I see this op-ed by Paul Krugman has raised a lot of hackles. I looked at the train wreck of one diary on 'rec list' and thought about commenting there, but it's full of people posturing and shouting past each other.
The key nub I see in Krugman's op-ed is that he's correct to point out that apparent appeal to Hooverism, but Paul comes to the wrong conclusion.
"This is truly a tragedy: the great progressive hope (well, I did warn people) is falling all over himself to endorse right-wing economic fallacies."
---
Because if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help – then we’ll have to make even deeper cuts somewhere else.
That part doesn't sound like 'falling all over himself to endorse right-wing fallacies'.
The issue is not of Barack Obama necessarily endorsing right-wing ideas, as much as it is trying to adopt an appearance of being open to these ideas in order to sway the right wing. It's politically the equivalent of 'trying to have your cake, and eating it, too'. What Krugman should have been asking is why is this rhetoric necessary?
I could argue the case for Obama's progressive/liberal credentials, but I'm going to skip that point, because it will devolve into a shouting match, and that's one reason why I'm not here much anymore. Let's just say that I see Obama's comment Krugman pointed out is something 'thrown out there', like one would throw a piece of meat to rabid dog.
This apparent need by this administration to borrow rhetoric and symbolism from the right is like a repetitive signature, and it's ultimately a strategy that is risky politically; it alienates some of the base, and at the same time, one has to ask how effective this constant 'reaching across the aisle' to get anyone from the right side of the spectrum works. I see much of these attempts to 'forge a path in the middle' as yet another variant of the triangulation we saw with Clinton. Clinton was clearly better at it.
Why does Obama even bother, if it's clear that these 'appeals' to the right accomplish nothing? Perhaps it has to do with messaging, and how rhetoric has evolved to mesh with today's media, which propagates the message to the public.
-----------
This country has two political parties.
One is unapologetically steadfast in its constant drumbeat; be it based upon lies, distortions, fear, ignorance, delusional thinking, appeals to fake religious morality in place of law, Republicans rarely deviate from their simplistic core message. They have message discipline, they use a Giant Wurlitzer, corporate media, to blast this message 24/7 saturating all outlets. They've been doing this for decades.
On the other side, we've got Democrats who cannot seize the corporate media; they are incapable as a group of putting out a cohesive message, or staying on message. The core message, of hope, fairness, democracy with the little 'd' are scattered, diverse, open to wide variations of interpretation. You can't get sound bites that are consistent from these ideas. Being generous as I can to today's so called journalists, the rapid fire 'cable news cycle' is simply incompatible with trying to present all the different colors represented by Democrats, and Americans [many of them] don't have the time or inclination to seek these out, tucked away in a few media outlets.
Today's corporate media thinks that simple messages blasted out repeatedly are the way to make money. Republicans beat Democrats on this, hands down. (Of course, the rampant corruption inside corporate media is a major component as well, simply add up the number of Democrats vs Republicans appearing on any talk show today and it becomes clear there's a massive media bias towards Republicans.)
In the supposed 'middle' we've got 'Independents' who are fed up with both parties. What little support for Obama and Democrats got previously from the right leaning Independents has tanked, disappeared. The politics of triangulation, which marginally worked for Clinton is failing with Obama and Democrats. The only thing that will prevent total electoral disaster in 2012 is that Republicans are fielding a slate of grossly incompetent and extreme candidates. Independents are given a choice between Democrats who have inconsistent messaging on one hand, and crazy Republicans on the other. It's really scary to watch this unfolding; I saw my State [NH] go from having decent caring Democrats in office to having drooling radical right wing extremists snatch control right back because Democrats nationally refuse to stay on message. Comes right from the top, on down.
And I'm stuck with this nagging theory stuck in the back of my head about the nature of 'Independents'. I think most of these people are not paying attention to politics or politicians - they are reactive to headlines, they vote based upon whatever is 'hot' at the time they go to the polls, but most of all, they tend to vote for the side that has the consistent messaging, whether they 'agree with it' or not.
And here's my other part of that nagging theory; that most of this nation is liberal, if only given a chance to respond and react to it. Even a casual look at demographics of who turns out to vote reveals that 'the Democratic base' which consists of youth, the working poor and minorities has a much lower turnout - these people are off the radar [or under the bus] when your Saturday Speech includes this.
Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.
Compare and contrast this snippet to these:
http://www.liberalparty.org/...
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/...
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.
Great liberal leaders of the past rose above, set a clear path. Their messaging was unequivocal, 'in your face'. They were not afraid to take a bold stance, and stick by it.
The nature of how media has changed in the past 4 decades has shaped both parties: Republicans clearly have understood the simplicity required, and have taken advantage of it. Tell lies often enough, and you can make your own reality. From Paul Revere, to John Quincy Adams, to the VooDoo of Trickle Down Economics, it's quite clear that Republicans have messaging down to an art form. When caught in a lie, they stick by it until it becomes 'reality'.
That segment of Obama's speech yesterday is not far off the mark from what Democrats have done in response for decades to being locked out of the media cycle. Lending legitimacy to the opposition, desperately hoping to attract support from the right by mouthing ideals like Hooverism and Trickle Down bullshit, 'working across the aisle', this triangulation ultimately spells political failure.
Krugman is wrong to characterize Obama as 'falling all over himself to endorse right-wing economic fallacies' - it's more like he's capitulated to the reality that Democrats have made for themselves for decades, because they are unable to seize the moment, understand what needs to be done to control the media news cycle, and therefore a 'bone' must be thrown to the right wing extremists, even in a speech that contained ideas and concepts that were not indicative of that unfortunate paragraph.
Strong liberals who speak out forcefully and unambiguously for liberal ideals have been elected recently, even in right wing districts; it's the failure of Democrats nationally, and as represented by this WH to find their liberal voice in the media and make it stick that has made it difficult many of these people to hold onto office. It makes Democrats wary of voicing liberal ideas and ideals that make up the core of the national Democratic party base, and it results in lower turnout in the most marginalized voting groups which are required to maintain Democratic presence in office.
If Democrats want to 'make news', I have a suggestion. Adopt the rhetoric of JFK and FDR. Be unapologetically liberal and stick to it. Simplify your messaging, and make sure that efforts are made to get all Democrats on the same page. As to those Democrats who don't want to partake in the messaging? Well, let them hang their ass out in the wind, and they can fend for themselves. If Democrats are to win in 2012, they have GOT TO motivate the urban voters, the poor, the lower working classes, minorities and the youth vote. These are ALL underrepresented when it comes time to vote. Offering up 'Hooverisms' is not going to motivate people like these to support your cause.