We should all support a strong, viable two Party system, as ideological diversity is necessary and basic to political discourse.
But at this point we NEED to reconsider the axis of the political debate.
“Progressivism” the term socialists have taken up in the wake of the “Red Scare” and more recently “Liberalism” becoming a “dirty word” in the wake Jimmy Carter’s debacle, is no longer a viable political ideology.
If Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Rosie O’Donnell and Al Franken don’t prove that the “unhinged Left” is utterly without merit, then you’re just not paying attention.
Today’s ideological battle is no longer the old one between “Big government Liberalism” (the centralized state or “government-run economy”) versus the Corporatism (the highly regulated market-based economy) that is the hallmark of most Western democracies, but between the latter (Corporatism) versus freer markets, both lower taxes and a shift from productivity taxes (income taxes) to consumption taxes (some kind of national sales tax, like the Fair Tax) and perhaps some form of the Land Value Tax (supported by modern-day followers of Henry George).
The Republicans are and will almost certainly remain the Party of Corporatism, so the Democratic Party, which had long been home to most working people should regain that mantle with a shift in ideology, AWAY from the old failed “Franken/Moore/Olbermann Liberalism” to more free market and yet worker oriented policies outlined above.
The hard-Left has greatly damaged the Democratic brand especially among it’s initial core constituency – lower and middle class working people, the kind of people that Senator Charles Schumer recently addressed in his excellent work Positively American.
In that book, Senator Schumer put his finger on the problem the Democrats have had in recent years and at the same time outlined a plan for the Democrats to make the necessary shift toward a more worker-friendly platform.
A Minority of Democrats Self-Identify Themselves as Liberals
With slightly over 40% of today’s Democrats self-identifying as “Liberal,” it is indeed a marginal ideology.
There’s little reason to doubt that a Democratic move to woo more real Conservatives into their ranks wouldn’t replace those disaffected Leftists who’d leave the Party amidst such an ideological shift.
Jettisoning the Far-Left and Embracing a New, Winning Ideology
Moreover, the elections since 1950 have shown that Liberalism is a tough ideology to run on and win with.
JFK ran as a tax-cutting anti-Communist and hardly a Leftist. His brother Bobby was an aide, along with Roy Cohen, of Joe McCarthy.
LBJ won a major victory in a slime-filled election (the A-bomb commercial) that ultimately brought on the GOP’s “Southern Strategy,” which has cost them dearly since.
Jimmy Carter road to victory over Gerald Ford, in the wake of the Watergate scandals (Ford had pardoned Nixon as one of his first acts) as a moderate Democrat.
Since Carter’s star-crossed tenure, EVERY American President has run Right of his opponent, INCLUDING Bill Clinton (the lone Democrat to hold the White House since Carter) who ran to the Right of two Moderate Republicans (George Bush Sr., and Bob Dole).
Senator Charles Schumer, in Positively American, acknowledged that “The Democratic party has been far too liberal, shamelessly liberal and liberal for far too long.” That can and should be remedied by a much needed shift in ideology, in effect, a Democratic “Southern Strategy.”
Conservatives natural affinity is for the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has been harmed by its long affiliation with Liberalism and recently it’s been positively slimed by the likes of far-Leftists like Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Al Franken and Randi Rhodes.
Why continue along this pathway of failure?
Conservative (“Blue Dog”) Democrats are a growing phenomenon. At this point, nearly a quarter of all the Congressional Democrats are Conservative Democrats.
You can contact the Conservative Democratic coalition at; http://www.il-democrats.org/conservativedemocrats.html
But at this point we NEED to reconsider the axis of the political debate.
“Progressivism” the term socialists have taken up in the wake of the “Red Scare” and more recently “Liberalism” becoming a “dirty word” in the wake Jimmy Carter’s debacle, is no longer a viable political ideology.
If Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Rosie O’Donnell and Al Franken don’t prove that the “unhinged Left” is utterly without merit, then you’re just not paying attention.
