The NY Times has a depressing article about the continued resurgence of conservative economic thought inside the beltway. As Krugman, and no doubt others will point out, having been wrong about everything, and indeed being responsible for the mess we are in, is apparently no barrier to retaining power.
What is more clear then ever is that truth does not matter.
Power and money is all that matters.
And we who are of the left-progressive-populist stripe, and happen to also have reality our side, are pathetic, insofar as after the economic events of 2006-2009, we are not in ascendent and the malefactors are.
From 2006-2009 there should have been, by all rights, a political/economic shift to progressive-left-populist policies, based on the proof of failure of the conservative (what Krugman likes to refer to as the "freshwater economists") agenda and policy.
It is truly truly amazing how the right wing power of the rich and corporate have been able to regroup and regain total power. In addition, it is much broader then Professor Krugman's link. Thirty plus years of their policies of regressive taxation, deregulation, non-enforcement, wage stagnation, union killing is what has caused our current situation.
Yet the right wind that got us here have come back stronger than ever. Their power and policies have been bad for the over 90% of the population and the country as a whole. Yet it has been so good for them, that they are able to continue to buy power and control to continue the same policies that have failed the country but continue to benefit them. The real problem over the past 30 plus years has been the income stagnation, and hence rise in inequality, for the other 90 plus percent of us.
Everything else follows. The over-attention being paid to Federal debt and daily stock market fluctuation is an obscenity. The "business" news, in addition to daily announcement of various stock indexes, ought to also report daily fluctuations in income, wages, wealth, and inequality. In addition to the whole lobbyist-corporate-pay-to-play nature of our politics, now made worse by the Supreme Court, it is also a problem of the corporate media. And not just Fox. The rest of the media (Krugman a few others who get drowned out excepted), including most of cable, the networks, and yes even NPR, are all too beholden to the standard narrative: debt and deficits are the only problem.
Berkley economis Saez has the real story that we need to get out, every day, in every forum, that needs to drown out all the talk of deficits is this:
and this:
And this:
Wages, income, wealth, inequality, jobs are not important enough to be reported on as intensely. Big government is the problem. Taxes are always bad. Regulation is always bad. No connection from individual outrages of the day (BP oil spill, dead coal miners, contaminated food) and big picture policy (deregulation).
Compromise and moderation for moderation sake rather than actual factual best policy. And bizarrely, the middle keeps shifting ever rightward, even as it has been proven to be wrong. But of course, it has not been proven to be wrong... for the rich and corporate it has been right.
It is worth noting that the in retrospect, Obama was pre-vetted by the beltway elite as acceptable, and indeed put forward as an alternative not only to Hillary Clinton, but to the scary left-populist rhetoric of John Edwards. Obviously Edwards hypocrisy and personal failures would have made him unelectable, but for a brief period he did represent an electable truly progressive populist alternative. It was clear then that the beltway, mainstream media and corporate/rich powers that be, hated Edwards in a way that they knew they never had to worry about either Obama or Clinton.
And while there were some better economic advisors around Obama during the campaign, it is also clear that he was never a strong left-progressive populist. And with the takeover of his transition team by the pre-vetted beltway insiders, and the subsequent announcement his economic team, any hope for sustaining what in 2006-2008 had seemed to be a possible takeover of the Democratic party by progressive populist economic policy was lost. As Sirota would say, the bipartisan party of money had re-consolidated their power.
I am NOT calling for third party politics. Alas, Naderism just gets us even worse Republicans.
I am calling for primaries to push true non-corporate progressive populists in every Democratic race, at every level, from local party leadership, school boards, to county and city councils, state legislators, congress and senate... and president. There is something to be said for the long-time, long-term strategy that the anti-all-Tax (Norquist), Christianist right and Tea Party have taken to take over the Republicans.
I will only support Democrats who will support the progressive case for big government without apology. Who will acknowledge that the real problem is economic insecurity and will fight for the other 90% of us.
I used to be of the ever-so sensible, lets support the most progressive who can win. But I have come around to the harder line that it is okay to lose in the short term, to remake the Democratic party as a real alternative. Present a clear and honest liberal, progressive, populist alternative. Over time we can win. Or if not, the country will at least have made a real choice.
