A commenter on "transactional politics"-
I thought parts of Michelle's speech provided an excellent message: hard work, perseverance, and all-American "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." That should be the Democratic Party's message. The raison d'etre of government--a government led by democrats--should be to give people that extra push that they need to achieve the American dream: lowering healthcare costs, stimulating an economy that lifts all boats in the same tide, working on infrastructure that lowers the price of energy and decreases the amount of environmental damage that our generation bequeaths to the next. Sometimes that function necessarily will have to involve extra help in the form of handouts or small market inefficiencies (such as raising the minimum wage), but that should not be the primary focus.
I'm still trying to make up my mind on the wisdom of straight-up redistributive policies that tax the rich in order to provide enhanced services (health-care, education, housing subsidies etc.) to the poor. I think in many cases, particularly involving helping to catch poor kids up with their better-off peers, that these policies can make a lot of sense. What I more specifically object to is a political system where the fruits of these policies (or even those aimed at the middle-class, like tax cuts or using the strategic petroleum reserve to reduce gas prices) are offered explicitly as a quid pro quo for votes ("Candidate X will lower your gas prices").
1 comment:
I agree that redistributive policies offered specifically as a quid pro quo for votes generally are a debasement of political discourse and public policy. If you need proof, look no further than the multitude of moribund polities in Latin America and Africa, where populist politicians constantly are trying to one-up each other in their appeal to the masses--a phenomenon that America has been known to suffer ((http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691129428/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3742MAJTVMI1F&colid=3H3G5U0V10DD6) reviewed here (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9340166)). I further agree that there are particular instances where redistributive policies constitute effective public policy.
Nevertheless, rhetoric matters. If one takes Thomas Frank's thesis seriously (http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219884379&sr=1-1) Republicans have successfully used duplicitous rhetoric to effect their vision of government: They campaign heavily on issues that matter to "values voters" (the familiar "God, guns, and gays"), but, once in office, largely vote for pro-business, pro-rich policies whilst ignoring values issues, all at the remunerative expense of the values voters whose interests they (ostensibly) represent.
To an extent, Democrats could borrow from this sort of scheme. Target the middle class, while concomitantly enacting (effective) redistributive policies.
To be sure, Democrats, unlike Republicans, would be doing this against the levers of power. Corporations and the rich are able to control public policy much more effectively than those who would benefit from redistributive policies, which is why Republicans can get away with winning elections based on the votes of working class, values voters but nevertheless enacting laws that favor the businesses and the wealthy.
Rhetoric matters, however, and redistributive rhetoric probably costs more votes than it gains (if one includes donations from middle class, upper-middle class, the wealthy, and corporation, and the votes that those donations can garner). That is why the focus of Democrats' plank must be targeted toward the middle class (sans the redistributive rhetoric).
Post a Comment