When Have Conservatives Been on the Right Side of History?

Corey Robin has recently wrote a book called The Reactionary Mind, which seeks to trace the continuities and fundamental attributes of political conservatism throughout the centuries and among a range of prominent people, from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin. One of the major themes to be drawn from his analysis is that the fundamental essence of conservatism, everywhere and in every period, is the defense of privilege.

If this is true, it does much to explain the conservative argument, no matter the context or time period. Defense of privilege equates to defense of the wealthy, defense of businesses, defense of males, defense of whiteness, and so on.

If conservatives have consistently been on the side of the haves and not the have nots, then when have they been on the right side of history?

Currently, mainstream conservatives are against gay marriage, minority rights, and universal healthcare, while they are also skeptical of the merits of climate change, renewable energy, and electoral reform - things that will in the not-too-distant future be looked back upon by bewildered young people as being backwards, obtuse, and reactionary.

But conservatives were also against things that are now perceived as abominable: they went to great lengths to preserve slavery, then later to protect segregation and fought to keep policies that benefited minorites, such as the Voting Rights Act and Affirmative Action, from being implemented; conservatives were against women's suffrage, against most laws that benefited organized labor that we now take for granted (minimum wage laws, over-time pay, the 40-hour work week, paid vacation, etc.), have consistently been against immigration or anything that threatened white, affluent, heterosexual, Protestant males in general.

The major policies in the United States that have benefited the vast majority of society and helped to create a more tolerant, more equal society have in the past 80 years come exclusively from liberals and progressives, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Even the laws that a Republican president signed into law, such as the Clean Air Act under Richard Nixon, have come about only when the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress.

In Europe, conservatives historically were vehemently mobilized against the vast majority of society that was not an aristocratic, white, Christian male and had no qualms about justifying the use of violence to repress movements that sought to promote voting rights, minority rights, and increases in democracy.

If mainstream conservatives, conservative thought, and conservatism as a political movement in general have consistently been on the side of privilege, then they have also consistently been on the wrong side of history. But this does not mean that they have never been on the right side.

Conservatives in Europe were correct about totalitarianism, whether in its fascist or communist variant. Though Neville Chamberlain, as a Conservative Prime Minister, pursued a policy of appeasement in dealing with Adolf Hitler's Third Reich, this was controversial even among his own party. The man who succeeded him, Sir Winston Churchill, was a consistently vocal and aggressive opponent of fascism. Later, when many on the Left had become enamored and apologized for the violent excesses of the Soviet Union, Churchill and conservatives called it what it was - totalitarian. Of course, French and British conservatives both supported the maintenance of imperialism (though they went about its decline in different ways).

Edmund Burke and other conservatives did not just protest against the French Revolution, they believed it to be a terrible idea. Indeed, their warnings in the early stages seemed especially prescient after the country descended into wide-ranging pandemonium, with citizens being indiscriminately murdered and movements such as The Terror and the Committee for Public Safety emerging. Napoleon Bonaparte may have introduced certain "progressive" reforms onto the Continent, but European conservatives decried his reign for what it was - a tyrannical dictatorship.

While those on the Left have had their fair share of poor decisions - supporting Mao's overseeing the starvation of millions in China, for example - conservatism has much more often than not been on the wrong side of history. Even when they have been correct, such as when confronting the French Revolution, the rise of totalitarian communism, and fascism, conservatives have also had a tendency to go overboard in their zeal - see Joseph McCarthy's fanatical rants about communist subversion or the appalling record of imprisoned minorities that have resulted from conservative crime laws.

If, as Dr. Martin Luther King said, the arc of moral universe bends towards justice, then it is not due to conservatism that it is being bent that way.

Is a Robust Social Democracy the Best the Left has to Offer?

The large center-left, allegedly social democratic parties in Europe and North America are increasingly becoming irrelevant, hollowed-out shells of their former selves by abandoning party core principles, core constituents, and largely embracing right-wing conservative ideology as their own in an attempt to be taken "seriously" by the electorate and media. A good example of this can be seen in Britain's Labour Party leader Ed Milliband's recent legitimization of the governing Conservatives austerity agenda. Three years away from the next general election, Labour has effectively endorsed the Conservative Party's ideology and managed to alienate their own supporters while doing nothing to persuade independent voters from choosing Labour in the process.

Europe's large social democratic parties, like Britain's Labour, Germany's SPD, Scandinavia's Social Democrats, as well as those in financially-stricken countries like Spain, Portugal, and Greece, currently offer no better alternative to their right-wing counterparts other than a less harsh version of conservative, neoliberal doctrine. The same can be said of the supposedly center-left Democratic Party in the United States, who have largely embraced austerity and right-wing economics so as to be considered "serious" and "responsible".

Germany's SPD has lost hundreds of thousands of members in only a few years

The mainstream Left thus finds itself in a predicament; they cannot stray too far to the left for policies for fear of becoming unelectable, but their rightward shift has angered vast swathes of their formerly-ardent supporters, who are leaving en masse to alternative leftist parties. This shift has meant that the Left, out of new ideas, are in danger of becoming (or finalizing their transition to) conservatives-lite - Labour, for example, is increasingly being perceived by their core supporters of offering essentially the same social and economic platform as the Conservatives.

The mainstream Left is out of ideas. It has proven itself unable to build upon its successes of the past. This begs the question: Is a robust social democratic society the best the Left has to offer?

For many decades, the Left was able to smooth out the rough edges of capitalism so as to create a better, more prosperous, more healthy, more progressive society. The safety net may vary from country to country, but its existence is unquestioned. Though unquestioned, it is still threatened. That is the crux of the problem for social democrats everywhere - the safety net is under attack, its future uncertain, and the very fact that it can be destroyed means that there is a potentially gaping hole in future society that will need to be filled to avoid mass poverty and deprivation. The Left needs to fill this hole, but at the moment, they have no idea how to.

Instead of building upon their past successes, parties of the Left are joining conservatives in tearing them down. Though many countries have succeeded in vastly reducing poverty, hunger, deprivation, etc., they have not abolished them. Unemployment, high at the moment due to the financial crisis, nonetheless remains a constant threat for millions.

The vast majority of Democrats voted along with Republicans to deregulate Wall Street in 1999

The Left must come up with new ideas, new movements, new ways to improve life so that even in a recession as deep as the current one, citizens may stay out of poverty, can remain employed, can enjoy a high standard of living, need not go hungry, need not lose their homes, their savings, their health. The Left must find a way to reverse the effects of financial policies of the past several decades that have resulted in increased productivity but stagnant wages and the vast majority of income and wealth growth going to an incredibly small amount of the population who was already affluent to begin with.

A living wage, unemployment insurance, universal healthcare, social security, and the rest of the safety net is good, but it is not enough. For social democracy is under attack, the safety net is being torn down bit by bit, and the Left in Europe and North America is at its ideologically weakest in decades.

Now is the time for the Left to reinvigorate itself. Now is the time for the Left to reassert itself. Now is the time for the Left to return and fulfill its time-honored goals. The Left must offer a true alternative to neoliberalism. The Left must renew itself, or it will fade, wither, and die.

