January 28, 2011  
                                                                                                                                                                                                 The following is a shortened version of Rachel Maddow's opening monologue from her show on Wednesday on MSNBC:   
 For the next hour, we begin with the president of the United States  addressing the nation and calling for a massive investment in this  country's infrastructure, rebuffing the idea of giant tax breaks for the  richest Americans, and warning anyone who would dare touch Social  Security to keep their hands off.
You want to talk about red meat for the base? Listen to some of the  language the president used. "Workers have a right to organize into  unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. And a strong,  free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our  industrial society." Wow.
How about this one? "Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of their right to join the union of their choice."
Listen to the way he goes after the right here. "Should any political  party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and  eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party  again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of  course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is  negligible and"--and the president says--"their number is negligible and  they are stupid."
That is not what Barack Obama said last night. That is way to the left  of any national Democrat at this point. That was all Republican  President Dwight David Eisenhower. That was all the stuff he said when  he was president.
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, president when the top tax  bracket for the richest people in this country was 92 percent. President  Eisenhower defended that tax bracket. He said we cannot afford to  reduce taxes until, quote, "the factors of income and outgo will be  balanced." Eisenhower insisting there must be a balanced budget and that  taxes on the rich are the way to balance it. Dwight Eisenhower, you  know, noted leftist.
The Republican Party platform of Eisenhower's 1956 called for expansion  of Social Security, broadened unemployment insurance, better health  protection for all of our people. It called for voting rights--full  voting civil rights for D.C. It called for expanding the minimum wage to  cover more workers. It called for improved job safety for workers,  equal pay for workers regardless of sex.
This is the Republican Party circa 1956. The Republican Party.
The story of modern American politics writ large is the story of your  father's and your grandfather's Republican Party now being way to the  left of today's leftiest liberals. If Dwight Eisenhower were running for  office today, he would have to run, I'm guessing as an independent, and  not as some Joe Lieberman, in between the parties, independent. He'd be  a Bernie Sanders independent.
In 1982, who passed the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history? That would be Ronald Reagan.
Who called for comprehensive health reform legislation during in a State  of the Union address in 1974, a program that was well to the left of  what either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama ultimately proposed? That would  be Richard Nixon.
Eisenhower and Reagan and Nixon--they were not the liberals of their day. They were the conservatives of their own time.
But the whole of American politics has shifted so far to the right in  the last 50 years that what used to be thought of as conservative, what  used to be thought of as a conservative position, is now considered to  be off-the-charts lefty.
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out this whole  phenomenon of American politics shifting to the right when he told "The  New York times" this--he said, quote, "Including myself, every judge  who's been appointed to the court since Lewis Powell in 1971 has been  more conservative than his or her predecessor, except maybe Justice  Ginsburg." That was the one exception he could come up with.
Over the past half a century, the center in American politics has gone  further and further and further to the right. Halfway through Barack  Obama's first term, his State of the Union address last night is being  pretty universally hailed as centrist, as not too liberal, not too  conservative, but right down the middle of American politics.
And that is something that Americans like to hear. The instant reaction  polls to President Obama's speech last night were almost comically  positive. CBS reported that 92 percent of the people who watched the  speech approved of Mr. Obama's proposals, 92; CNN reporting that 84  percent of people had a positive response.
Those sorts of numbers do not happen in politics. Those are crazy numbers.
Historically, the process of a Democrat trying to find the center in  politics has seen Democrats chasing the center as it moves to the right.  The thing that's different about the left and the right in this country  is that there isn't an equal and opposite force on the left that's  anything like the conservative movement on the right. The conservative  movement exists outside the Republican Party, and it serves to  constantly pull the Republican Party further to the right.
So, when you have a president like Bill Clinton who found popular  centrist decisions by splitting the difference between where the  Republicans were and where the Republican--where the Democrats were and  where the Republicans were, and the Republicans kept moving further to  the right because they're being pulled there by the conservative  movement, when you have a president who triangulates like that, what you  end up with is a president who as a Democrat moves the country further  to the right, because he shifts to the right every time he takes another  centrist position.
Is President Obama doing the same thing?
The dynamics on the right are the same as they've ever been. The right  word drift of Republican politics from Eisenhower to Nixon to Ford to  Reagan to Bush, Sr. to Bush, Jr., it's less of a steady drift now than a  fast rightward jerking motion. The rightward movement in Republican  politics is going faster, I think, than it ever has before.
For example, George W. Bush, he ran for president on a platform of  comprehensive immigration reform. He ran for president saying that he  has supported the assault weapons ban. But by the time he was president,  supporting the assault weapons ban was no longer all that tenable, so  he let that ban expire. He did try for immigration reform, and then he  abandoned it.
Then his entire party ran against him on it by the time they needed a new presidential nominee. It was a quick turnaround.
You know, it was only 2008 when John McCain and Sarah Palin ran for  office by saying they supported a cap-and-trade energy program. Remember  that? Cap-and-trade used to be their idea, used to be a Republican  idea.
The individual mandate for health reform--that used to be a Republican idea.
The DREAM Act on immigration--that was sponsored by John McCain once  upon a time. But by the time Democrats brought it up for a vote, John  McCain had turned against his own idea. Why? Because Republican politics  are jerking so fast to the right that Republicans are being forced to  turn against their own policy positions when the new right wing position  dictates it. They can't even keep up within their own careers.
On the right, the process that has dragged the political center to the  point where Dwight Eisenhower would be denounced as a socialist now,  Ronald Reagan wouldn't even pass a Republican purity test, he'd be the  guy they excluded from the debates for being a wingnut, that process is  still very much in tact. On the right, things are working sort of the  way they always have, if not faster.
But heading into last night's State of the Union address, the question  was: would President Obama continue to change Republicans to the right?  There are two ways to approach this, right? There are two ways to claim  the 92 percent instant approval rating of sounding like the man in the  center.
One way is the Clintonian way--to let your policies just drift right because the Republicans drifted right, too.
But there's another way. A way we heard about last night. It is to claim  the center, to claim the political spoils you get for sounding like  you're in the center, that 92 percent CBS rating, right, but to put the  center back vaguely somewhere where center actually is.
                                                            
No comments:
Post a Comment