The Future of Centrism

http://rip-and-read.blogspot.com/

I read a great article this morning in CQ Politics. Now that Democrats seem to hold all the cards in the Federal Level, it will be very important to keep in step with the American people...

The DLC was established in the 1980s in response to the overwhelming success of the Reagan Revolution, particularly in the South. It recognized an essential truth about the Democratic Party...that it had moved away from it's blue collar and middle class roots and appealed only to those on the far left of the American political spectrum. Since the Republican party, at it's heart, still represented the Corporate Halls of power while relying on the right-wing fringe as foot soldiers, this left the majority of Americans without a political voice.

And so, since the American blue collar worker and the middle class are largely conservative, they chose the right leaning GOP over the seemingly leftist Democrats. The DLC was formed to change this. The political landscape began to change with the election of Bill Clinton (once Chairman of the DLC) in the 1990s, and the Democratic party lurched back towards the center. Not, however, without a great deal of internal animosity, and there are large portions of the Democratic party base where the DLC is anathema. (Visit Green Mountain Daily, or the Daily Kos for a taste of this.)

"The political mission of the DLC has been largely accomplished,"
said Reed, who's had the group's No. 2 post since 2001.
"Twenty-five years ago, the forgotten middle class had serious
doubts about Democrats, and now Democrats are winning the middle
class, suburban voters, moderates by handsome margins. Our next
challenge is to deliver on that promise and earn those votes for
years to come."

On a broader level, though, the group will face the same tension affecting the entire party: the sense among liberals that “their ship has come in,” as Kind puts it — and that, as a result, the need for moderation and compromise in Democratic politics has passed. But Democrats only have that majority because they’re holding on to seats that could easily return to Republican hands. In the House, for example, 49 districts that elected Democrats were carried by Republican John McCain at the top of the presidential ticket in 2008[emphasis added].

On a separate note, it's been a while since I've made the time to visit green mountain daily...going back today and casting an eye over the posts, I realized how much I missed it!

Republicans On Crime: Falling Down on the Job

Perhaps because they love to say things like "Dead or Alive" or "Bring 'em On" or "Lock 'em Up" or "Book 'em, Dano"--- Republicans have earned a reputation as being Tough on Crime.

Perhaps because we have looked to the root causes, have extended some sympathy for the conditions that breed crime, we Democrats have earned a reputation as being Soft on Crime.

But the fact is that it was a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, who presided over the first DECREASE in violent crime in the last decades of the twentieth century.

Under Reagan, under Bush I, crime was up. Under Clinton, violent crime fell dramatically.

Now...the Republican’s are back, and so is crime. Coincidence? I think not.

Neither, apparently, do the Editors of Alabama's Huntsville Times. In my web search on this issue, I came across this editorial. I find it particularly fascinating, because this burst of common sense bubbles up from a Red, Red Republican Red state*

Violence is up; it will be expensive and difficult to reduce it.

If you think the illegal immigration problem is a thorny one to solve, check out the increasing incidence of violent crime. Not violent crime somewhere else; violent crime in Huntsville. The Rocket City's rate was up 18 percent from 2005 to 2006...

... What's the cause? The usual suspects. Here [is one]:

Not enough police. The money for federal grants that pay for more local officers has declined under the Bush administration. It has other spending priorities. And local governments haven't found the revenue to hire more police without federal help[emphasis added].

Now, here's the rub...WE HAD IT LICKED. (When I say "WE", I mean the Democrats, and, although my fellow blogger J.D.Ryan over at Five Before Chaos will HATE THIS, I mean SPECIFICALLY "we" Democrats of the more pragmatic, centrist type...i.e. The DLC.)

The COPs (or Community Oriented Policing) program was created as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement act of 1994. The program is described on the Department Of Justice website as follows:

the mission of the COPS Office is to advance community policing in jurisdictions of all sizes across the country. Community policing represents a shift from more traditional law enforcement in that it focuses on prevention of crime and the fear of crime on a very local basis. Community policing puts law enforcement professionals on the streets and assigns them a beat, so they can build mutually beneficial relationships with the people they serve. By earning the trust of the members of their communities and making those individuals stakeholders in their own safety, community policing makes law enforcement safer and more efficient, and makes America safer

More money to hire police, more pressure put on those police to become a part of their neighborhoods, to cut off crime at the source rather than serve as an occupying army...and crime fell during the Clinton years.

During George W. Bush's administration, however, COPs has been underfunded (and police officers have been pulled from their jobs at home to fight overseas in Bush's disastrous war) and Crime, according to the FBI is going up again.

An essay on the DLC website takes Bush to task:

Remember the great crime wave of the late 1980s and early 1990s? Well, we're beginning to get some nasty reminders of what it was like before the large and sustained -- and in some places dramatic -- drops in violent crime that America enjoyed for about a decade. Recently released FBI statistics showed violent crime up nationally in 2006 for the second year in a row, with particularly disturbing rises in murders and armed robberies in Midwestern cities.