Today’s ideological battle is no longer the old one between “Big government Liberalism” (the centralized state or “government-run economy”) versus the Corporatism (the highly regulated market-based economy) that is the hallmark of most Western democracies, but between the latter (Corporatism) versus freer markets, both lower taxes and a shift from productivity taxes (income taxes) to consumption taxes (some kind of national sales tax, like the Fair Tax) and perhaps some form of the Land Value Tax (supported by modern-day followers of Henry George).
The Republicans are and will almost certainly remain the Party of Corporatism, so the Democratic Party, which had long been home to most working people should regain that mantle with a shift in ideology, AWAY from the old failed “Franken/Moore/Olbermann Liberalism” to more free market and yet worker oriented policies outlined above.
The hard-Left has greatly damaged the Democratic brand especially among it’s initial core constituency – lower and middle class working people, the kind of people that Senator Charles Schumer recently addressed in his excellent work Positively American.
In that book, Senator Schumer put his finger on the problem the Democrats have had in recent years and at the same time outlined a plan for the Democrats to make the necessary shift toward a more worker-friendly platform.
A Minority of Democrats Self-Identify Themselves as Liberals
With slightly over 40% of today’s Democrats self-identifying as “Liberal,” it is indeed a marginal ideology.
There’s little reason to doubt that a Democratic move to woo more real Conservatives into their ranks wouldn’t replace those disaffected Leftists who’d leave the Party amidst such an ideological shift.
Jettisoning the Far-Left and Embracing a New, Winning Ideology
Moreover, the elections since 1950 have shown that Liberalism is a tough ideology to run on and win with.
JFK ran as a tax-cutting anti-Communist and hardly a Leftist. His brother Bobby was an aide, along with Roy Cohen, of Joe McCarthy.
LBJ won a major victory in a slime-filled election (the A-bomb commercial) that ultimately brought on the GOP’s “Southern Strategy,” which has cost them dearly since.
Jimmy Carter road to victory over Gerald Ford, in the wake of the Watergate scandals (Ford had pardoned Nixon as one of his first acts) as a moderate Democrat.
Since Carter’s star-crossed tenure, EVERY American President has run Right of his opponent, INCLUDING Bill Clinton (the lone Democrat to hold the White House since Carter) who ran to the Right of two Moderate Republicans (George Bush Sr., and Bob Dole).
Senator Charles Schumer, in Positively American, acknowledged that “The Democratic party has been far too liberal, shamelessly liberal and liberal for far too long.” That can and should be remedied by a much needed shift in ideology, in effect, a Democratic “Southern Strategy.”
Conservatives natural affinity is for the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has been harmed by its long affiliation with Liberalism and recently it’s been positively slimed by the likes of far-Leftists like Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Al Franken and Randi Rhodes.
Why continue along this pathway of failure?
Conservative (“Blue Dog”) Democrats are a growing phenomenon. At this point, nearly a quarter of all the Congressional Democrats are Conservative Democrats.
You can contact the Conservative Democratic coalition at; http://www.il-democrats.org/conservativedemocrats.html
You can look into Senator Schumer's book here; http://www.amazon.com/Positively-American-Winning-Middle-Class-Majority/dp/1594865728
The new ideological divide is between Conservative/Libertarians who support a more open, unregulated economy versus the Corporatists who favor a more regulated, more secure economy.
For either major political Party to further entertain the failed and discredited ideology of Liberalism/socialism/progressivism is to court disaster.
A lot of Democrats are really traditionalist on social issues and populist on economic matters. I think that there is still a need for activist government to provide a safety net for working families combined with sound moral values. The Republicans are the party of big business and just give lip service to the working class social conservatives who have faithfully supported them at the polls.
ReplyDeleteI'm troubled that you even put Henry George's proposed reform -- Land Value Taxation -- in the same sentence with the miserable so-called FairTax, as alternatives to our current income-based system of taxation.
