One of the most anguishing things I have recently seen is that most progressive activist and lawmakers still don't get how to pass major initiatives. The most glaring problem is a misunderstanding on how and when to take inflexible stands and how to use LEVERAGE to obtain our goals. This was evident in the recent Health Care debate, when Nelson and Lieberman "punked" progressives by being inflexible on the public option and/or a Medicare buy-in.
The problem is that progressives tend to take tough stands on issues THEY care about. Blue Dogs and Conserva-Dems tend to take tough stand on issues YOU care about. To paraphrase Sun-Zu in the Art of War "when you want something more than your enemy controls you have minimum leverage, when your enemy wants something you possess you have maximum leverage". This is a diary on leverage. How to recognize when you have it, and when to use it.
- THE EXPIRATION OF THE BUSH UPPER INCOME TAX CUTS
This is a major upcoming source of progressive leverage. The upper income tax cuts are a major factor in the red states where Blue Dogs and Conservadems tend to reside. Call this "supply side land". Unfortunately some reader right now is thinking "yeah but more upper income voters lie in Blue States". This may be factually correct but supply side voters (the only thing that really matters) lie disproportionately in Red states and districts. A supply side voter could be a blue collar working class person who simply believes in the supply side line, although they aren't a personal beneficiary of the tax cuts. These voters have a philosophical abhorrence to taxes and "big government" and are willing to take a spoonful of personal pain to keep both in check.
Keeping this in mind ConservaDems, will be the ones to most strongly not want to be seen as "tax raisers". But unlike most tax rate increases that "require" an "active vote" to raise the tax rate, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts require an "active vote" to stop them from going up (they were passed using reconciliation). In other words, most tax increases in the Senate require a majority vote (normally 60) to be enacted, stop the expiration requires a majority (could be 60) to stop it from coming in effect. My personal fear is that in typical small minded style most progressives will attempt to gain a minimum wage increase or some other pittance in exchange for not allowing the full effect of the expiration to return. But this is a misuse of leverage.
Le me be clear the expiration of the Bush tax breaks is a leverage moment. Keeping the rate low is something that Blue Dogs, and ConservaDems will most strongly want to see happen. Progressive will mostly attempt to negotiate in good faith, and offer a compromise solution right out of the gate. But this isn't how a ConservaDem would react if the situation were reversed. So how should a progressive react?
Image this happening:
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) have announced they will filibuster current legislation to block the expiration of the Bush tax cuts unless their amendment is allowed to have an up or down vote. Sen Brown "unless we get an up or down vote on the Employee Free Choice Act, I intend to filibuster this bill". Senator Brown went on to add that working Americans need a fair shake at organizing and that after generation of only rewarding the top incoming brackets he intends to take a stand unless working American's get a helping hand. Sen. Rockefeller added "de-unionization has lead to shrinking real wages, I will not vote on a measure that will increase income disparities unless I also vote for a remedy, THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT."
Why would this be effective and why these two Senators?
A) The group that would be under pressure would be Midwestern Blue Dogs. These are socially right of center Democrats who win with largely union support on an economic populist platform. They would be hard pressed to argue against the line of reasoning that I used above. Secondly since progressives are and were largely against Bush supply side tax cut's "holding them up" with a filibuster doesn't hurt (it in fact helps) a progressives with their base. In effect since progressive don't want an expiration of the tax cut's they are at maximum leverage.
B) The GOP would have to decide between a Tax increase or allowing a vote on greater unionization. The "Waterloo wing" would of course argue to allow the tax increase hoping to generate a "backlash" against the Dems, but the few "pragmatics" (Snowe, Collins, Voinavich) left from more union friendly states would more likely come to the table rather than risk a tax increase (their supporters wouldn't want to pay increased taxes for even just 3 years hoping for a GOP Presidential victory in 2012). This would be using leverage. Another leverage point will be coming up when the Farm bill needs re-authorization.
- MOST CONSERVATIVES ARE FROM RURAL AMERICA, THE FARM BILL AND ITS SUBSIDIES MEANS A LOT TO THEM.
