Elite Media Voices Begin Making Our Arguments

Having been one of millions of progressives who have been out in the wilderness for so long, it's hard to believe I can write this, but I can: It seems the demands for rejecting the "center-right nation" meme, accepting the progressive mandate of the election, Going Big and emulating FDR - the demands we've been all making - are starting to be echoed even in the elite media stratosphere. And that's a damn good thing.

REJECTING THE CENTER-RIGHT NATION MEME

Here's a syndicated column I wrote that appeared in national newspapers on 10/31/08:

Conservatives' contend that no matter how big progressives may win on Election Day, this is nonetheless a center-right nation. Indeed, a LexisNexis search shows this poll-tested term -- "center-right nation" -- is lately among the Punditburo's most ubiquitous Orwellian buzzwords...The "center-right nation" phrase is being parroted with the propagandistic discipline of Cuba's Ministry of Information.

The proof of this center-right nation? Republicans cite polls showing more Americans call themselves conservative than liberal. While that data point certainly measures brand name, those same surveys undermine the right's larger argument because they show majorities support progressive positions on most economic issues.

Here's the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne today:

Conservatives are trying to stop Obama from pursuing any of the ideas that he campaigned on...Their gimmick is to insist that the United States is still a "center-right" country because more Americans call themselves conservative than liberal. What this analysis ignores is that Americans have clearly moved to the left of where they were four, eight or ten years ago.

Here's the New York Times' Frank Rich on 11/9/08:

We now keep hearing, for instance, that America is "a center-right nation" -- apparently because the percentages of Americans who call themselves conservative (34), moderate (44) and liberal (22) remain virtually unchanged from four years ago. But if we've learned anything this year, surely it's that labels are overrated. Those same polls find that more and more self-described conservatives no longer consider themselves Republicans. Americans now say they favor government doing more (51 percent), not less (43) -- an 11-point swing since 2004 -- and they still overwhelmingly reject the Iraq war.

ACCEPTING THE PROGRESSIVE MANDATE

On the idea that McCain made the 2008 election a referendum on conservatism, here's what I wrote on 10/24/08:

John McCain is doing what no progressive political leader has been able to do in at least a generation, if not more: He's creating a New Deal mandate for the next president, should that next president be Barack Obama...[McCain] has polarized the argument and turned the election into a referendum on the economic Darwinism of the conservative movement...He is framing the choice as one between a Republican presidency to the right of Ronald Reagan on economics or a Democratic presidency to the left of Franklin Roosevelt on economics - and if Obama wins, he will have as powerful an economic mandate as FDR received in the 1932 landslide election, because the voting public will be expecting - no, demanding - far-reaching economic change.

Here's the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne on 10/31/08, titled "Referendum on Trickle-Down":

Economic populism is thriving right now, and if Obama wins, his election would not simply be a non-ideological verdict against the status quo. It would be a clear repudiation of conservative economic ideas and McCain's claim that a more egalitarian approach to growth constitutes "socialism." McCain's attacks on Obama's thinking have been so forceful and direct that they require this election to be seen as a referendum that will settle a long-running philosophical argument.

GOING BIG

On the "Go Big" idea, here's what I wrote on 11/7/08:

The election became a choice between continued conservative rule and a progressive agenda as far-reaching as the current crises...Obama rose on a promise to eschew triangulation -- and he won because America realized invertebracy and sail trimming will not solve problems. Voters rejected Clinton-style incrementalism in the primary, then scorned conservatism in the general election, meaning Democrats' best response to Bill McKay's "what do we do now?" question is a two-word answer: Go big.

Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly now points out that Paul Krugman, Dionne and even Fareed Zakaria (!) have subsequently said exactly the same thing.

EMULATING FDR

In calling for an Obama administration to be bold and progressive in the FDR mold, here's the last line of my column on 10/31/08:

[Obama will have] the very mandate for "direct, vigorous action" Roosevelt described in his 1933 inaugural address. Should a President Obama try to capitalize on it, he will have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Here's the last line of the 11/7/08 column by the New York Times' Paul Krugman:

[Obama] has the political mandate; he has good economics on his side. You might say that the only thing he has to fear is fear itself.

Now, I point all this out not to pat myself on the back for (nor lament) writing columns that were later parroted by other columnists, sans acknowledgment. The fact is, I can't claim any kind of exclusive ownership over my columns' message because they only echo what so many of us have been saying for so long now. And even in the Jayson Blair era, I tend not to ascribe bad faith to fellow progressives, and instead subscribe to the "great minds think alike" principle that says like-minded people can honestly (ie. not plagiaristically) arrive at the same conclusions.

And that's the whole point here. Though the Braindead Megaphone (as George Saunders calls it) may be telling us that Obama's election proves America is more conservative than ever and that therefore he must govern like a Rockefeller Republican, there are an increasing number of Establishment voices saying what we, the progressive movement, have been saying for a while now: That this is a progressive country in need of a boldly progressive president. And I say the more voices that chime in and make that point, the better.

Comments

[Russycle]

About the only thing the Right has succeeded at in the last 20 years is to brand "liberal" as a synonym for free-loading wimp. No surprise that a lot of people don't want to be stuck with that label, even if they have predominantly liberal values. Nice paraphrase of FDR on the column, glad you took Krugman's borrowing it as an underhanded compliment.

[ggm68]

The discrepancy between the percentage who call themselves "liberal" and the percentage who endorse "liberal" policies is no surprise. The "right" have spent decades turning the word "liberal" into an epithet on par with Marxist in many people's minds, so a lot of people don't want to identify themselves with that word. Meanwhile, so-called "conservative" elected officials have been anything but, in all the worst possible ways, yet the word itself remains relatively free of stigma for some reason.