ReplyDeleteLand Value Taxation has much to recommend it; it will solve many of our most serious problems, which all stem from the same general source. Taxing consumption turns the corner store and the ebay seller into our tax collectors, and we must count on their cooperation, plus the police powers it would take to enforce that. Taxing consumption, even with the much-vaunted "prebates" for spending up to the federal poverty level (and who, except in a few rural counties, can live on that level of income -- most of us live in places where the cost of living is 200% and 300% of the FPL) shifts our taxes onto the bottom 80% of us. Nice deal for the wealthy! Nice deal for the high-income folks! Nice deal for those from whom 30+% of us rent our homes! Nice deal for those who own our very best urban land, who already have a fine pocket-lining machine in place!
If you think the FairTax is a good idea, you might look at http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Boortz%27s_FairTax.htm.
If you think that 200% of the FPL is enough to live on in, even at the just getting by level, see
http://www.wealthandwant.com/issues/pov/sss/index.htm
Sorry for the long links. If they don't work, go to wealthandwant.com and search the front page on FairTax and on "cost a young family" to find the articles I'm referring to.
Yes, RD, I agree there is "a role" for government, BUT it must be acknowledged that there is ALWAYS the tendency for government to overreach, for the momentum of government action to beget ever more government action and that is how government (so often) becomes THE problem.
ReplyDeleteI would dearly love to see the Democratic Party (I am still a registered Democrat) re-embrace its Conservative roots).
BTW, I like your blog.
I didn't know that Travis Childers had sought to restor 2nd Amendment Rights to D.C.
God bless him.
I've always opposed the income tax lvtfan - it punishes productivity (work) and allows both the "truly wealthy" (those who don't rely on income for the bulk of their wealth) and those engged in the underground economy or "balck market" to skate tax-free.
ReplyDeleteThe Fair Tax puts the onus on consumption rather than income nd that is a far bettr tax vehicle, in my view.
No doubt, it would NOT, as some wrongly claim, "eradicate the IRS," it would merely turn current IRS agents into old time "Revenuers," hunting down people who buy unstamped goods.
But EVERY tax requires its enforcement, does it not?
I like, what I've seen of the lvt, but I abhor the income tax (this excise tax on productivity/labor) far more than I would a tax on consumption.
For either major political Party to further entertain the failed and discredited ideology of Liberalism/socialism/progressivism is to court disaster.
ReplyDeleteand we are!
JMK,
ReplyDeleteChuck "I never met a camera that I didn't try to make wild monkey love with" Schumer may lament his party's nose-dive into far left liberalism, but aside from his book, I've rarely seen him complaining about it. In fact, he usually seems to take the role of "spokesman" for the left.
You are nothing if not fair and even-handed.
Hi JMK...my comments are not wholly related to this post; I have however, been patiently awaiting comments from individuals such as yourself who have been strong supporters of goverment having less oversight into the dealings of private enterprise (the financial industry, markets etc) - essentially 'deregulation', which, as we both know, has been the mantra of the Republican party for decades.
ReplyDeleteIn 2001, When the excesses of the financial system were noted,key regulators like Alan Greenspan stated that they didn't really believe in regulation, and instead called for self-regulation -- an oxymoron, to say the least. You yourself constantly tout this belief...I am sure that you must have noticed that we now essentially have a socialized mortgage industry and a government that owns 80% of one of the world's largest insurers...Please, a penny for your thoughts?
jmk, i don't disagree with you that the democrat party was once truly the party of the working person. but they left that a long time ago.