The Liberal Seduction; or, the Abandonment of a Party's Soul

In the 2010 New York State gubernatorial election, Democratic candidate Andrew Cuomo won over 60% of the vote in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans almost 2 to 1. That this happened in an election year which saw massive gains for the Republican Party was not in itself terribly surprising; after all, New York has reliably voted for the Democrats in Presidential elections for decades and the state Assembly has been controlled by the Democratic Party for over 35 years in a row.

Governor Cuomo's father, Mario, was also a Democratic governor of New York in the 1980s and early 1990s. Mario Cuomo was an outspoken and proud liberal, and his time in office reflected that. He governed at a time when, nationally, the political atmosphere was very much in the camp of Republican, conservative values. As such, his policies and overwhelming popularity of the time could be interpreted as a liberal and Democratic rebuke to the federal policies of the Reagan administration, which would pursue policies that led to increased inequality, homelessness, and poverty. Just as in the 1980s, the election of a liberal Democrat to serve as governor of a state of 20 million people could show that there were viable, progressive alternatives to the right-wing policies en vogue at the national level.

The only problem with this narrative is that Andrew Cuomo has not governed as a liberal; rather, he has governed as a mainstream, "serious" Democrat. This breed of the Democratic Party calls itself centrist but in reality is center-right. Generally speaking, the traditional American political spectrum for decades was that of two large, Big Tent parties, both of which were coalitions ranging from the center-left to moderate for the Democrats and center-right to moderate for the Republicans. The past 30 years has seen a shift in this paradigm, however, as the Republican Party has moved ever farther to the right, and much of the Democratic Party has shifted along with them. In doing so, they have abandoned the core, fundamental soul of their party and betrayed those whose interests they most need to represent.

Governor Cuomo exemplifies this mainstream Democratic strand. He embodies the "centrist" Democrats who have been nominated for president since Michael Dukakis in 1988 showed that true liberals had become laughingstocks, unable to be elected. President Clinton, a Southern Democrat, attempted health care reform, tried to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military, slightly raised taxes on the rich, and presided over a period of economic expansion for the United States. All of these things were generally applauded by the liberal base of the Democratic Party. What the liberals did not care about was the fact that his economic policies were, in certain crucial areas, to the right of Nixon. Clinton campaigned on "ending welfare" as we know it, and his approval of a bill that did just that was a huge step forward in the conservative assault against the already-meager social safety net in America. His deregulation of the financial sector was a major cause of the financial calamity that would engulf the United States several years later. He did nothing much, as a Democratic president, to reduce inequality or enact any other liberal policies of substance. But he remained a popular president, especially among liberal, because of the rare treats he threw to the Left.

Governor Cuomo's policies reflect this type of Democratic politician. His single greatest achievement so far must be considered the passage of a gay marriage bill, which made New York the biggest state by far to enact such legislation and in the process effectively assured his re-election due to the importance of this issue to the liberal base of his party. To be sure, this is a significant and welcome milestone of progress in American society. His efforts in getting it through the Republican-controlled Senate are to be given the highest commendations.

This one admittedly outstanding success serves to gloss over the other conservative, right-wing policies that he has enacted. While calling himself a "progressive who is broke", Governor Cuomo was faced with a rather large budget deficit and unable to borrow money to help pay for it. He refused, however, to extend a surtax on millionaires that was favored by the Democratic-controlled Assembly and would have covered almost a quarter of the multi-billion dollar shortfall in the budget. Instead, Cuomo has presided over mass layoffs of state employees, huge cuts in funding to public education, and prolonged fights with labor unions over issues such as collective bargaining and health care. He has supported the use of fracking in Upstate New York after declaring it unsafe for New York City (if it's unsafe for one area, why would it be safe for another?). He has enacted a mandate relief bill that was originally a passionately conservative idea and has been proven to be ineffective.

When Cuomo was running for office, he did not especially seek out the help of the Democratic Party's most consistent and loyal supporters: labor unions. Of course, this did not matter - who were they going to vote for, the Republican? It remains to be seen what the final effect of his cuts to social, health care, and education spending will be - but the important point is that his draconian fiscal measures fully encapsulate the ideology of the party that the vast majority of New Yorkers did not vote for.


Now, Governor Cuomo will be able to achieve a second term as governor with ease and, if he seeks it, can be a viable candidate for president in 2016. He will be re-elected as governor because he passed a gay marriage law. That this is such an important piece of legislation to liberal supporters, as well as the fact that there are only a handful of states (all in the Northeast) that have passed such laws, means that it is a landmark piece of legislation that will effectively dominate any summary of his tenure for the next several years. There will be little discussion of his atrocious budgetary decisions or that these decisions would have been almost identical to a Republican governor's. Even if there were such a discussion, who should the millions of Democratic voters elect, then? They won't vote for a Republican who is even further to the right than Cuomo. There is in actuality, no real good choice for voters.

This is a result of the Democratic Party's abandonment of its soul. There will also not be an issue made of the governor's fiscal policies among liberals, and that is the liberal seduction.

The Democratic Party, as an alleged party of the Left, is supposed to stand for the excluded of society; racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities, women, organized labor, the poor, the forgotten. Representing the Other means enacting policies that improve their condition and stand for what they stand for. This translates to social progress, but also should result in economic policies that reduce inequality, strengthen the safety net, and generally give a viable, progressive alternative to that of the Right. There are becoming fewer and fewer Democrats who embody this duality of social and economic liberalism, and fewer and fewer liberals who will make this something politically accountable to the politicians who no longer act in such a way.

Governor Cuomo can become Presidential Candidate Cuomo in 2016 (and he could win, too); for the Left, he can say "I passed a gay marriage law"; for the so-called middle, he can say "I reformed health care, worked with both parties, and made hard decisions that were necessary to New York on a path to fiscal security"; and for the Right, he can say "I passed a budget ahead of schedule, without raising taxes, in New York!" By showing favorable sides of himself to the Left, Right, and Center, Cuomo would be a formidable candidate in the Democratic primaries and the general election. His is such a good template for success that Maryland governor Martin O'Malley is now also going to attempt to pass a gay marriage law in a state where Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans.

This is the template of the modern day, mainstream, centrist, "serious" Democrat. The safety net is an entitlement program that can and should be tweaked (read: shredded). Universal health care is a pipe dream. Taxes are bad. Cutting education funding is a responsible decision. Labor unions are nice fundraisers, but let's face it, they're on the decline and they have to be realistic. Even illegal, malicious, unjust, preemptive war is acceptable (the number of prominent Democrats, many of whom were considered "liberal", who voted for the Iraq War Resolution is too many to count). It's important that the middle class is strong (but no substantial steps are taken to bolster them). Women should have the right to choose whether to have an abortion, the riff-raff should stay out of areas where decent people do their business (what have "serious" Democrats done about the prison industrial complex? What about improving the lives of the millions of impoverished and oppressed minority population?) and at the same time, we need to ensure that business, Wall Street, and the wealthiest campaign donors enjoy the good life, above everything else and even at the expense of everyone else.