Just because a person rails against "Big Government" doesn't mean they don't like it. What they really are against is when "progressive causes" receiving government aid. Progressives should force bills that force farm aid to be paid for from fees, or that makes agricultural products subject to free trade bills. The farm bill which is a massive federal system of transfer payments and import tariffs is a leverage point. This is because of who disproportionately benefits from it.
For example did you know the importation of sugar is greatly restricted by the US government? New York Times: Sugar’s Sweetheart Deal.
Of all the government’s farm-support programs, there are few as egregious as the tangle of loans, quotas and import tariffs set up to protect the well-connected club of American sugar producers at the expense of American consumers and farmers in the developing world. This year’s farm bill will add American taxpayers to the list of casualties.
Under the current system, the government guarantees a price floor for sugar and limits the sugar supply — placing quotas on domestic production and quotas and tariffs to limit imports. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, sugar supports cost American consumers — who pay double the average world price — more than $1.5 billion a year. The system also bars farmers in some of the poorest countries of the world from selling their sugar here.
The free traders and their lobby have long been able to split the populist base. They have argued for free trade in manufactured goods, let me rephrase that Union Manufactured Goods (so we let in mostly union made cars and steel in, but not mostly non-unionized medicine), yet have been quite coy in keeping out food. This has allowed them to get Midwestern Republican votes on free trade pacts without the farmers in the Midwest GOP's states and districts rebelling. Even worse left leaning populist often will join with the Midwestern GOP in blocking free trade in agriculture because they are voting against free trade on principal.
While they should be commended for voting on principal, in this case threatening to vote the opposite way would have a stronger effect. A stance of either "free trade in everything or nothing" would turn the tables on the this double talking game.
FDR was able to win over the farm belt (at the time the heart of the Republican party) by initiating a policy farm subsidies. Yet over time the GOP has been able to make farmer forget this point. At the same time farmers are receiving farm subsidies they are supporting a party of limited government. What would happen if they had to face this hypocrisy in a blatant and open way?
Imagine this happening:
Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse have announced in a joint statement the planned filibuster of the next farm bill. "Coming from a small manufacturing state we can no longer justify sending Rhode Island tax payer's money to support the farm industry in other states, when these same states refuse to support American manufacturing. A policy that says factory workers have to freely compete in the world market but farmers don't is no longer sustainable."
Why would this be effective and why these two Senators?
A) Think I'm exaggerating the link? Compare where farm aid goes to where the Republican vote comes from.
Some* have speculated that John McCain horrid showing in Iowa, as well as his worse than expected showing in the Dakotas has to do with the years of his attacks on farm subsidies landing with a thud on "Big Government" Conservatives in these states. While this may be good and true the traditional media has very seldom mentioned this link, a little grandstanding on this issue, would force the Republican leadership to respond to this hypocrisy in a public way. (* Chuck Todd in "How Obama won" made this case)
B) Although the congressional black congress caucus has argued this case for years the media would too easily turn this into a "racial" argument (no doubt helped by talk radio). Urban blacks v. rural whites. Rhode Island on the other hand has the "benefit" of lying in relatively white New England. Rhode Island is a net "donater" of federal tax dollars (meaning it pays out more than in receives). Furthermore it's a very heavily manufacturing dependent state. The CBC should merely quiet pledge support for blocking this on the House side.
In conclusion the basic point of this diary is to argue that progressives tend to take tough stands on issues they care about. Blue Dogs and Conserva-Dems tend to take tough stand on issues YOU care about. Remember when it comes to leverage that; when you want something more than your opponent controls you have minimum leverage, when your opponent wants something you possess you have maximum leverage. This would be a valuable lesson for progressives to learn in up coming battles over DOMA, EFCA, trade deals, and expanding health care. Also by showing an understanding and a willingness to use leverage progressive will show they have some backbone. Blue Dogs and ConservaDems will be less likely to hold up progressive legislation when they are aware that progressives will hit them back in other areas. at a later date.
LEVERAGE learn to recognize it and use it!