The center in a two party system should not be the midpoint between John Boehner and the loudest Tea Party activist. But that is what we have today. Our current Democratic leadership is offering MORE than the Republicans' earlier demands for lifting the debt ceiling, but Obama is willing to offer a "grand bargain" that moves to a "center" that is further right. A center that is different issue by issue is one thing, but a center that moves dramatically with every issue is no longer a center, it is a line with an arrow that always points to the right.
And this speaks to the cult of "compromise." This seems to be the sole goal of this current administration. President Obama thinks that if he compromises on every issue, he will be seen as "centrist," and that will win him the votes of the "independents." But "compromise" is NOT a goal in and of itself. It is what you do to get as much of your goal accomplished as you can. If all you do is compromise, and you don't fight for any positions, your policy goals will always fail.
Look at health care. This was, I believed at the time, a well-intended attempt to address an urgent problem for Americans, and for American competitiveness. It ended up being a pre-emptive bailout for the hospital groups and the medical insurance industry. The for-profit system was unsustainable, and it is now on federal life support for at least a decade. And big pharma got a bonanza in the deal. We basically got bupkis. The debate started with single-payer "off the table," and ended with Obama yelling at the Democrats in the Senate to make sure there was no drug reimportation. The "compromise" was over 100 Republican additions to the bill, more restriction on abortion, restrictions on medical treatment for immigrants and my health care costs continuing to skyrocket. And it was passed by reconciliation! But no public option, or Medicare for all...nothing that would threaten a CEOs bonus. All the "compromise" was for nothing, because it got NO REPUBLICAN VOTES!! (Actually one, I think, in the House.)
Look, asking the Republicans what they want is not a compromise. It is a capitulation. Even worse, it is cover for giving the corporate oligarchy whatever it wants under the guise of compromise. How can it be considered a compromise if 98% of the country gets robbed over and over again, and if half of the country NEVER gets what it wants.
Compromise CANNOT be a position. It is what you do FROM a position. It appears, however, that this White House has bowed to the god named Compromise, and has no other principles but to serve this deity. And this will make their Wall Street masters happy, but it will cost them the election in 2012.
Their constant compromise makes them seem weak and without principle (with the added disastrous weight of it may be true). Their constant lunging for the mobile center keeps the debate on the opposition's terms, centered around Republican talking points, not equally valid Democratic ones. And their deference to the independent voters of the 1990s will miss the mark in the 21st century. Those soccer moms are suffering from unemployment and underwater houses, and the White House has left those problems to posterity. And, without the energized participation of other groups left on the table, Obama will lose in a squeaker to a despicable Mitt Romney.
Compromise, centrism and independent voters are the three pillars of Obama's reelection strategy. They don't help us, the bottom 98% of the American economy, but the President thinks we will be duped into seeing him as reasonable, mature, and not a scary Muslim black guy. He's wrong. We now see him as weak, rudderless and without principles. And by always agreeing ("compromising," pardon me, I suppose I should shut up and eat my fucking peas!) with the Republican talking points he misses the key issue of the last election, and the one upcoming:
Jobs.
No comments:
Post a Comment