The United States needs and deserves viable choices and alternatives when choosing for whom to vote. The Democratic Party's abandonment of their historic core ideals too often make this choice a false one for Americans. America needs a bold, robust, viable progressive alternative to the policies of the Right. The Democratic Party must fulfill this need, and come up with a 21st-century New Deal, a 21st-century Fair Deal, a 21st-century Great Society. The void of the past 35 years has been deafening; now is the time for the Left to roar.

The Democratic Party is Not Enough

In his State of the Union Address of 1944, the great Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt put forth what he termed an "economic Bill of Rights" for the American people. Proclaiming that it these rights had become economically "self-evident", President Roosevelt boldly and unabashedly asserted that every American, regardless of race, gender, skin color, or any other divisor, had the inalienable right to:

-a good job with a living wage
-a good education
-adequate health care
-adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment through Social Security
-freedom from unfair competition and monopolies of business



This Second Bill of Rights was never able to implemented, as the President died suddenly only a year later, while the Second World War still raged. Though his speech and its outline for making the United States more prosperous and equal are now almost 70 years in the past, many supporters of the Democratic Party still vote for the party in the hope that these cherished ideals may become reality.

It is a noble dream. Were that simply voting for the Democratic Party could achieve such goals. But it has become increasingly clear over the past several years, decades even, that the Democratic Party by itself is not enough to accomplish what FDR set out for the country.

For each of those inalienable rights that President Roosevelt envisioned should be enshrined in law now lie in tatters, or are dangerously close to becoming so. In the midst of the most dire economic crisis since the Great Depression, the situation appears bleak, with the Democrats mostly underwhelming in any of their attempts to rectify the general situation of millions of Americans.

Millions of Americans live in poverty or just barely out of it. The federal minimum wage remains scandalously low, and does not even approach what would be required to be considered a living wage.

The American education system remains one of the worst among industrialized nations, in terms of high-quality education being available to the most amount of citizens. This has been and remains so despite decades of policy efforts from the Democratic Party that have ultimately proven fruitless.

The national shame that is the morally bankrupt American health care system remains entrenched in place, with millions of Americans uninsured and unable to afford decent care. The United States is the only industrialized country in the world where thousands and thousands of citizens become destitute every year because they cannot afford to pay their hospital bills. The Democratic Party has been unable and even sometimes unwilling to unify around a core stance of universal, national health care for the United States. Indeed, though the Democrats controlled both Congress and the Presidency for several years, the only health care bill that passed was largely a boon to the private insurance industry and still leaves millions without adequate care.

FDR's desire to restrain the innate vices of monopoly and exploitation of markets that accompany business interests has fallen by the wayside, as the Democratic Party has for over 35 years increasingly embraced the fiscally conservative positions of low taxes, minimal regulation, free trade, social spending restraint, and privatization as a means to sway the important business lobby. Such a transition represents an abandonment of the core principles of the Democratic Party of social and economic justice, as their rightward shift in economic policy played a large role in the collapse of the financial industry and the gross rise in inequality in the United States.

Today, many Democrats are about as far removed from being an FDR-style politician as can be. Though not all have abandoned the ideals of the party that created Social Security, helped massively reduce inequality and poverty, and ended segregation, an alarming amount of Democratic politicians support and buy into the reactionary conservative narrative of repealing the New Deal in its entirety. They protest and complain about the severity of cuts in social spending demanded by Republicans, yet they do not make the argument that lowering taxes and dismantling the welfare state are unnecessary and unjust - they simply advocate less severe cuts to social spending as a way of being the lesser of two evils. This desertion of an important liberal economic and social paradigm has left the difference and breadth between the two parties in socio-economic terms remarkably thin. The ones who suffer, however, are those who have no choice or say in the cuts in services that they need, as almost no one is arguing for them.

In this way, the Democratic Party has largely followed the trend of other center-left social-democratic parties of Europe, who have lurched rightward on socio-economic matters. Parties like Germany's SPD or Britain's Labour Party have embraced much of the neoliberal fiscally conservative economic platform, and in many of the same areas have failed as the Democrats have failed.

No party can be perfect. Nor is it necessarily a good thing for a two-party political system to have two ideologically rigid parties inflexibly trying to run the country. But liberals and Democratic supporters must take a hard look at the party and ask what it has done or is able to do for them and for the country.

Certainly, the Democratic Party has been unable to eliminate or even massively reduce poverty. Nor have they seemed able or even that willing to enact universal health care, a living wage, or the robust regulation of Wall Street, Big Business, corporations, and the financing and banking sectors that the country requires for the vast majority of its citizens to benefit from a strong economy.

The party of Roosevelt dreamed of achieving full employment - that is, 3% unemployment or less - and acted strongly in an attempt to do so. Decades have passed and this is no longer seen nearly as desired or plausible by "mainstream" Democrats today.

Democrats ended segregation, enacted the Voting Rights Act, and gave women the right to vote. But what have they accomplished since 1965 in terms of reducing the massive economic and social inequality and injustice that is rampant among the large minority populations of African- and Latino-Americans? Public schools are now more segregated by race than they were under President Johnson. The current Democratic administration of President Obama has taken up the conservative stance of "securing borders", indirectly helping aid the demonization of immigrants - all while a record number of deportations have been made.

The Democratic Party has been unable to coherently run a narrative against the Republican war on women's reproductive rights, which has seen a drastic increase in a very short time in the number of anti-abortion laws enacted in many states.

The Democratic Party has stood by and been unable or unwilling to stem or reverse the decline of labor unions in the United States. As Chris Hedges has described in detail, the Democratic Party used to be a robust part of the strong American labor movement - the movement that achieved Social Security, the 40-hour work week, weekends off, paid vacation, and pay for overtime. Sometime in the 1960s, however, the Democrats began to abandon labor. The result has been a slow, inexorable decline in the political power and membership of unions across the nation, with poor results for a majority of blue-collar workers. The failure of the Democratic Party to represent at least in some way the interests of labor unions has resulted in the stagnation of working class Americans, with inequality sky-rocketing while wages plateau.

Democrats voted to go to war in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Democrats voted to first pass and then extend the PATRIOT Act, shredding basic civil liberties in the process. Democrats voted to deregulate the financial sector. Democratic majorities at the federal and the state level have enacted brutal cuts - just look at California's or New York's recent budgets, which saw massive tuition increases paired with devastating reductions in social spending that millions of people depend upon. Many Democrats, such as those that make of the majority of the New Jersey state legislature, have embraced the radical agenda of right-wing governors that will further damage the vast majority of Americans, including the core supporters of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has been unable to enact any meaningful climate change legislation, and has barely been able to fend off the destruction of the Environmental Protection Agency. After the financial and environmental disaster that was the BP Oil Spill, the Democratic Congress apparently enacted no meaningful legislation to ensure that such a catastrophe could never occur again.

The Democratic Party has proven unable and unwilling to enact any of the meaningful reforms that the country desperately needs. This stems partly from their cooperation and involvement in the incestuous two-party political system that dominates the country; no doubt many Democrats would like to see reform of some kind, none of them are truly willing or able to do so because true reformers would stand small chances of being elected without the support of the business community whose interests they must please and once elected, would be unable to enact any reform without the support of the vast majority of the rest of the party (which is not going to happen).

