The author Gaius Publius is one of my favorites in the blogosphere. He covers subjects near and dear to my heart. Climate change, income inequality, neoliberalism, trade deals, and the character and limits of “progressive” politics. If he did nothing else except coin the terms “Open Rebellion” caucus of progressive Democrats in Congress fed up with the establishment’s centrism, he would have done Progressives a great service. Not only has he done this great feat, but he has also been in the forefront of popularizing the importance of March 15th to the Democratic primary. He has also termed this particular election year as being a “Great Unmasking” in which politicians, partisans, and pundits will reveal their true motivations through their actions.
His latest piece over at DownWithTyranny! begins thusly:
If you think of the country as in decline, as most people do, and you think the cause is the predatory behavior of the big-money elites, as most people do, then you must know you have only two choices — acceptance and resistance.
Why do neo-liberal Democrats, like the Clinton campaign, not want you to have big ideas, like single-payer health care? Because having big ideas is resistance to the bipartisan consensus that runs the country, and they want to stave off that resistance.
But that's a negative goal, and there's more. They not only have to stave off your resistance. They have to manage your acceptance of their managed decline in the nation's wealth and good fortune.
Again: The goal of the neo-liberal consensus is to manage the decline, and manage your acceptance of it.
Go read the whole piece. I found the section where he first cites Corey Robin to be chilling. You’ll know it when you see it. Gaius Publius isn’t afraid to point fingers at those pols who wish you to believe that the hollowing out of the greatest middle class society to have been the result of “natural” economic processes instead of political policy choices.
I’m not arguing that there is no difference between the two major politic parties, they are different on social issues. What I am arguing that there exists a consensus on economics. What we are seeing is the bases of BOTH parties realizing that they’ve been screwed. The Republican base has finally learned that “trickle down” hasn’t worked and will never work. The Progressive wing of the Democratic party is tired of Democratic leaders who speak the language of “feel your pain” liberalism while sucking up to the wealthy for campaign contributions. They are tired of leaders who fail to raise the minimum wage as President even though the Democrats had the votes for it; or that he and the leadership never bothered to try for a public option, or that he was willing to cut Medicare and Social Security and chose not to prosecute Wall Street crimes. Universal health care? Forget it! It will “never, ever happen.”
Back in 1992, a young charismatic Governor campaigned to repeal the accomplishments of Republican political economy.
As Sylvia Nasar reported in a May 11, 1992 New York Times story entitled "The Richest Getting Richer: Now it's a Top Political Issue,"
When Bill Clinton wants to galvanize his audience, he thunders from the podium that the top 1 percent of families got 60 percent of the gains from economic growth during the 1980's and owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Governor Clinton, the likely Democratic Presidential nominee, had been searching for months for facts to illustrate his claim that America's middle class benefited little from 12 years of Republican rule. The explosion of riches at the top struck him as a perfect vehicle. Not only did the widening gap between the rich and the rest of Americans conflict with traditional notions of democracy, but it also went right to the pocketbook sources of middle-class discontent.
What did we get? Very little in the way of social programs or redistribution policies, but we received welfare reform, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and a bunch of Wall St. executives who have been at the center of Democratic economic policy for almost a quarter century.
There is a divide within the Democratic party. There is the centrist wing which is satisfied with the status quo, and there is the Progressive wing which has had enough of triangulation, and constantly moving the Overton window to the right because the centrists don’t have the spine to stand up for Democratic values. But don’t hold them accountable. How many seats in Congress, the Governorships, and the state legislatures have the centrists already cost us?
So this election is going to come down to acceptance or resistance? What is your choice?