[I would only add to Krugman here that anyone who cannot see that the U.S. is involved in class warfare has not studied the turn of the century conflicts and particularly the progressive contribution of Teddy Roosevelt of anti-trust legislation which has been virtually nullified, particularly by the takeover of our public means of communication by our large, greedy corporations for which too many media commentators are shills: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust Let us not forget that the young George W. Bush vowed to repeal the New Deal as a student at Harvard Business -- and has shown no departure from that aim in any actions by him or the Republicans dominated by right wing money interests. We are facing a major con operation run by a new generation of robber barons. Ed Kent]
On Being Partisan
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 26, 2007
American politics is ugly these days, and many people wish things were different. For example, Barack Obama recently lamented the fact that â€œpolitics has become so bitter and partisanâ€ â€” which it certainly has.
But he then went on to say that partisanship is why â€œwe canâ€™t tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And thatâ€™s what we have to change first.â€ Um, no. If history is any guide, what we need are political leaders willing to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition. If all goes well, weâ€™ll eventually have a new era of bipartisanship â€” but that will be the end of the story, not the beginning.
Or to put it another way: what we need now is another F.D.R., not another Dwight Eisenhower.
You see, the nastiness of modern American politics isnâ€™t the result of a random outbreak of bad manners. Itâ€™s a symptom of deeper factors â€” mainly the growing polarization of our economy. And history says that weâ€™ll see a return to bipartisanship only if and when that economic polarization is reversed.
After all, American politics has been nasty in the past. Before the New Deal, America was a nation with a vast gap between the rich and everyone else, and this gap was reflected in a sharp political divide. The Republican Party, in effect, represented the interests of the economic elite, and the Democratic Party, in an often confused way, represented the populist alternative.
In that divided political system, the Democrats probably came much closer to representing the interests of the typical American. But the G.O.P.â€™s advantage in money, and the superior organization that money bought, usually allowed it to dominate national politics. â€œI am not a member of any organized party,â€ Will Rogers said. â€œI am a Democrat.â€
Then came the New Deal. I urge Mr. Obama â€” and everyone else who thinks that good will alone is enough to change the tone of our politics â€” to read the speeches of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the quintessential example of a president who tackled big problems that demanded solutions.
For the fact is that F.D.R. faced fierce opposition as he created the institutions â€” Social Security, unemployment insurance, more progressive taxation and beyond â€” that helped alleviate inequality. And he didnâ€™t shy away from confrontation.
â€œWe had to struggle,â€ he declared in 1936, â€œwith the old enemies of peace â€” business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. … Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me â€” and I welcome their hatred.â€
It was only after F.D.R. had created a more equal society, and the old class warriors of the G.O.P. were replaced by â€œmodern Republicansâ€ who accepted the New Deal, that bipartisanship began to prevail.
The history of the last few decades has basically been the story of the New Deal in reverse. Income inequality has returned to levels not seen since the pre-New Deal era, and so have political divisions in Congress as the Republicans have moved right, once again becoming the party of the economic elite. The signature domestic policy initiatives of the Bush administration have been attempts to undo F.D.R.â€™s legacy, from slashing taxes on the rich to privatizing Social Security. And a bitter partisan gap has opened up between the G.O.P. and Democrats, who have tried to defend that legacy.
What about the smear campaigns, like Karl Roveâ€™s 2005 declaration that after 9/11 liberals wanted to â€œoffer therapy and understanding for our attackersâ€? Well, theyâ€™re reminiscent of the vicious anti-Catholic propaganda used to defeat Al Smith in 1928: smear tactics are what a well-organized, well-financed party with a fundamentally unpopular domestic agenda uses to change the subject.
So am I calling for partisanship for its own sake? Certainly not. By all means pass legislation, if you can, with plenty of votes from the other party: the Social Security Act of 1935 received 77 Republican votes in the House, about the same as the number of Republicans who recently voted for a minimum wage increase.
But politicians who try to push forward the elements of a new New Deal, especially universal health care, are sure to face the hatred of a large bloc on the right â€” and they should welcome that hatred, not fear it.
“A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope.” (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]