But where were the Democrats as millions of homes were being foreclosed? What have the Democrats done to ensure that the financial collapse of 2007-2008 will never occur again, as President Roosevelt did in the 1930s? Where are the Democrats who have zealously gone after the parasitic financial criminals that extorted trillions of the public's money for their own selfish greed? Where are the Democrats who treat the education budget like Republicans treat the military budget? Where are the Democrats who rage against the moral injustice of the PATRIOT Act and the shambles of America's health care, education, infrastructure, environmental record, or massive inequality? Those who do embody these are too few, too quiet, and increasingly becoming too late. The party as a whole has abandoned itself.

Democratic President Bill Clinton campaigned on, then signed into law, the destruction of welfare as an entitlement program - something that should have been the antithesis of a Democrat. President Clinton also helped implement financial deregulation and increased the effects of globalization and free trade upon the U.S. - decisions that cost many workers their jobs, increased inequality, and helped lead to the financial collapse.

This is a party that needs the support of progressives, liberals, and other leftists but takes their votes and funding for granted because they know that they have no choice but to vote for them, no matter how miserable their record is in actually promoting progress. This is a party that has not nominated a true liberal for president since 1988, that lashed out at its liberal base for holding the Obama campaign true to its word to not do "politics as usual".

Why did the Democratic Party, when it had majorities in Congress and the Presidency, not repeal the disastrous Bush-era tax cuts? Why did they not pass any meaningful raise in the minimum wage, or enact any environmental bills that assertively move the U.S. away from foreign oil and towards renewable energy? Why did they not treat the economic disaster like a third World War? Why do special interests, corporations, and Big Business maintain their vastly disproportional influence upon American politics and elections?

True, some state Democratic Parties have enacted progressive social legislation, such as gay marriage. But these are almost entirely in traditionally liberal states. If gay marriage is a civil right, why is the national party not coming out in favor of ending the oppression of homosexuals as they did in 1965?

The Democratic Party is too broad of a coalition of liberals, moderates, and conservatives to ever be truly unified, as the Republican Party is. In some ways, this is a strength. But it is also a handicap for those Americans who desire to see true, meaningful change in a progressive manner for the country. Too often today does the Democratic Party stand for the status quo rather than progress. The Republican Party enthusiastically advocated for the destruction of Medicare, whereas the Democratic response was to say "we won't touch it", not "we will make it better" or "the low-cost, universal health care that the elderly receive is an inalienable right that every American deserves and requires". Too many Democratic candidates simply stand in the way of the insanity that would occur were a Republican to be elected - but this is only a means of making American elections a farce. The lesser of two evils is still evil, after all.

When Al Gore lost the presidency because of blatant voter fraud and an unprecedented Supreme Court decision, there was barely a murmur from the Democratic Party about abolishing the electoral college and moving to a national popular election for president, as France does, for example. There is massive support for the opinion that corporations, lobbyists, Wall Street, and special interests have too much say in politics, yet true, meaningful campaign finance reform is not a cause that most Democrats champion. Nor are their proposals enough to truly be the change in the system that the country needs.

Much of the time, the Democratic Party has the country's best interests at heart. But they are not enough. There was a time when the majority of the Democratic Party's coalition stood for those ideals that Franklin Delano Roosevelt proudly announced in his Second Bill of Rights. That time is no more.

For those who wish to see a more egalitarian, just, integrated, progressive America, it is not enough to vote for the Democratic Party. Outside organizations, such as the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, or Fairvote.org can attempt to elucidate issues for the public while also providing funding and support for Democrats, in the hopes that it will lead them to enact certain progressively-minded laws. In the end, though, the best this can hope to achieve is elect more Democrats, who have shown themselves incapable of enacting much of a progressive agenda.

It may be that the corrupt influence of the dirty American political system has been an invisible hand that has played a much larger role in the failure to achieve the Economic Bill of Rights. But until a majority of Democratic politicians unflinchingly and unabashedly espouse the ideals of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, nothing much will change for the better for the country.

One should not and cannot place all of one's faith in the Democratic Party, despite their best intentions. It is up to the people to remake government and the country what it once was and should be: for the people, by the people, and of the people.

America is a Liberal Nation

It seems to be common knowledge that the United States is a pretty conservative country, relative to other industrialized countries like Germany, France, or Canada. The recent electoral triumph for the Republican Party would back this up, as they have never seen an expansion of government they approved of or a tax increase they liked (unless proposed by a Republican administration).

Polling numbers seem to bear this out as well, with more Americans reporting that they are "conservative" over "liberal" or "moderate" (in fact, the Republican Party has a super-majority of members who say they are conservative, compared to the Democrats who are split mostly between "moderates" and "liberals"). This is actually an increase from previous years, and since moderate voters tended to go for the Republicans in the midterms, it would make sense to claim that America is a conservative country.

Except it's not.



The extension of the Bush tax cuts, as vehemently advocated by the Republican party, would seem to confirm that Americans favor the right-wing economic view of "trickle-down" economics. Except they don't. The vast majority of Americans want taxes raised on the rich, with even a majority of self-identified Republicans expressing disapproval of the GOP tax plan.

Over 70% want abortion to remain legal.

65% wants the government to protect them from terrorism, but not at the expense of their civil liberties.

50% compared to 43% want the protection of the environment given precedence over economic priorities, even in the middle of a monumental financial crisis.

Majorities and Super-majorities support a variety of LGBT rights' issues.

59% support stem-cell research.

Most Americans want the wealthy to help fund Social Security - a cherished support system for the majority of Americans.

A majority of Americans oppose cuts to education, social security, and other social spending to help reduce the deficit.

A super-majority of Americans want less corporate influence.

Most Americans support the new Health Care Law, either approving of it as it currently is or wanting it to be more expansive (diametrically opposed to the GOP call to repeal the law).

In stark contrast to the Republicans, Americans overwhelmingly favor extending unemployment benefits during the economic crisis.

Contrary to what the Tea Party and the Republican Party says, Americans don't want smaller government, necessarily, but rather more efficient government. This means most support social programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare but have a decidedly unfavorable view of how well Congress functions.

How is it that on almost every issue, majorities of Americans favor what would be called the center-left or liberal position, yet only 20% or so call themselves liberals? Why does the political landscape not reflect this in Congress?

Much of the failure of the U.S. government to do its job in a more efficient manner is because of the increasingly-polarized nature of politics. The presidency of Barack Obama has seen an unthinkable amount of resistance from Republicans, even though they agree with some of what he's done and much of his policies have widespread support. The Tea Party movement has arisen, calling for a farther turn to the right. It's hard to take a center or center-left position when one party has a significant amount of moderates and the other is unapologetically on the far-right, with very few moderates. Such an unwillingness to compromise and deal in a responsible fashion with the other party has led to a pushing of the political spectrum to the Right, even though ordinary people's views for the most part have become more liberal.

There are, of course, the plutocratic reasons - huge corporations paying millions and billions of dollars, funding a vast network of right-wing think tanks and spending on propaganda campaigns to get right-wing Republicans elected - which steer political discourse far to the right (and have the added benefit of enacting policies that directly affect how much money the plutocrats make/are allowed to keep).

