The Centrists are Coming - The Centrists are Coming

Since the recent election I have been reminded on more than one occasion of the need for continued vigilance in the political sense. I am often guilty of repeating myself and have just recently re-told the story of my on again off again political activism before and after the Nixon administration with the conclusion that I cannot stop paying attention again. The final votes had not yet been tallied when we already started hearing the stories of Carville attacking Dean for not doing enough and the various pundits attributing the Democratic victory to the so-called centrists of the party. As most readers here know, one of the folks I read to keep my focus adjusted on Progressive issues and personalities is David Sirota (David Sirota is an author and political strategist. He has been a guest on, among others, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and NPR. His writing has appeared in, among others, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Baltimore Sun, the Nation magazine, and the American Prospect. He is the co-chairperson of the Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN) - a position he took after finishing a stint as a fellow at the Center for American Progress. He is a Senior Editor at the In These Times magazine, a writer for Working Assets, and a twice-a-week guest on the Al Franken Show. Sirota has just completed a book for Random House's Crown Publishers entitled "Hostile Takeover".) Sirota has recently posted some articles on his Blog that have started to raise the hairs on the back of my neck. In the interest of sounding the cautionary bell, I am re-capping some of those posts here.

In a post entitled The Center of What? he talks about the people who use the language of “the center” and advises that whenever we hear such stuff we always question the frame of reference of the speaker.

”“If a lefty solution works, that’s great,” Kevin Drum writes today about proposals to fix our country’s problems. “But sometimes it doesn’t, and if a wonky centrist solution works better, then that’s what we should rally around.” I guess I agree with this in theory, but forgiving my annoyingly obsessive focus on the issue of “centrism” for a moment, ask yourself: what are all these people who worship “centrism” using as a reference point for the “center?” Put another way, sure, the center can be terrific, but it can also be horrible. It all depends on what you are aiming to be at the center OF.
That’s really the problem with the term - and with Washington’s definition of it. “Centrism” as defined in the political dialogue today means “being in the middle of elite opinion in Washington, D.C.” But if you plot this “center” on the continuum that is American public opinion, you will find that it is nowhere near the actual center of the country at large. The center of elite Washington opinion is ardently free trade, against national health care, opposed to market regulation, for continuing the Iraq War, and supportive of the flattest tax structure we’ve had in contemporary American history. That center is on the extreme fringe of the center of American public opinion, which is ardently skeptical of free trade, for universal health care, supportive of strong market regulations, insistent that the war end soon, and in favor of making the tax system more progressive.”

Part of my concern about how much of a Progressive agenda we shall see beginning in January stems from this post dated 11/25/06: Dem Says Party To Engage In “Kabuki Dance” With Progressives

” In a New York Times piece about one of the great progressive champions, George Miller, we see just how cynical, self-serving and destructive a faction of Democrats will insist on being in the new Congress:
“He is liberal, and that pragmatism is always difficult to achieve when you’re passionate about something,” said Representative Ellen O. Tauscher, Democrat of California and a leader of the party’s more moderate wing in the House. But, Ms. Tauscher said, Mr. Miller understands what she calls the “very difficult kabuki dance” facing Democrats…“But in the end, this is about securing a majority for more than two years,” she said. (Emphasis added)

So here you have a Democrat going to the largest paper in the world saying that Democrats are preparing to engage in a “kabuki dance,” implying that the party will pretend to be as progressive as it promised to be in the campaign, but will really be working to follow the lead of corporate-front groups like the Democratic Leadership Council, the group whose faction Tauscher leads in the House. Then, she goes on to say that the election was not about changing the country - no, it was supposedly about Democrats “securing a majority for more than two years.” I’m all for Democrats building a long-lasting majority - but they aren’t going to do it with Democratic lawmakers running to reporters reinforcing the stereotype that Democrats stand for nothing other than their securing their own power.”