Even as crime shows signs of making a big comeback, the Bush administration and congressional Republicans have consistently worked to undermine the crime-fighting initiatives of the Clinton years, cutting federal law enforcement assistance to states and localities by about $2 billion since 2002. At the same time, many police departments are struggling from personnel shortages (in part because police officers are disproportionately represented in the reserve and national guard units that have been called up for Iraq), higher costs, and new anti-terrorism responsibilities.

A particular target for the GOP has been the COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program, the signature Clinton crime initiative that placed over 100,000 new officers on the streets in the late 1990s, and also strongly promoted the proactive, problem-solving policing strategies that showed such great success in reducing crime in many major cities...

Democrats are trying to reauthorize COPs...and yet this action is being held up by Republicans in the Senate...

Again, the DLC:

... it's time for Republicans to get over their strange antipathy toward the importance of police officers in fighting crime, and their reflexive opposition to any initiative identified with President Clinton. In anticipation of the unpleasant new crime statistics, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called for a national response focused on -- you guessed it -- longer mandatory sentences for those convicted of violent crimes. If we learned anything about crime-fighting in recent years, it's that smart policing can have a big impact on preventing crimes before they happen. It's certainly no time to deny police departments the help they need to turn around the upsurge in violent crime. And we encourage presidential candidates in both parties to make this a serious issue in 2008.

But, if the Republicans continue to have their way (which, I hope, is unlikely) then we are more liable to get something along the lines of what the Huntsville Timespredicts:

What we require are a variety of approaches that target all of the problems and promote a variety of solutions. Above all, we need, as a country, to embrace the noble concept that civility, not violence, should be a national virtue.

What we'll probably get is a "War on Crime" from a politician who will use the figures to scare us and to make it appear that the matter is being addressed.

But, in the meantime, crime creeps back into our cities, our once solid national financial strength seeps from between our fingers, and our once awesome position of respect throughout the world evaporates like ice in the sun...

Just another example of progress rolled back, and opportunity squandered...brought to you by the Bush Administration.

Post-Script

*(Although, I must admit, I don't know much about the Huntsville Time's editorial staff...they may be a bunch of liberal holdouts trapped in the heart of the Confederacy.)

Now What?

Yesterday, we got to read about how the Presidential Spokes-Goblins complained that the timing by Democrats in forcing Bush to Veto the Spending Bill near the anniversary of the Land-on-an-Aircraft-Carrier-and-declair-mission-accomplished speech by Bush was just a stunt designed to expose a....what? Legitimate Photo Op by the President?

Today, Bush has vetoed the suplimental spending bill which contained withdrawal deadlines. Bush said it would be stupid to tell the enemy when we were going to withdraw...but then, if, as the President said, the mission WAS accomplished...then what the hell are we still doing and dying there for?

The problem is that it will be difficult for Democrats to create a fallback strategy that works. Ultra-Liberals are going to vote for NO FUNDING if the bill doesn't talk about withdrawal. Moderate Democrats and Republicans will vote for funding without withdrawal timelines because we just can't leave our troops in the lurch. We can't hurt Bush without hurting them.

What should be done then?

Personally, I like the plan favored by the Democratic Leadership Council--- go ahead and vote the money...get the troops what they need...but only keep them in the field for a short time until the money Runs out, and Bush has to come back and ask for more... this will remind the American people of two things. 1) Democrats DO support the Troops, and 2) Bush's war strategy has been a complete failure which has cost far too much in both lives and treasure....

The "short leash" approach undermines the administration's classic Rovian tactic of polarizing the debate into a false choice between perpetual pursuit of failed policies and a precipitous withdrawal, with no rational "exit strategy" in either event. And forcing Bush back to the negotiating table quickly will also maintain unity among virtually all Democrats and some Republicans who agree that ending our combat role in Iraq

Read the DLC article here:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=254282


UPDATE

According to an AP Article posted this afternoon entitled, Veto Makes Democrats Weigh Concessions, :

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters ...``We're not going to leave our troops in harm's way . . . without the resources they need,'' said Hoyer, D-Md.

Hoyer was reluctant to say exactly what the bill will look like, but said he anticipates a minimum-wage increase will be part of it. He also said the bill should fund combat through Sept. 30 as Bush has requested, casting doubt that Democratic leaders would adopt a proposal by Rep. John Murtha, R-Pa., to fund the war two or three months at a time.

In the article, Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying: ``The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him"

But, somehow, I fear that that is EXACTLY what is going to happnen.

Read And Be Prepared to Discuss

I spent most of my "blog" time this week reading Green Mountain Daily, and commenting over there. However, there were a couple of items from the New Republic that caught my eye.

The first was a great quote from the editorial staff:

A lot of things have come crashing down with this election. One of them is
the absurd cultural prestige enjoyed by President Bush and his supporters. Since
2000, they have continuously bludgeoned their critics with the notion that the
only authentic Americans are those living in the red states. Democratic voters
have been endlessly told that they are nothing more than a tiny, alien coastal remnant, and many of them started to believe it.