An effect of this plutocracy has been to make "liberal" an ugly word, so people don't call themselves that even if they hold liberal views. The center-right has become increasingly uncompromising and deranged, as evinced by the apoplectic raging of Rush Limbaugh, the insane conspiratorial ramblings of Glenn Beck, or the incomprehensible raving of Sarah Palin. The hegemony of the two major parties is reinforced, creating a system in which they must take part rather than reform.

The result is that the government has increasingly become more for the plutocrats than for the people, and only a monumental grassroots campaign to change things will be able to solve America's coming economic, political, and social crises. Publicly-financed elections, a switch to proportional representation and a multi-party system, and the abolishment of the electoral college are needed, necessary steps to help make up the democracy deficit in America. The country needs and deserves a well-functioning government that reflects the true will and desires of the American people.

Without some kind of mass grassroots social movement, it appears that Lincoln's impassioned declaration that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" will go unfulfilled.

Whither the Left?

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission of the United States has just released its final report on the causes of the economic catastrophe that has so impacted the world. The report concludes that the monumental economic collapse was largely avoidable and occurred mostly because of "human action and inaction"; that is to say, in so many words, insufficient regulatory practices at all levels of government and the private sector combined with an excessive drive to accumulate more wealth by financial institutions, ultimately leading to the worst economic crisis in 80 years.
At the same time that the institutions were causing this financial meltdown, which economically crippled millions of people who had contributed nothing to the crisis, they were rewarded with massive tax-payer-funded bailouts by the government and lavished themselves with massive bonuses.

While this type of financial bust is inherently systemic in a capitalist economy, the magnitude of this crisis should have, in particular, irrevocably damaged right-wing, neoliberal economic practices that preached deregulation of financial sectors and, more broadly, strengthened parties on the Left that are more anti-free market or less pro-capitalism. Yet, despite this demonstration of the deficiencies in neoliberalism or capitalism, the Right appears to have emerged stronger, while the Left is in disarray.

In Europe, only a few countries are currently governed by left-wing parties (Norway, Spain, Portugal among them), while the majority of the rest, including the large economies of Germany, Britain, France, and Italy are run by conservatives and/or neoliberals. Support for social democratic parties like Britain's Labour or Germany's SPD are the lowest they've been in decades.

In the U.S., the Tea Party advocated for even less government regulation and the right-wing Republican Party just won control of the House of Representatives. A Conservative minority government in Canada has remained in power for the past 5 years, despite the opposition's best efforts at unseating them. Chile elected its first conservative president in years.

Certainly, some of the Right's success in Europe can be attributed to a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, but this doesn't explain wholly why they control a majority of ruling governments on the continent.

Whither the Left? Why has the left wing been unable to conquer the right at a time when they should have already easily done so?

Some think that it's because they have nothing new to offer. If that were true, though, then why did the Republican Party gain so many seats after having essentially the same platform that Americans overwhelmingly rejected in 2006 and 2008?

Perhaps it's because the message isn't getting out about what the Left stands for. This is a possibility. The center/center-left Liberal Party of Canada has been having somewhat of an identity crisis for the past several years, with voters unsure of what the party stands for; their traditional support has steadily eroded. But, if one looks at the fracturing of the Left in European countries, voters are clearly given a variety of options of left-wing choices and it's still not been enough, even for traditionally strong leftist countries like Sweden or Denmark.

One of the major problems facing the Left is this fracturing. The German Left is composed of the Greens, SPD, and Die Linke. The SPD has ruled out the possibility of any future coalition governments with Die Linke, who should be a natural ally. So has the Liberal Party of Canada thus far appeared offended at even the mention of joining with the social democratic NDP. The Obama administration's disdain for the "Professional Left" has been well-documented. If everyone on the Left apparently hates each other, then they cannot unite and therefore allow the Right to take control. The French Right is united behind the UMP, after several conservative and center-right parties merged together several years ago.

For so-called "Big Tent" parties who were recently unseated by their conservative counterparts, like Labour in Britain or the SPD in Germany, the fracturing of the Left attributed to their decline in popularity, as traditional core supporters disliked Tony Blair's Third Way and support of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, while German voters questioned just how socialist the SPD were after they introduced more right-wing policies, like raising the retirement age and changing the way social welfare payments were distributed. The SPD reached a new low in the 2009 Federal election, while the other parties on the German Left achieved historically high percentages.

American liberals became disillusioned with the Democrats when they perceived certain right-wing policies of the Obama administration, and they stayed home during the 2010 midterms. It can be inferred, therefore, that supporters of center-left or Left wing parties expect these parties to behave in a certain ideological fashion, an expectation that can be sometimes harsh on parties that have to develop policies in a more pragmatic fashion due to the circumstances of the situation.

The mutual dislike the Left feels for itself has only done more to damage to its common cause; austerity is the new nationalization in Europe as a result of conservative governments who proclaim to want to rein in spending and reduce deficits, but possibly have a thinly-veiled desire to tear up the social safety net. Pillars of Left-wing political monuments, like Britain's NHS or America's Social Security program are inching closer to the chop-block. For those who believe in a large government presence and social programs designed to smooth the rough edges of capitalism, they face a severe threat to their cherished ideals.

With in-fighting, blame, and accusations the order of the day for the Left, however, the defense of these pillars has become weaker at a time when they should be assured. For a resurgence of the Left, common cause and consensus will have to be found. As well, the impatience of many who want change and progress will have to be overcome, as the journey in the future will be a long, bumpy ride.

Disillusionment and the Two Obamas

Several months ago, this blog advised the Democrats to grow a pair. They did not, and they paid for it in the midterms. Now, two months into the presidency of Barack Obama, what is the country's stance on the President and his policies? Those on the Right are unsurprisingly against almost everything he has ever said or done (though it must be said that this level of vehement rhetoric goes above and beyond that which was applied to Bill Clinton). The Left are equally as annoyed and disappointed in Obama, just for radically different reasons than the Right is. How has the President managed to dismay and anger just about everybody?

The Right's critiques of Obama range from outrageous, hilarious, to hysterical, vague, and shallow. The right-wing media's over-the-top propaganda machine and big-spending sugar daddies, along with their Tea Party allies, have undoubtedly had an impact on convincing people that the President and his policies are ruining the nation, spending the country into a debt that they will never be able to come out of.

Conservative critics point out that the Obama administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars that would reduce unemployment to under 8%; when this number stayed relatively high, they could then claim that the stimulus was a waste of money, government spending was out of control, and the size of the government had substantially increased. As Paul Krugman has pointed out on several different occasions in several different ways, this critique is almost completely false: while it was naive to claim the stimulus would reduce unemployment to under 8%, it was largely composed of tax cuts/credits and only a fraction as large as it needed to be to spur economic growth; the supposed "huge increase in government spending" is almost entirely related to increased unemployment benefits, health care spending, etc., as a result of the financial crisis.