ReplyDeleteit started when fdr inserted himself into the markets with the depression of 1929 and has gotten worse with each democrat occupation since. however, not even fdr could have conceived of how far left his party would go.
solange - you need to read some real world economists and get an understanding on the markets. "bailouts" do nothing but prolong the pain and delay the implosion. regulation in the market place results in power mongers creating personal empires.
had fdr NOT done anything at the time of the "great" depression, it would have a been a market depression (a normal occurance) that lasted maybe 18-24 months - not 9 years. in the 1980's when we had a very bad day in the market (statistically WORSE than the great crash of 1929) reagan did NOTHING and the market corrected itself within a few months.
this is always the case if the government stays out of it. the same things that happens to the price of items on a government contract happen to the market when the government is involved there, too.
one more thing, jmk, "slightly more than 40%" identify themselves as liberal and this is a small segment? nearly half is a small segment? wow.
ReplyDeleteI have to be fair, Roady. Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel engineered the "Blue Dog" strategy - running Conservative Democrats down South and out West.
ReplyDeleteToday almost a quarter of all Congressional Democrats are Conservative Blue Dogs - they recently helped pass the FISA Bill that granted immunity to cooperating telecom companies.
Many of Schumer's personal views and positions bother me a lot, but his embracing the Blue Dog strategy is at least a step in the right direction.
"slightly more than 40%" identify themselves as liberal and this is a small segment? nearly half is a small segment?"
ReplyDelete<
<
Actuaklly it IS what I said it was - a minority view within the Democratic Party (40% is indeed a minority)...and a "marginal ideology, given that today's electorate is split roughly 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3 between Democrats, Independents and Republicans - 40% of about 32% of the electorate is only about 12% of the overall elctorate!
“In 2001, When the excesses of the financial system were noted,key regulators like Alan Greenspan stated that they didn't really believe in regulation, and instead called for self-regulation...” (Solange)
ReplyDelete<
<
That is demonstrably untrue Solange.
In 2001, when the business scandals (Enron, Tyco, Arthur-Anderson) which had flourished in the late-1990s, broke, it was the Bush administration that pushed for Sarbanes-Oxley and ironically enough, called for a major overhaul of both Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac, which was undermined by the likes of Barney Franks and Chris Dodd.
The current credit (mortgage) crisis, which broke shortly after the Dems took over Congress, is, in fact largely the fault of Liberal-Democratic policies!
Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, misguided ghouls like Franks, Dodd and Rangel fought against sound banking policies, such as using credit scores to establish who got what amounts loaned to them and at what rates and “red-lining,” which raised interest rates in high-foreclosure areas.
I support BOTH excluding loans based solely on credit and don’t see the “disparate impact” argument (“more blacks are impacted negatively by such a strict adherence to credit scores, than others”)...I don’t see where that is true and quite frankly, I wouldn’t care if it were.
Those credit scores, like ALL numbers DON’T deliberately discriminate against anyone.
Today we’re back to a heavy reliance on those credit scores and loan applicants who don’t have large down-payments (over 20%) are routinely excluded...and YES, “red-lining” is back.
Like most Conservatives, I’ve long supported the regulated economy – Corporatism works. YES, I believe the free market works even more efficiently, BUT with a LOT less security.
Socialism CANNOT work...and never has, ANYWHERE.
As I said, while I support the regulated market, I’m very wary of government involvement in the economy – the best and brightest everywhere are in the boardrooms, few are in the Halls of politics.
TYPO: "I support BOTH excluding loans based solely on credit scores"...
ReplyDelete"The current credit (mortgage) crisis, which broke shortly after the Dems took over Congress, is, in fact largely the fault of Liberal-Democratic policies!" (JMK)
ReplyDeleteI disagree wholeheartedly with this assertion. In 1999,Phil Gramm(now one of Mc Cain's key economic advisers) successfuly passed banking reform laws, which reduced decades-old regulations separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities. This helped to create the current economic crisis.
As a result, the culture of investment banks was conveyed to commercial banks and everyone got involved in the high-risk gambling mentality. That mentality was core to the problem. Gramm's banking reform laws helped lead to the subprime mortgage crisis as commercial banks started taking enormous risks. The deregulation, the inordinate amount of liquidity given to the system all set the stage for the bubble and the bust
"Socialism CANNOT work...and never has, ANYWHERE" (JMK)
Do you consider the current actions by the government (to stabalize the financial markets) to be socialist in nature? I was hoping that you would address this in your first response...