Well, it's hokum. Bush and his vision for the country have been before the voters four times now. Twice (in 2002 and 2004) a narrow majority of voters supported him; once (in 2000) a narrow majority rejected him; and now a substantial majority has rejected him. Bush is not the incarnation of the popular will, and his critics are not anti-American freaks. [emphasis added]

-from Rejoice by the Editors of The New Republic.

The other is an article in TNR called Freakoutonomics. It is a more in-deapth look at how the Clinton economic team is revisiting it's basic assumptions in the face of the Bush Economy. During the Clinton years, leaders such as Robert Rubin, secratary of the Treasury, won a battle against more traditional liberals in the administration. Liberals, like Robert Reich, wanted to see the government engage in "massive public investment". Moderates like Rubin wanted to put the focus on "economic growth" and this meant using the money to reduce the deficit rather than engage in social policy.

In some ways, the legacy of this battle is related to the bitter struggle between the "netroots" and the likes of the DLC, which I've mentioned before, and which has been keeping me entertained over at Green Mountain Daily, all weekend.

Put simply, Rubin's can be summerized by this quote from TNR:

If workers grow more productive, logic suggests, they're making more money for
their employers, which means businesses will find it profitable to hire more of
them. The more workers get hired, the more businesses have to bid up their price
to hire them, which means that their wages will rise.

During the Clinton years, this worked like a charm. I can attest to the fact that, as a producer of radio advertising, I was actually being asked to produce "help wanted" ads. Before the Clinton boom, no employer in their right mind would have dreamed of spending more than the price of a newspaper classified to promote a job opening. At the end of the 1990s, local employers were spending thousands of dollars to create advertising campaigns to attract "unskilled" workers.

However, the hallmark of the Bush Economic "Boom" is that workers are not benefiting from the "rising tide that raises all boats". And they expressed that (I think) pretty emphatically last Tuesday.

The failure of the "rising tide" is, according to the New Republic, causing some of the Clinton faithful to revisit their basic assumptions:

What's happening is very simple: The economy is growing smartly, but,
essentially, all the gains are going to the rich. It is almost a dystopian
Marxist vision come to life. Corporate profits have soared, incomes at the very
top have shot through the stratosphere, and, yet, the vast majority of Americans
have not seen their living standards rise at all. This development does not
offer much of an intellectual challenge to either the right (which is not
particularly troubled) or the left (which is not particularly surprised). But
the center is both troubled and surprised. And, for the Rubinites, figuring out
just why this is happening, and what to do about it, has begun to unravel their
confidence in the moderate remedies that not long ago seemed
unassailable.

The article leads to the following final paragraph:

Since the outset of the Clinton administration...Democrats have fought against the most plutocratic and fiscally irresponsible Republican plans, but they have done so from a standpoint of resolute centrism. They had strong confidence in an economic model that was, at its core, conservative: unfettered free trade, fiscal restraint. They believed these ideas would benefit all Americans, and they did. But something has changed in the way the U.S. economy works. And, even if it's not yet entirely clear what has happened or how we can best address it, the intellectual balance of power in Democratic circles is already shifting. Today, all the confidence is on the populist side, and it is the centrists who aren't quite sure what to make of the world around them.

And that is probably the most bewildering thing for me, and the most frightening. Since I was born (during the Nixon Administration) I have watched a Democratic Party on the defensive. With the exceptions of 1974 (the Watergate Off-Year Election) and 1976 (when Jimmy Carter, again, as a result of Watergate, became President) the Clinton years were the only bright spot. At the time, I beleived it was because the Democratic Leadership Council had wrested control from the fringes of the party and returned to the common-sense mainstream politics that most Americans could and would support.

To me, "Slow Ahead" was much better better policy for America than following the New Left into defeat, while the heirs of Reagan wrapped up the whole ball of wax and took it home.

But now, it seems that I find myself back in the 1970s again, faced with a rotten choice.

On one hand there is Howard Zinn, presenting a dark vision of America as Facist Run Prison. But, following the "coming revolt of the guards" we will all move forward to enjoy .... what? Leftists are long on protest, but pretty damn short on vision. All I can see, unimaginative as it is, is a bright, post-guard future where we all get to wear the same Mao Suits. Sorry. Not for me.


But on the other hand, there is Ronald Reagan's "Morning In America"- now all but completely brought to life by the Bush Administration. Here, you wake up to find that all the wealth has been transfered to the Richest One Percent, and that wealth is being used to consolidate control over the media (yes, even the internet), the government, and the military, and that you ARE in the facist run prison that Zinn warned you about.

So, I've been wasting my time (and everybody else's ) over at Green Mountain Daily...hoping against hope that there might be a little life left yet in that Third Way that Clinton evoked.

I gotta admit though, that today, it ain't looking so good!