While small-government conservatives were bound to be aggrieved at any perceived government interaction in the economy, the Left is equally up in arms over the Obama presidency. Their disillusionment with the course of the administration had a huge effect on allowing the Republicans to sweep back into power in the House. This disillusionment springs from the perceived disparity in "campaign Obama" and President Obama. Now, anyone who had read his books or looked into his political views during the 2008 primaries would not be surprised by how his presidency has gone; he has largely stuck with a cautious, well-thought out approach that clings to the center and attempts to gain bipartisan consensus on important issues. But voters by and large didn't want a centrist, get-'er-done president. They wanted true "change to believe in", like Obama himself talked about whilst campaigning:



Conservatives might take his "fundamentally transforming the United States" quote in a decidedly darker direction, but many of those rapturous faces on November 4, 2008 hoped and believed in this fundamental transformation. This perception of who they wanted Obama to be and who he has governed as has led to the classic situation of glass half-full/glass half-empty.

The half-full view has a pretty favorable view of the president: he's actually been the most progressive president the country has seen for decades (which says a lot about the political spectrum in the U.S.); Congress has been more productive in 2 years than many other sessions were in entire terms; the stimulus bill and other financial measures halted what could have been a Great Depression-like meltdown; he's been hampered not only by vociferous Republican dissent, but also members of his own party (other liberal presidents like FDR and LBJ had well over 60 Democrats in the Senate to pass legislation, a luxury Obama could have only dreamt of); the Affordable Care Act is a giant step closer to providing if not single-payer then more affordable health care to as many Americans as possible; the financial reform bill will help to prevent future Wall Street excesses from getting out of hand and damaging the economy; Obama is after all, not a wizard, but rather just one part of the three branches of government - he cannot force his will upon the rest of the government to do what he wants.

From this point of view, the Obama presidency has been pretty productive so far, despite some setbacks and downers that are inevitable for any presidency. This perspective on the president is, unfortunately for Obama, in a constant fight for supremacy against the glass half-empty critics on the Left; the half-empties apparently were winning the fight enough for the midterms to be a "shellacking" for Obama and the Democrats.


Those on the Left who truly wanted fundamental change wanted a president who would fight for them, not the plutocrats. They wanted the banks nationalized, a bigger stimulus, single-payer healthcare, gay marriage, end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, an end to the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay closed, etc. Instead of breaking up the banks or nationalizing them, Obama's "socialist" policies supported those of George Bush, who essentially threw money at the Big Banks without asking them what they were going to do with it (by comparison, Germany's government - composed of conservatives and neoliberals - enacted a financial rescue package to the left of Obama and the Democrats).

The banks, big business, and Wall Street not only got off with just a slap on the wrist from Obama but he praised their obscenely large salaries and has surrounded himself with the very Wall Street insiders that so many in the public want to see taken down. The Left wanted to see the Democrats and Obama actually take a stand; instead they saw Obama cave in and compromise with Republicans with little or nothing liberal to show for it. Such perceived cave-ins and compromises inflamed resentment and negative sentiment on the Left.

The stimulus was decently-sized, but needed to be much larger; Obama could have fought for a bigger piece of the pie, but instead paraded around the insufficient stimulus as if it would truly cure the country's financial woes. After almost ruining health care reform, the Democrats had to settle for leaving the industry in private hands, thereby ensuring a morally and fiscally irresponsible system could continue. Not even the weak-sauce public-option was that important to the President, apparently.

The financial reform bill did not go nearly far enough in making sure Wall Street's influence on the overall economy would be reduced, letting them off the hook once again. At a time when corporate profits and hedge funds are raking in the dough more than ever, Obama's response was to ensure they keep making millions and billions of dollars while middle-class and poor Americans remain homeless and jobless.

On the civil liberties front, Obama's track record is downright deplorable: Guantanamo Bay remains open, the Patriot Act and its flagrant violations of basic rights, including torture, was continued. Such continuations of Bush-era policies were not what people had in mind when they voted for "Change we can believe in". Obama's lukewarm support for gay rights has become increasingly irritating to those who no longer wish to wait for progress. Many wonder why he does not simply issue an executive order to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell - much like Truman did when he desegregated the Army in 1948.

While it is true that Obama has reduced troop levels in Iraq, 50,000 soldiers still remain as occupiers in a foreign country while 30,000 additional troops were sent to continue the occupation of another foreign country - costing precious lives and dollars in the process.

To top off the right-wing health care reform, right-wing stimulus, right-wing violations of civil liberties, and right-wing financial reform, Obama basically told the Left "shut up and take what we give you". No wonder many liberals were unmotivated to vote in the midterms - Obama had turned out to be much more like Mitt Romney than Dennis Kucinich.

Where does the truth lie among all these views, opinions, and condemnations of President Obama? Things are certainly not so black, white, and gray like the Left, the Right, and the middle seem to think.

Republican obstructionism cannot be overstated - the filibuster has been used by Republicans more in the last 2 years than in the entire nineteenth century -, meaning that a simple majority is no longer enough to pass legislation. And the president can only sign the bills that come before him; while the House has passed an array of progressive legislation, this has often been watered-down or rejected by the Senate. Clearly, the president would prefer to have passed a more comprehensive climate-change bill, a bigger stimulus, or let tax cuts for the rich expire. In his opinion, the votes weren't there and these were the best options he could come up with. Unfortunately for Obama, the Democrats' failure to break Senate filibusters is frustrating to many voters who view them as being more weak-kneed than they might actually be. This in turn reflects badly upon the president, who must shoulder much of this criticism. Not to mention the vitriol being spewed about the President from the Right - it's quite breathtaking in its hysterics and predictions of doom. Perhaps the reason the Right's criticism has been so vicious is because of Obama's success - conservatives would absolutely love it if one of their candidates had been a media darling like Obama was in 2008.

The president seems to think that a lot of the criticism coming his way is because he hasn't enacted enough change in a quick enough fashion. But partisan supporters aren't idiots or overly optimistic. They realize that politics is politics and they won't get everything they want right away and in exactly the way they want it to. No doubt conservatives were annoyed with Bush for not being able to make abortions illegal or privatize social security. No, the problem many disappointed Obama supporters have with the president is not that he hasn't enacted change fast enough, but that he hasn't even really attempted to be the president he persuaded people he would be.

The President showed an embrace of the kind of leftist-populism motivating progressives when running in 2008, but has since showed a sort of apprehension or even disdain for actually governing from the center-left. Perhaps afraid of the political/social ramifications of enacting truly progressive legislation too rapidly, Obama has often said that he is looking farther down the road with his policies than many are seeing. This trepidation for more leftist policies seems to be borne from a desire to win over moderates and gain some support from the Right, which is slightly naive in that he has stuck with trying to be bipartisan after it had become abundantly clear to everyone that there was no interest on the other side of the aisle. There are, however, examples of politicians steering to the left and achieving success, which gives credence to the notion of a different tack for the administration.

Obama's enthusiasm gap stems from the changed perception of him as bringing change to being a "business-as-usual" guy. If voters had wanted someone who could be a good politician, beat the Republicans at their own game, and knuckle-down to get things done, surely they would have voted for Hillary Clinton. But voters wanted radical transformation, not business as usual.

