Centerfield

Rick,

I completely agree with you here. But I think there is a kind of progressivism that can come out of the Center and appeal to a broad-range of Americans. A progressivism rooted not in liberal ideology but in the ideals of Teddy Roosevelt. Remember, he believed strongly in personal responsibility but also believed in using government to help remove unfair barriers.

I've posted my thoughts on this for whoever might be interested.

You can find them here: http://theyellowline.blogspot.com/2005/05/progressive-and-strong-winning.html

Rick, I think that's pretty good analysis.

And you know, it's amazing how bad articles written by Democrats about the Republican Party, and articles written by Republicans about the Democratic Party can be.

Teddy's progressivism is an interesting measure of how politics change. Of course, we take for granted now many of the reforms he worked hard for and pushed as progressivism with other politicians of the time.

You know, the Clintons won on very much the kind of message of opportunity you talk about in your post.

I think you're on to something. Of course, our candidates have to focus more on what THEY want to say, and less on just opposing. Following Bush by always walking on the other side of the street is still following Bush.

Good post Rick, and great comment Jon. It seems that GWB has had the D's on the offensive for the past several years. Instead of getting out in front on issues, they seem to always be responding "if he's for it, I'm against it." Unfortunately for all of us, that has left the American people with few new ideas to truly evaluate candidates with.

What's interesting is that the alternatives look like they might come from within the President's own party. Lindsey Graham has a competing social security package. You can look for his good friend John McCain to probably sign on to it soon. McCain seems to have come up with a (temporary) solution to the judicial stalemate. A team of Republican Senators is in the process of teaming up with D's to present an alternative to the base closings. Yes, those are still reactionary tactics, but instead of just saying "no", they are actually presenting alternatives. The D's need to get on board or they risk allowing the two flanks of the Republican Party to complete dominate the playing field.

Spot on, Rick.

It's tougher to be in the center because you actually have to think, not just parrot the dogmas.

Yeah, Nice job Rick.

I do admit to being perplexed by how effective cries of "class warfare" are at blunting the democrats. I'm surprised more of them don't simply accuse the GOP of "enacting class warfare polices while accusing me of class warfare rhetoric." I think it would be effective for a minority party politician.

Somehow the GOP has been able to position itself as against class warfare, and I just don't see it. Just about every policy enacted is going to have a differential effect on various economic classes. It doesn't really matter WHERE you draw the line, the simple act of drawing the line requires a value judgement related to economic classes, whether we are talking about minimum wage, unemployment insurance, tax rates and exemptions and deductions, the ceiling on SS payroll taxes, or whatever. The list goes on and on.

I agree with bk. The GOP stifles all debate by calling any criticism of neo-liberal economics as class warfare. I haven't noticed even the most liberal Democrats calling for expropriation of the means of production. It's the conservatives that are extreme by excoriating any kind of regulation as socialist.

I do believe the Republican obsession with limited government (well, in principle anyway) and tax cuts at the expense of social services, health care reform, etc., do hurt the working and middle classes. The Democrats have sort of ceded the issue because they are afraid of being accused of fomenting class war. But the GOP's idea that classes don't have different economic interests is naive, if not disingenous. I don't think it's class warfare to point that out. I agree with Kuttner that it's time that Democrats stopped apologizing for being different than Republicans.

Having said that, I think the liberals are naive that they can win simply by mobilizing what they consider to be people economically disadvantaged by GOP economics. The so-called working class is, I think, smaller and less unified than when Democrats dominated. A lot more people are entrepreneurial or managerial; they believe in the market. A lot of these people are liberal socially but aren't necessarily big fans of regulations that effect their businesses. Kuttner has a point about people respecting those they disagree with on some points if they help them on others, but I think he (and most liberals) overestimate the amount of dissastisfaction with Republican economics, especially since it's not clear that the Democrats have such a great alternative. Many of the problems afflicting the working and middle classes predate the Republican ascendence and don't lend themselves to easy, facile answers. For example, globalization clearly produces winners and losers and, often the losers will be working class Americans. But is the solution to retrench and call for protectionist policies?

The problem is I don't really understand what economic policies the liberals have that will address our problems. Until people are convinced they have answers, being populist might help get votes, but it won't help the economy.

Just about every policy enacted is going to have a differential effect on various economic classes

ALL policies have differential effects. That doesn't make all policies class warfare.

I haven't noticed even the most liberal Democrats calling for expropriation of the means of production.

I have--quite clearly. Capital is one of the four required means of production. Taxes on business are an explicit expropriation of means of production, and calling for higher taxes on business is indeed a call to more extensively expropriate a means of production. Of the other three factors of production (land, labor, and innovation/entrepeneurship) ALL are subject to taxation in one form or other. Income taxes. Property taxes. Capital gains taxes. ALL are forms of expropriation of means of production.

The obvious: we already live in a partial socialism, and have for many years. The debate is over how extensive it will be, and how it will be constructed. Very few of us want to live in either a pure capitalism or a pure socialism (and I think those few are nuts). The ongoing debate is over how to balance and prioritize the blend between the needs/wants of government/society and the ability of the markets to provide them.

ALL policies have differential effects. That doesn't make all policies class warfare.

Tully, Not sure I agree. If a policy can be called class warfare, it will be. BUT I don't happen to think that the argument over whether or not a policy constitutes class warfare is especially revelatory or productive unless it rises above name-calling. The thing that bugs me is that, for whatever reason, calling class warfare seems to be the end of the argument. It's like, "Game over, It's class warfare, I win, and you lose for being a commie..."

I agree wholeheartedly with what the rest of your post suggests. Which is that Elvis long ago left the building. We already live in a socialist democracy, and have for some time now. This makes people go ballistic, but I don't think there's any reason why this should be regarded as controversial, revelatory, or alarming among reasonably educated people. It is what it is, and it is what it is largely because we're getting much of what we the people have decided we want.

As you say, it's an ongoing argument about balancing what we want with our ability to pay for it.

I should add "...and our willingness to pay for it." That's a very big part of the ongoing debate, which things are appropriately gov't funded. I didn't mean to slight that . It's not just what we can pay for, but also what we should pay for.