I guess a lot comes down to who gets to decide what the term "center" really means. I've known die-hard Bush supporters who consider themselves "middle of the road" politically, despite their support for extreme right-wing policies. The only way the US could be considered a "center-right" nation would be if the "center" ran right through Bernie Sanders' front yard.

I dearly hope the "center-right nation" meme dies the quick death it deserves, and that BHO will govern based not on left vs right, but right vs wrong. All us "liberals" out here need to keep making our voices heard to help make both of those things happen.

[imnoone]

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. MSNBC is getting ratings, making money and beating Fox for the first time. Admittedly, people like Chris Matthews are swept up in a new passion for real change. But I have watched pundits like Howard Fineman and I see a tilt to the left because he wants to be liked. And not just liked, but well-liked. The last three years or so have demonstrated that the new technology has given people a voice and writers like Sirota best exemplify that voice. There is not a columnist or pundit that does not check the Web and the blogs everyday --besides communicating with their standard sources. Millions and millions of people have a voice today that makes the letters to the editor section of a newspaper look like grafitti on the wall. The wind is coming from the net. And this is an exciting time to be alive.

[old lady]

Tolerance and attitude, the first step towards reaching one's goal. The readiness to succeed is reflected in the simple but significant difference of each party's post election mantras -
GOP non-stop post Bush mantra = "if you're not with us, you're against us"
DEM post O mantra = "Lead, follow or get out of the way"
Hooray for a softer, gentler, more inclusive, SUCCESSFUL America

[gulopartisan]

This fact of the "progressive mandate" needs to be harped on constantly, especially in light of the fascist media's immediate co-option of the vote by suddenly discovering that it was Obama's blackness that got him elected (pace Ferraro) rather than his ideas. i didn't vote for Obama because he's black, and I don't know anyone who did. Maybe some people did. I certainly know some who voted against him because he was black, but that does not make the converse true. We are not Anaracists, we are as post-racial as it is reasonable to be in racist America.

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

In the 1960s we called this cooptation. :) We had media like this back then. It did not take long for out leftward lean to breed a rightward reaction. Barack is about getting this done from the center. We should be suspicious when we are taken seriously.

[Mayme]

Help me figure out how to get rid of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Savage from my local radio station.

[sunny123]

Don't shop with their advertisers and tell them why. It is a good way of voting your pocketbook.

[larry278]

About the headline: BHO isn't FDR. BHO is taking his oath on 1/20/09, not March, 1933. The problems are different; the president will be BHO, not FDR. Check out HP. BHO's plans are a unique, new concept which BHO & his advisors have created; they aren't a rehash of FDR's New Deal measures. Give BHO & his crew credit for being creative in creating new, unique programs for dealing with the current, developing situation. Save comparing BHO & his programs with FDR's New Deal till after BHO leaves office when you are writing an historical comparison & review of how FDR dealt with the depression which started in 1929 versus BHO's handling of the economic crisis, aka melt-down, which began 9/15/08. The New Deal headlines could be rightly called deceptive or a clumsy attempt to deceive; the same thing goes with any implicit, tacitly stated comparison of BHO vs FDR.
Give BHO a chance to be sworn in as POTUS # 44, at the very least. You haven't seen BHO, the POTUS, in action yet. Give BHO 100, 500, 1000 days in office or 1 or 2 terms in office.

[cheforacle]

To me, its pretty simple. There are certain things Obama has been clear about since he started his campaign: (1) withdraw troops in approximately 16 months from Iraq; (2) address global warming with cap-and-trade approach; (3) make health care universally affordable; (3) change the tax rates and get rid of loopholes for companies going overseas; (4) raise teachers' salaries (tougher as this is usually a state or local matter. To me this is what he was elected to do. Its not a matter of whether he should pursue these goals just how and when. In my view, global warming must be addressed immediately because we are so behind in that area. Tax changes can be done in the first three months as it is not so complicated. Withdrawing troops should be started after Obama has had sufficient time to listen to his military advisors on the best way to implement his plans. Health care and education reform should proceed after those other issues are addressed.

[knowBuddhaU]

WOOHOO! You go, Bro! You so rock. You're one of my main inspirations right now.

[PATina]

Hear Hear !!!! But I fear after hearing some political heads (i.e. Rahm Emmanuel and James Clyburn) this weekend... that this administration won't be a very progressive one. What we need at this time is a strong progressive stance to undo what a strong "conservative" (I use that word lightly) stance has done to the nation. Once things have balanced out... we could go to a more 'centered' government... but it seems to me... that's not going to happen.

[RoloTomassi]

You were tuning in to the wrong channel; I caught John Podesta on CNN, and to me he gave exactly the opposite impression, and spoke about many of the policy details that Rahm seemed to do his best to dodge.

When you have the head of the Center for American Progress [the primary think tank involved with the incoming Obama administration] talking up a major overhaul package that includes economic stimulus, healthcare reform, financial industry reform, and several other progressive agenda items, and that the intent is to push such a program through all at once--as early as possible--well, that seems like a pretty ambitious progressive effort to me.

Watch for and listen to Podesta, as I suspect he will be the best source of information about what Obama is going to do starting in January [and jeez, Podesta does love to talk!].

[youinmississippinowboy]

It certainly seems to me the nation has moved to the left.

[krocklin]

Whether it has or not, there is good sense and not such good sense. We've had plenty of the latter for a longtime.
The labels are the bludgeons The Reactionaries use to prevent good sensible policies.