To think that one man could change an entire faulty, broken system is ridiculous - the problem lies rather in that Obama hasn't looked like he wants to change the system. If the president had railed against Big Banks and Wall Street, advocated for a much larger stimulus and outlined a comprehensive plan, clearly calling for single-payer health care but had then been stymied in Congress, he could rightfully say to voters "I'm trying my best here to get the things done that this country truly needs, to truly help change our nation for the better. But these other guys don't want that; they want business as usual. If you want to see true change, vote against them and vote for change in 2010." In such a scenario, even if Obama loses, he wins. Instead, he began bargaining in the middle, hoping for bipartisanship and then paraded around such little victories as though they were V-E Day, while also castigating the Left for wanting a bit more than standard Democratic politicos. Such a maneuver has clearly failed to motivate or inspire those who voted en masse for Obama.

Motivation was always going to be difficult to maintain after the euphoria that greeted Barack Obama's presidential election. The disillusionment that has gradually increased from Obama supporters is perhaps slightly unfair, as the president is simply being the kind of politician he's always been. It is, however, his fault for embracing progressive rhetoric to get elected and then dropping the brand when he entered the White House.

While some of his policies aren't as strong or effective as they could be - the Bush-era continuation of civil liberties violations is scandalous - much good has come from his presidency. Though one step forward instead of three or five is a small step, it is a step nonetheless. The alternative is and will remain unthinkable and unforgivable. Much of politics is about perception. Obama needs to persuade those who most want to believe in him that it is worth doing so.

The 2010 Midterm Elections: An Analysis

Just two years after sweeping to power and gaining control of the Presidency and Congress, the Democrats lost a massive amount of seats in the House and Senate, as well as several state governorships, during the 2010 midterm elections in a stunning resurgence for the Republican party. Is this turnaround the "will of the people", a strong rebuke of the "liberal policies" of President Obama and the Democrats, as many Republicans are wont to say? Well, that depends. It depends on how many people voted, who voted, and why they voted for whom they did.


According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are roughly 210 million or so eligible voters in the United States. In 2008, 63% or 131,000,000 voted in the Presidential election. The 2010 midterms saw this number fall to just 89 million, which translates to about 40% voter turnout. This kind of lower turnout is normal for midterm elections, but nevertheless it means that a substantial amount of citizens stayed at home, either those who voted in 2008 and those who did not.

Does a 40% minority of eligible voters represent the "will of the American people"? No, not really. Not at all, actually, when one examines a bit further who of this 40% voted.

According to exit polls, embarrassingly low amounts of young people and minorities exercised their democratic rights this past November. Millions of Obama supporters, who had helped elect him in 2008, stayed home. 29 million or so, to give an estimate. On top of that, 13% of people who had voted for Obama in 2008 switched sides and voted Republican in 2010. As well, the people who did vote tended much more strongly to be middle-aged or senior citizens, white, and conservative or at least Republican-leaning. Many self-proclaimed moderates also favored the Republicans more so than Democrats.

This older, more homogeneous, more Republican demographic that turned out returned to the Republicans previously conservative strongholds that had swung to Obama and the Democrats in 2008, as well springing a few surprises on established Democratic incumbents, like in Illinois and Wisconsin. Indeed, the more fiscally conservative and moderate Blue Dogs lost half of their seats to Republicans in districts that had gone to the Democrats in the previous election.


The reasons for why so many Obama supporters and Democratic voters either didn't show up or voted Republican can be discussed in a separate article. The main question is what the most important issue was to those who bothered voting, and the answer is overwhelmingly because of the poor state of the economy. It's clear that few Americans have much faith, if any, in Congress and that President Obama's fiscal policies have not done enough to spur economic growth. Despite some neo-conservative claims that voters were rejecting the Democrats' and Obama's liberalism, the fact is that most people didn't consider the President's policies when deciding for whom to vote. 63% of voters said the economy was the most important issue to them, and those who said so voted 54% to 43% for the Republicans.

So moderate voters went more for Republicans to see if they could fix the economy any better than the Democrats had for the past 2 years (no doubt unaware, unwilling to recognize, or uncaring that the Republicans had in the most dickish fashion possible blocked and obstructed any and every form of economic assistance put forth by the Democrats). Republican voters unsurprisingly voted for Republicans, which combined with the moderate voters' economic concerns and liberal disillusionment with President Obama and the Democrats to hand the GOP a huge political win.


Pretty straightforward, really. The 2010 midterms seemed to be more a fragmented, haphazard display of the American two-party system, albeit accidentally. Of course, there are also the plutocratic reasons for the GOP victory: Some voters might have thought evil things about government, health care, Obama, the deficit, etc. But in American politics, money talks and money largely went with the Republican party; conservative organizations outspent liberal ones 2-1, and large special-interest industries bankrolled Republican campaigns. This was the most expensive midterm election ever, with over $4 billion spent; is it surprising that special-interests, corporations, and Big Money industries spent large amounts of cash on politicians who were far to the right of the President's mildly liberal rhetoric of reform?

A representative democracy should reflect the wants, needs, and opinions of the populace; American democracy increasingly is representative of only a small portion of population, either through plutocracy or voter apathy as a indirect result of plutocracy. The will of conservatives is certainly clear now; they demonstrated that simply by showing up at the polls, something that liberals and Democrats did not nearly do enough of to hold back the Right. Conservatives clearly want less government spending, lower taxes, a repeal of healthcare, blah, blah, blah. But what does the rest of the country want? What do the vast majority of Americans want? Not what the GOP is selling, that's for sure.

What does this mean for the future? The Republicans can no longer simply oppose any and everything the Democrats propose for the purpose of painting the President a failure...or maybe they can. They may try to throw some meat to their base and repeal health care, but that is extremely unlikely to pass. They may end up compromising with Democrats on certain issues, and be obstructionist and irresponsibly selfish on other subjects, which very well could end in a suspension of the government. Such a fiasco would unquestionably harm the country, but this is what people voted for and what they may receive.

At a time of deep economic crisis, the United States requires leadership, responsibility, cool heads, and sensibility. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the people will get this with the incoming group of Republicans, but time will only tell.

Runaway Capitalism: The Biggest Threat to America

The United States is reeling. Reeling from the strain of fighting wars in two different countries, reeling from the worst economic crisis in 80 years, reeling from a political climate that makes it extremely difficult to tackle the preponderance of problems facing the country.

With unemployment hovering near 10%, and underemployment much higher, the poor economy is on most people's mind. Many are angry at the government for lack of success in creating jobs. Many are also angry at the amount of money spent to save Wall Street, the Auto Industry, and the Big Banks, allowing CEOs and other millionaires to lavish themselves with huge bonuses while ordinary Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to get by.

The last time income inequality was this high was the Great Depression

Some recent statistics paint an even more dire situation:

Over 43 million Americans live under the poverty line, which goes up to 60 million when other factors are taken into consideration. This is equivalent to one in seven Americans.

50.7 million Americans are uninsured.

In 2005, the income of the top 20% of society was 1,500% higher than that of the lowest 20%, the highest gap ever recorded.

For the latest year that data was compiled, the tax rate for multinational corporations in the United States was about 2.3%, a significantly lower amount than ordinary Americans.

The financial sector's share of domestic corporate profits right before the economic crisis was 41%, up from 16% in 1973.

The share of total income by the top 10% of society went from 34.6% in 1980 to 48.2% in 2008.
The share of total income by the top 1% of society for the same time period went from 10% to over 20%.

Real median income for working-age households has fallen over the same time period.