Thanks for being patient with me! :-)
"The current credit (mortgage) crisis, which broke shortly after the Dems took over Congress, is, in fact largely the fault of Liberal-Democratic policies!" (JMK)
ReplyDelete<
<
”I disagree wholeheartedly with this assertion. In 1999, Phil Gramm(now one of Mc Cain's key economic advisers) successfuly passed banking reform laws, which reduced decades-old regulations separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities. This helped to create the current economic crisis.
”As a result, the culture of investment banks was conveyed to commercial banks and everyone got involved in the high-risk gambling mentality. That mentality was core to the problem. Gramm's banking reform laws helped lead to the subprime mortgage crisis as commercial banks started taking enormous risks. The deregulation, the inordinate amount of liquidity given to the system all set the stage for the bubble and the bust.
"Socialism CANNOT work...and never has, ANYWHERE" (JMK)
“Do you consider the current actions by the government (to stabalize the financial markets) to be socialist in nature? I was hoping that you would address this in your first response...
“Thanks for being patient with me! :-) .” (Solange)
<
<
First, I don’t think it’s a matter of me “being patient with you.” You have your own views and opinions and I do appreciate you sharing them here.
All I can do is consider them (and I do) and offer the reasons why I believe what I do...my goal is NOT to convert anyone else.
I went to College back in the 1970s and had four economics professors who then supported Keynesianism or in a couple cases the possibility of the “workability of socialism” under the right conditions.
Three of those professors became Supply Siders in the 1980s. I assure you it (as you’d probably guess) had nothing to do with me, though according to at least one of them, I’d had a habit of, as he put it, “confounding me with different perspectives.”
I am still in contact with the one remaining Keynesian and two of the other three, and the remaining Keynesian, ironically enough, who’d long touted “credit socialism,” as exemplified by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and is now going through an ideological crisis, based on severe doubts over the efficacy of such a policy, though he does blame the recent implosion on the “politicization of the policy.”
I don’t dislike that fellow at all, we merely profoundly disagree.
When I went to College I also repossessed cars to make money. He’d always been well-off and went to some very good schools and couldn’t understand “how a working person would take a job that deliberately sought to inflict harm on other working people.”
I had a HUGE problem with him over that.
First, I worked for MYSELF not for any company and certainly NOT for “fellow working people.” Besides, all I did was take back unpaid for property FROM deadbeats and return it to the owners (banks, insurers, etc.). Those so-called “working people/DEADBEATS were actually harming other working people because their refusal/inability to pay for their stuff foisted an undue burden on the rest of us. That was the ONE time I ever raised my voice to this guy, who was a very gentle person, but I was royally pissed that a “rich guy like that would presume to know not only the rationales for the work I did (which he clearly misunderstood) but my own motivations for doing so (claiming I “took pleasure in other people’s misfortunes”).
Suffice to say, I learned a lot from those exchanges, perhaps we both did. I learned that many Liberals/socialists earnestly believe that Conservatives/market-oriented people (1) don’t much like others and (2) seek to do harm to those they don’t like. I also learned that contrary to what I’d long believed all liberals/socialists were NOT motivated by misanthropic malice, many did actually want a better, more prosperous world.
As to the current mortgage crisis, the facts are damning Solange.
As John Fund recently wrote, “The two institutions have long been run not by bankers but by retired political figures, predominantly Democrats. From 1991 to 1998, Fannie Mae was headed by James Johnson, a longtime aide to former Democratic vice president Walter Mondale. Johnson’s successor, Franklin Raines, had served as budget director to Bill Clinton. Jamie Gorelick, vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003, served as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration.
