Legal Commentary

Defining The Middle

By Big Tent Democrat

Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle. - What Obama Needs To Learn, 2006

Via Digby, Greg Sargent writes:

There's been a ton of commentary to the effect that Obama's planned State of the Union address, which will stress the need for leaner and smarter government in order to foster "competitiveness," signals a move by Obama to the "center." But judging from what we've heard so far, it seems more likely that Obama's speech will seek to redefine the "center" as something more in line with his own current policy approach and priorities.

Sure. The question then is is Obama's "own current policy approach" what progressives want? As I detail below, on tax policy it surely should not be. I'm not sure where Obama stands on much else. More . . .

Digby cites Bob "American Taliban" Kuttner:

If you liked Bill Clinton as Triangulator, you will love the era of Triangulation II. The danger, of course, is that the man at the apex of the triangle fares better than his party. He is now Mr. Reasonable Centrist -- except that in substance there is no reasonable center to be had.

A well funded and tightly organized right wing has been pulling American politics to the right for three decades now. And with a few instructive exceptions, Democrats who respond by calling for a new centrism are just acting as the right's enablers. What exactly is the beneficial substance of this centrism? Just how far right do we have to go for Republicans to cut any kind of deal? Isn't the mirage of a Third Way a series of moving targets -- where every compromise begets a further compromise?

[. . .F]or at least two decades, Republican themes -- privatize, deregulate, shrink government, cut taxes, liberate business -- have been ascendant, while life for regular people has become more precarious, and too many Democrats have embraced Republican-lite. If you look back over the past several administrations, in most bipartisan compromises it was usually the Democrats who got rolled.

[. . .] The 1986 tax reform was supposed to cut rates and close loopholes, but at the end of the day the tax code became less progressive and the business elite went right on inventing new loopholes. If President Obama proposes another tax reform in this spirit, watch out.

[. . .] Even the one epic case widely held to be a success story of bi-partisan compromise, the Earned Income Tax Credit, is trickier than it seems. Yes, the EITC does transfer a lot of money to the working poor. But by disguising an income transfer as a tax credit, the provision adds fuel to the ideology that the best thing government can do for you is cut your taxes.

And so on. I think Kuttner is largely correct but for some reason, no one ever wants to discuss the time Democrats held firm on tax policy - the 1993 Clinton tax bill. It amazes me that the argument that the Clinton tax bill preceded 8 years of excellent economic growth and job creation never makes it into the conversation anymore.

It remains the most progressive government action of the past 40 years in my estimation. Yet it remains neglected and uncelebrated by Dems and progressives. Just bizarre.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on January 25, 2011 (boomark / email).