Income inequality in the United States has widened over the past several decades, making America not only more unequal than other developed countries but one of the most unequal in the world.

Ordinary Americans are struggling to find a job and make ends meet, while those responsible for the financial crisis, Wall Street and the Big Banks, were bailed out by taxpayer money and are able to hand out huge paychecks to CEOs.

The top 25 hedge fund managers earned over $25 billion last year, in the midst of an economic recession larger than any in recent memory.

Over the past several decades, the rich have gotten richer, the middle class and the poor have remained stagnant, and income inequality has increased exponentially. The United States is in danger of becoming a Third World country.

How did this happen? Corporate money and special interest lobbyists have flooded Congress with funds, making politicians beholden to those who have given them the most capital, and not their constituents, the American people. Decades of ever more deregulation and lower taxes, as well as loopholes large enough to drive through, have exacerbated this situation to disproportionately and deferentially help the rich at the expense of the less well-off.

Both parties have encouraged this behavior, and during this most recent crisis, with widespread popular support to hold accountable those responsible for creating this situation, the Democrats and the Obama administration negotiated directly with those they would try to regulate, making concession after concession until the final bill was basically meaningless, as far as real reform was concerned. Of course, this hasn't stopped Wall Street financiers from complaining about Obama's "anti-business" policies, though this sentiment could not be farther from the truth.

Wall Street and other corporate influences need to be reformed

This is the result of runaway capitalism, whose corporate and special-interest influence extends over the U.S. government, basically running the economy and shaping policies that directly benefit themselves at the expense of the rest of the country.

Capitalism is not evil. Its ability to create wealth can be used to help people from all strata of society, not just the rich. It only becomes cruel when it is allowed to run its logical path, with profit as the only motivating factor and ever-increasing wealth going to an ever smaller circle of those at the top of the pyramid.

The influence of private money on Congress, elections, and politics in general in the United States is out of control. Many on the left point the finger mainly at the Republican Party, but the Democrats are guilty of the same crime. It is impossible to either gain or maintain political power in the United States without corporate or private money of some kind.

As a result, American democracy is under attack, with the voice of the people unable to be heard over the drone of private money. If this trend of increasing income disparity and corporate and special-interest money influence over political policies continues, the United States will become substantially weakened and degrade into a Third World country.

This vicious cycle is what is truly at stake in America.

The American people want to reform Wall Street, so that they can never again have the ability to bring down the rest of the country's economy. They want universal health care. They want better public education. They want the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. They want to help the environment. They want job security, unemployment benefits, higher minimum wages, and other things that Big Business would not agree to otherwise.

The only thing standing in the way of real progressive reform is the ruling-class of millionaires, billionaires, corporations, and special-interests, all of whom have the most to lose from their loss of privilege.

The solution is to take the money out of politics: Clean elections, clean politics, clean politicians.

Publicly-financed campaigns would make politicians beholden to the people, not the corporations.

Lobbyists are not inherently bad. They only become so when the difference in disposable income to spend means that an environmental lobby can spend $10 million for all of Congress while a corporation who pollutes the environment can spend the same amount on a single senator. Putting a cap on the amount of money lobbyists can spend would equalize the playing field.

The battle to implement clean elections will not be easy, as the recent Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations the same amount of free speech as an individual citizen shows. This is something that every American should want, in order to reclaim political power for those whose right it innately is.

True, progressive reform of campaign financing and economic-political structures is absolutely vital for a better, more prosperous, more equal, more democratic America.

The Democrats Need to Grow A Pair

Obama on election night

The 2008 United States Presidential election witnessed a dramatic upheaval, as the Democratic Party gained majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, not to mention the fact that a northern liberal was elected to the presidency for the first time since John F. Kennedy in 1960. The first-ever African-American president, Barack Obama, had motivated and moved many with his call for change, and change is what the American people clearly wanted after 8 long years of incompetent Republican leadership. Finally, progressive goals could come to fruition with a Congress capable of delivering on what would surely be the president's desires for "change we can believe in".

Early promises and wishful thinking, however, has turned into disappointment as President Obama's first term has gone on. The closing of Guantanamo in one year has yet come to pass. Progress in the Middle East has been slow in coming. Gay rights has taken a backseat to more pressing issues. More troops have been sent to Afghanistan, making the prospect of a sooner-rather-than-later withdrawal a bit more unlikely. Criticism from the Left has not been as harsh as that coming from the Right, but perhaps it should be.

One of the biggest complaints against the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress has been the lack of a public option for the Healthcare Reform Bill. It seems nobody is really that happy with the end result, although the reasons for disgruntlement vary. Some important points can be taken from those polls: 1) Many Americans are woefully ignorant of what the bill actually contains and what it will mean for them; 2) More people think the Democrats than the Republicans would be better for handling of reform of the industry; 3) Most Americans want to see more government involvement in dealing with reform of healthcare; 4) Many Americans feel that the bill did not "go far enough", i.e., they are disappointed over the lack of a public option.

Pro-Healthcare Reform rallies were not loud enough

The dithering and bipartisan pandering to Republican sentiments towards reform allowed the debate to slow down to a crawl, putting into jeopardy of fixing one of the most important issues currently facing the United States. Yes, the bill was eventually passed, and it is not perfect, but better than nothing. However, the manner in which it was watered-down and beaten made many tired of debate, almost killing it before it could become real. Though passage of this bill is meaningful, it is not meaningful enough.

With majorities in both the House and Senate, and a president willing to actively promote and endorse these causes, why did Democrats sink to the Republicans' level and attempt to negotiate with the minority? It is almost undeniable that, if given the same situation, Republicans would have simply rammed through the legislation of their agenda without needing to debate it with the opposition. It's as if Democrats were afraid of wielding their power as the majority. This type of bipartisan-flakery and watering-down is not even unique to the healthcare reform movement. And it's becoming old, really fast.

The Democrats stand on the precipice of enacting actual, meaningful progressive legislation in a country that is still very conservative, overall. This is a gilt-edged chance that may not come again, and so far, the lack of a spine has allowed actual progressive legislation to either be ignored, pushed back, or diluted by a divisive, ignorant, and idea-less opposition.

Which isn't to say that the President and Democrats haven't accomplished anything significant, either. Quite the opposite, actually. One of the biggest controversies (to Republicans, at least), the economic stimulus bill, seems to be working. Obama appears to be pretty popular, generally speaking, and this can only be a good thing for an American president, especially after the depths of anti-Americanism that sprang up while Bush was in office.

Criticism from the Left isn't so much about what has been accomplished (although the lack of a public option was truly heartbreaking) but rather the chance for the potential of meaningful, progressive change to be lost. The Democrats have achieved some goals, but they had and continue to have the ability to do so much more for the betterment of the country. Progressive legislation will always be an uphill battle in a country where the word "liberal" still carries a negative connotation. But this is no time for the Democrats, the president, or progressives to be cowed by their opponents. Rather, the Left needs to stand up, be brazen, be bold, be aggressive and do what they know needs to be done, regardless of criticism or complaints from the other end of the political spectrum. The Democrats have it in their power, they just need to develop a spine, grow a pair, and the benefits will come their way for years to come.