“These figures have paid themselves impressive private-sector salaries. Johnson earned US$21-million in just his last year at Fannie Mae. Raines earned US$90-million for five years’ work at Fannie Mae. Gorelick got US$26-million.
“Yet the companies never had to meet the discipline of the private marketplace. They paid no taxes, and they had access to a line of credit at the Treasury department. More ominously for today’s crisis: They were not required to provide anything like the level of information about their internal operations expected of a privately owned company.
”This non-transparency allowed Fannie Mae to engage in serious accounting fraud, overstating its earnings by more than US$6-billion over the Raines years — overstatements that incidentally justified the company’s lavish compensation packages. (Both Johnson and Raines incidentally also received below-market mortgages from the large mortgage company — and major Fannie Mae beneficiary — Countrywide Mortgage.)
”The loss of confidence that struck the markets this week has been gathering for years. It is the natural byproduct of the bad practice of merging private business with government power.
”As so often happens with large scandals, the cost will fall on everyone except the responsible parties. In 2006, federal regulators sued Franklin Raines and two other Fannie Mae executives to recover US$115-million of compensation. The case was settled for US$3-million, plus the surrender of some (now probably valueless) stock options and other contingent benefits. The US$3-million was paid from Fannie Mae’s
own insurance.
“And at the polls this November, the voters will likely exact a political price for the debacle from John McCain and the Republicans — even though the party most tainted by the failure ought to have been the Democrats. Indeed, James Johnson until recently chaired Barack Obama’s vice presidential selection committee.
”That’s not close enough to justice, not even close enough for government work.”
This was coupled with calls through the 1980s and 1990s by LIBERAL Democrats to outlaw red-lining (charging higher interest rates in high-foreclosure areas) AND basing loan rates and approvals solely on credit scores – AGAIN, THAT’S “Credit Socialism.” In 1999 Gramm’s Bill sought to undermine the “reforms” that the anti-red-liners and those opposed to Credit Scores based on their so-called “disparate impact” on various minority groups. Gramm’s Bill sought to return lending to its pre-1950s basis, where it was much harder for poorer people to get loans than it was up til recently.
This is NOT a Democratic scandal in my view, it is overwhelmingly a LIBERAL-Democratic scandal, as McCain and G W Bush sought to overhaul and reform (cut-back) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 and 2005, while LIBERALS like Chris Dodd, Charles Rangel and Barney Franks sought to preserve the failing policies of “Credit Socialism.”
As to your question, “Do you consider the current actions by the government (to stabalize the financial markets) to be socialist in nature?”
Yes! So much as those policies (including the bailouts, the so-called “stimulus package” etc.) are all Keynesian in nature, they are indeed “socialist policies and they are, in my view, terrible policies.
Of course, you must consider that it is Congress that control tax policy, banking policy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, regulatory policy etc., so there was no “Reagan economy,” despite the fact that Reagan was able to get a largely Liberal Congress to go along with his tax policies – they still went ahead and spent $2 for every $1 they cut!
Likewise, there wasn’t any “Clinton economy.” In Bill Clinton’s first two years the economy wasn’t very good (he had a Democratic Congress)...the economy improved GREATLY in the mid-thru late 1990s when the “Gingrich Congress” set the tone and had Clinton sign onto 7 of their 10 plancks of the “Contract With America.”
Today, since January of 2007 (the last two years) we’ve had, for better or worse, “the Pelosi-Reid economy.”
They’ve supported the so-called and misnamed “stimulus package,” the bailouts, etc.
Pelosi-Reid, TWO very LIBERAL Democrats. It’s no wonder we have seen a return to Keynesian policies.
The results are ALL on them - the Pelosi-Reid Congress!
The economy has NOT “improved” since 2005-2006, it has gotten markedly WORSE due to the Pelosi-Reid return to Keynesian policies.
So, yes, I do believe they are socialist/Keynesian policies and I don't believe they are working or CAN work.