Centrism Is for Suckers
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
If you want to understand the state of America today, a good place to start is with the contrast between the political strategies of conservative business advocacy groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and those of more or less liberal advocacy groups like the Sierra Club.
The chamber recently got into trouble because of ads it ran praising Republican members of Congress who, it said, voted for the Medicare prescription drug program. It turned out that one of the congressmen praised in the ads actually voted against the program, while two others weren’t even in Congress when the vote took place.
Oops. But the bigger question is, aren’t business groups supposed to favor fiscal responsibility and reducing the size of government? So why is the chamber praising a program that substantially increases the size of government and has no visible means of financial support?
The answer is obvious: the Bush administration hopes to win some votes in the midterm elections from older Americans now receiving drug benefits, and the chamber, like many conservative organizations these days, believes that its interests are best served by helping Republicans win elections. If the administration and its allies in Congress want the chamber’s support on an issue, they get it, never mind the details.
If you want an even starker example, consider the fact that the National Federation of Independent Business, the small-business lobby, is supporting the bizarre, hybrid wage-and-tax legislation now before the Senate. This legislation would raise the minimum wage while sharply cutting taxes on very large estates.
From a small-business owner’s point of view, this deal makes no sense. Many owners of small businesses believe, rightly or wrongly, that they would be hurt by a rise in the minimum wage. Meanwhile, very few are rich enough to pay estate taxes: the Congressional Budget Office reports that if current law had applied in 2000, only 135 small business estates would have paid any tax at all, which means that small-business owners subject to the estate tax are substantially harder to find than people who have been struck by lightning.
It’s possible that the federation’s leadership has been misled by Heritage Foundation propaganda. But it’s more likely that, like the chamber, the federation believes that its interests are best served by acting as a loyal servant of the Republican electoral effort. And both organizations are probably right.
Now compare this with the behavior of advocacy groups like the Sierra Club, the environmental organization, and Naral, the abortion-rights group, both of which have endorsed Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, for re-election. The Sierra Club’s executive director defended the Chafee endorsement by saying, “We choose people, not parties.” And it’s true that Mr. Chafee has usually voted with environmental groups.
But while this principle might once have made sense, it’s just naïve today. Given both the radicalism of the majority party’s leadership and the ruthlessness with which it exercises its control of the Senate, Mr. Chafee’s personal environmentalism is nearly irrelevant when it comes to actual policy outcomes; the only thing that really matters for the issues the Sierra Club cares about is the “R” after his name.
Put it this way: If the Democrats gain only five rather than six Senate seats this November, Senator James Inhofe, who says that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” will remain in his current position as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. And if that happens, the Sierra Club may well bear some of the responsibility.
The point is that those who cling to the belief that politics can be conducted in terms of people rather than parties — a group that also includes would-be centrist Democrats like Joe Lieberman and many members of the punditocracy — are kidding themselves.
The fact is that in 1994, the year when radical Republicans took control both of Congress and of their own party, things fell apart, and the center did not hold. Now we’re living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician’s partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. And those who refuse to recognize this reality end up being useful idiots for those, like President Bush, who have been consistently ruthless in their partisanship.
Photo credit: Paul Krugman. (The New York Times)
Related Articles:
- Journal Inquirer - The heart of the party
"The fight for the soul of the Democratic Party is the fight between those who want to go back to Franklin Roosevelt and those who want to be corporate Democrats, in sync with banks and large corporations and the greater money interests of the land. It is the battle between those who believe in a party of issues versus those who think any party is a collection of interests," the editorial board of the Journal Inquirer writes.
- A Rallying Cry for Democratic Populism
What would happen if the opposition party actually chose to oppose the one in power? Not just on the margins, but by rejecting outright the majority party's fundamental beliefs on trade and tax policy?
- Rolling Stone : THE LOW POST: Why the Democrats Are Still Doomed
- The Blog | Carl Pope: A Response to Paul Krugman | The Huffington Post
No comments:
Post a Comment