Now it is true that Ellen Tauscher might be expected to say those things in light of her background and affiliations. After all, the DLC knows it must speak in these terms to continue to secure the type of K-Street funding they need to stay in business. Which brings us to this post:

TIME MAG: When the Democrats Take Back K Street

” In the last paragraph of an article about Democratic corporate lobbyists moving aggressively to cash in on the incoming Congress, Time Magazine nails exactly why all the lobbying and ethics reforms being talked about won’t really get to the source of the problem:
“But the biggest obstacle to lobbying reform may be that in an electoral system almost entirely dependent on campaign donations, lawmakers and wealthy interests will always find a way to connect. Members of Congress know their job security depends on the money they raise before each election, and much of that comes from K Street. ‘The dirty little secret is that the biggest lobby in town is members of Congress lobbying us,’ says the Livingston Group’s Moffett. Moffett says he bumped into a powerful Senator last spring. They sat on a bench overlooking the city and talked about Moffett’s clients. After a few minutes, Moffett gave the Senator his card. By the time the lobbyist got back to his office, the Senator’s campaign staff had sent him an invitation to a $1,000-a-plate fund raiser. ‘When you’re holding the chum, says [Republican Rep. Jeff] Flake, the Arizona Representative seeking reform, ‘you can’t complain about the sharks.’”
Translation: until we have public financing of elections, nothing is really going to change.”

Now it might be one thing to be concerned when Sirota points out the DLC talking points, but when he points to statements from one of the Progressives amongst the incoming Chairs in the new Congress, we should be taking notice.

Rangel: Preserve Millionaire Tax Cuts, Consider Soc. Security Cuts, Pass More Free Trade Pacts

” Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) represents one of the poorest congressional districts in New York City. He also chairs the House Ways and Means Committee - the panel that oversees taxes and entitlements. This combination would lead the casual observer to think that Rangel, trying to represent his district, would be aggressively using his chairmanship to redirect President Bush’s tax cuts to lower-income people, strengthen and even expand Social Security and renegotiate trade deals to protect American jobs. But, no. That’s not what appears to be happening. In the weeks after the congressional election, Rangel has expressed interest in doing the exact opposite: preserving President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy; considering Social Security benefit cuts and retirement age hikes; and supporting lobbyist-written trade pacts that have no wage, environmental or human rights protections in them. He has, in other words, moved to side firmly with the Money Party against the People Party.

Think this is hyperbole? Let’s let Rangel speak for himself. At the same time leading conservative Republican commentators like Ben Stein are saying it’s time to raise taxes on the rich to pay for the war and the deficit, here’s Rangel in the New York Observer yesterday, defending tax cuts to millionaires and falsely claiming Democrats never talked about repealing those tax cuts:

“Here he is, suggesting to a business-minded audience that no Democrat ever campaigned in 2006 on the issue of rolling back Bush’s tax cuts. ‘How many people heard the Democrats say they were going to roll back the tax cuts for the rich? I didn’t hear it, and I listen very carefully…I personally believe that repealing tax cuts that are locked into place, that people have depended on these tax cuts, invested in these tax cuts, not only is it bad tax policy to repeal it retroactively, but it’s dumb politics to do it especially when it’s going to get vetoed. Forget about it.’”

Here’s Rangel on Social Security in the New York Daily News today, saying he will consider proposals to cut benefits and raise the retirement age:

“Raising retirement age or reducing benefits can’t be ruled out if the Social Security system is to be saved from going bust, Rep. Charles Rangel said yesterday. ‘All of these things are on the table to find some way to make certain that Social Security is solvent,’ said Rangel, who is poised to take control of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.”

Trade? Well, it’s a bit better, but not much. Here’s Businessweek :

“Business may find some unlikely allies in Democrats such as Charles B. Rangel of New York…[Rangel is] a leading Democratic advocate of trade liberalization. Stung by GOP criticism of his votes against recent Bush trade initiatives because they did not include labor and environmental provisions, Rangel wants to extend trade preferences in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Andean nations. With Presidential fast-track trade negotiating authority up for reauthorization in 2007, Rangel says he hopes to work with U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab to end the partisanship over trade…He’s also seeking business’ input on strengthening copyright protection and other intellectual-property issues.”

All of this, indeed, makes one’s head explode, especially since it is coming just weeks after an election mandate that gives all politicians - especially those from the poorest congressional districts - strong backing to do exactly the opposite of what Rangel is moving to do.”

Of course, just as with the ghost of Christmas Future, these all may just be shadows of things that might be and not neccessarily what will be. The only insurance that we have that this shift to a "far right" center will be if we remain vigilant and vocal with those whom we have sent back to DC to represent the people's interests. Just as the new Democratic majority has been handed a mandate of oversight, so too has the Progressive community been assigned the task of hall monitor. Are you up to the job?

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue