Keepin' It (A Little Bit) Real

So this friend of mine told me she really liked the Democratic National Convention. "Why?" I asked. "Because it wasn't 100% phony," she said.

I agree. The event was, of course, highly scripted. You can bet every speech was closely vetted. The only truly spontaneous words from that stage were spoken by Obama's (unbelievably cute) kids, when their mom, in what had to be the riskiest call of the week, handed them a live mike to chat with dad in another city.

But what I think my friend meant was that some actual truth and unity managed to break through the pageantry and positioning. Truth regarding the challenges we face in our economy, our foreign policy, health care, and our environment. Unity regarding the critical need to come together in support of a ticket that wasn't everyone's first choice.

From what I heard, the keynote speakers all understood and articulated the substantive challenges, and Obama/Biden have a viable plan to meet them. That, to my ears, is what "change" is all about. "Change" is one of those empty-vessel concepts into which you can pour any idea you want. But after last week, I get it quite clearly, and that was why I think the DNC convention was a success.

"Change" for Democrats in 2008, means two things. One, we engage in reality-based diagnoses of the challenges we face and two, we propose solutions that are very different from the ones we've been pursuing for the past eight years. And very different from those that the other side is proposing.

Take issue #1: the economy. In terms of diagnostics, the Census Bureau released some important numbers last week, which I reviewed here. Though middle-class incomes rose slightly last year, over the full business cycle of the 2000s (that's 2000-07), they were unchanged. That's never happened before. Yes, for decades there's been an evolving gap between overall growth and the living standards of the middle-class, but never before has the median household failed to make at least some economic progress over an economic expansion.

Story continues below

advertisement

Some highlights from the Census report:

• The income trends were worse for working-age families, headed by someone under 65. The weakest job market on record meant diminished earnings opportunities over the 2000s, and the real median income of these households was down $2,010, 2000-07.

• This is an even more amazing loss when you consider that working families contributed to quite stellar productivity growth rates over these years. This measure of how efficiently the workforce is producing rose 2.5% per year, 2000-07, half-a-percent faster than in the 1990s, when the real median income of working-age households rose more than $5,000. Middle-income workers were more productive, but ended up with less.

• The growth that occurred over these years also bypassed low-income families. Poverty rates were 1.2% higher in 2007 than in 2000, up from 11.3% to 12.5%, an addition of 5.7 million to the poverty rolls, making this the worst cycle for poverty on record.

All week long I argued about these numbers with conservatives on CNBC. They wanted to adjust the data differently, to choose different years for the comparisons. They argued on Wednesday that strong capital goods orders were signs of a turnaround, and on Thursday that better-than-expected GDP growth in the second quarter meant the economic debate was over.

I fought back, of course...adjustments and end-points don't change the conclusion that this recovery has been uniquely unrewarding for most families. Regarding GDP growth, if we've learned anything over the past eight years, it's that you can't talk about overall economic growth and assume you're saying anything about how most families are doing (that the problem when there's so much inequality embedded in the economy; and for the record, the GDP spike was likely temporary due to the tax rebates and unusually strong exports in the quarter). Yes, there was a welcome upside surprise to non-defense, ex-aircraft purchases in the durable goods report. But somehow I suspect the fact that jobs and wages are down every month this year is more important to voters right now.

While the conservative economic punditry fails to recognize that it's politically tone deaf to take the Phil "it's-all-in-your-head" Gramm stance on the current economy, McCain gets this, and he's been trying to talk populist these days. But his only plan to help those who've been left behind is to double-down on Bush, further slashing taxes of the wealthiest, cross his fingers and hope that contrary to our experience in the 1980s and even more so in the 2000s, prosperity trickles down to the have-nots.

So there is an inherent non-reality to the Republican platform, a cognitive dissonance that wasn't there in Denver last week. They'll distance themselves from Bush, of course, but since they've signed onto his economic program -- that will take some fancy dancing. They'll pretend that the war, especially the surge, has been a success, because their candidate is stuck in that particular bubble. They'll argue, against the evidence (see the figure on the top of page 3 here), that their guy's health care will cover more of the uninsured at less cost than Obama's plan. They'll have to pretend that McCain's gas tax holiday is a great plan for strapped consumers, and that drilling today will lower prices at the pump tomorrow.

And now with Sarah Palin as VP, they'll be deeply engaged in the cynical and fantastical math that figures women for Hillary Clinton = women for Palin, as if Clinton supporters care nothing about choice, creationism in schools, policy acumen, health care, the environment, and the war.

None of this means that because the D's have a better bead on reality this year, they'll win. These days, closely fought elections turn on a narrow slice of independents who often seem to be so overwhelmed by the info-fog created by the campaigns that they make their choice on which candidate feels better at a gut level.

This year may be different. The contradiction of a growing economy that fails to lift living standards is knocking on too many households' doors (assuming you still own your home) and is too real to ignore. Too many people have died in this terrible war to pull the lever based on who you'd most like to have a beer with. The public's fatigue with Bush and the Republican agenda is evident in the wrong-track polls, and this should help boost the case for reality-based diagnoses and solutions of the type presented with great clarity by Obama on Thursday night.

But there are still weeks to go, and we are likely to be reminded that while the R's may be lousy at governing, they are masterful campaigners (no question that the surprise Palin choice diminished the Obama post-convention bounce). They'll be working hard next week to convince the median, undecided voter that contrary to reality, McCain's economics are different than Bush's, and that Obama will raise taxes on almost everyone (guaranteed, you'll hear this mantra incessantly, though Obama's tax increases only begin at $250,000; he cuts taxes far more aggressively than McCain for the bottom 95% of households).

Behind the scenes, their shock troops will be pushing equally false themes that Obama is too unfamiliar, the kind of guy with whom you really don't want to have a beer. Look for a lot of this nonsense next week, because both Michelle and Barack Obama presented themselves effectively and naturally in Denver.

Like my friend said, our convention, for all its calculated moments, was a little bit real. Within that little dose of reality -- that increasingly rare moment in today's politics when something real is revealed -- lies the difference between a more positive future and more of the same.

Comments

[dadw5boys]

I am a EX POW and I made stupid decision even for my V.P. .

Please let me live in the Whitehouse.

Others will make the real decisions for me like Rove, Graham, Graham of Texas, Tom Delay, Bush, Cheny and of course Cindy.

Please let me live in the Whitehouse, Please.

[dadw5boys]

IF POVERTY WAS AS LOW AS BUSH CLAIMS CHURCHES WOULD NOT NEED TAXPAYERS MONEY TO FEED SO MANY HOMELESS AND POOR.

Are the churches taking taxpayer money under false conditions to feed a growing poor and homeless population or is Bush lieing about the poverty levels staying the same ???????

[Alexandro]

"we are likely to be reminded that while the R's may be lousy at governing, they are masterful campaigners"

Exactly. That is the only thing i am really concerned about: the R's are masters in shaping public opinion and selling their bad agendas. Worked for the past 8 years.

I believe that the biggest challenge for the Democrats is to deconstruct the false accusations and pictures painted by the R's while trying to stay 1 step ahead. They have to debunk the crap(talking points) the R's will once more try to feed to the MSM and the majority of Americans. If they can do that, if people understand the huge differences in policy, i believe that nothing can stop Obama/Biden in November.

[PumaAnn]

I think this year is entirely different from the past 8 years for voters. They don't like the Dems. That's clear from approval ratings. They can't stand Bush's policies. That's clear. Same low approval ratings.

Yet this is a year when voters aren't in the mood to vote all the rascals out. I think they saw the problem with that from 4 years ago. They voted out some very good solid politicians on emotions only. It was a mistake.

This year, I see voters taking their time. The huge numbers of undecideds tell me that people won't be rushed.

The emotions are SO giddy, on both sides, that the result is that voters are stepping back from the fray.

That's smart thinking.

[escorpion]

The results of the 2006 election show that the repubs, even Rove, may have lost some of their campaign mojo. We shouldn't underestimate them by any means, but we shouldn't overestimate them, either.

[sbvpav]

while sen. obama speaks of commonality to resolve conflicts and promote the american good, the rove/schmidt/mccain campaign once again hopes to divide and conquer, continuing the divisiveness which works against the solution of problems.

[nomobull]

my new mantra "educate yourself"

[JKoos]

Calling refundable tax criedits a tax cut is disengenuous. Under BO, those who pay taxes will pay more and those who are not paying taxes will get welfare payments. Distributionist policies will not sell except to the Dems who mostly are sitting in the cart rather than pulling the cart. Reid, Pelosi and Obama in charge would be big government feeding frenzy.

[ddb]

Obama will raise taxes on almost everyone. Oh wait . . . doesn't almost everyone make more than $250,000 a year?

[reelcobra]

I'm just afraid we will fall for the Repub trap and argue that Palin has little national experience.

This will give the evil Repubs the opportunity to point out that Obama has literally never run anything

He has never run a company, a town, a state.

So let's keep to lighter things like stadium speeches and "hope" and "change".

Thank you.

BHO '08!!

[lbcny]

Huffington Post needs to have it's own 24/7 cable news channel of it's own!
Lot's of hype to drown out the mantra of the Repulbican Corporate owned media.
Unfortunately not everyone reads blogs and Bill Kristol writes for the NY Times.

It is time to scream fascism from the rooftops and for god's sake do something about it!
We all know some of the really wealthy Dems could put up the dough.

I would like to have one Sunday morning show to watch with actual journalism
and reporters rather than pundits and former campaign advisors who have only lost
campaigns.

People, do something!!!! Arianna, are you listening?

[Nomccain]

For those working families, no spin by the Repugs is going to work. Women who shop, buy groceries, gas, and clothes for their kids know damn well what the Repugs have done to them and no amount of Palin and McBush is going to rectify that! Simply put, most Americans have had a belly full of t he Repiglicans and t heir one sided policies that have forgotten the middle class.

[apesh t]

HuffPost's Pick

Though I agree with your interpretation of the numbers, I disagree with the concept that governance is the cause of the poor performance.

I believe the major contributing factor in a falling standard of living is a result of global competition. America is a consumer driven economy and there has been an enormous shift to consumption of lower priced Chinese and other third world products. The consequence of shifts toward global equilibrium is the Chinese standard of living is going up and the American standard of living is declining.

The answer is neither democratic nor republican. The answer is either competition or protectionism. As Americans, if we choose to buy higher priced American made products we can slow the wealth transfer to the east, but how does a worker making $20 per hour compete with a worker making $20 per week?

The answer lies in rejecting the low priced goods at WalMart and accept higher prices for American made goods. We will experience a continued decline in the standard of living, but result in a stronger, richer country for all Americans and learn once again be self sufficient.

We must build and grow locally and support our communities and local businesses that can create jobs. American consumers that buy lower priced imports support the greatest shift of wealth in the history of mankind. Our standard of living is in decline due to where we choose to spend our earnings.

[spydermanu]

......."Change" is one of those empty-vessel concepts into which you can pour any idea you want.....

But what happens when your idea contradicts my idea? Obama has not been specfic with respect to where he wants to move the country. He is everything to everyone. Finally, Obama has no record of effecting change-can he actually accomplish anything?

[editrix66]

I agree with baudrillard that Obama should not focus on Palin but on the issues. Just ignore her. Lump Palin in with McCain. She will continue the policies of McCain and Bush. She is pro-life (including in the cases of rape and incest, I heard, is this true?), and fight back immediately with any garbage that the Republicans throw out. Put out ads that do not focus on McCain's character (as McCain has done) but on McCain lack of judgment, being out of touch, his lack of economic knowledge and poor policies, his lack of a healthcare policy--the works. And put out ads touting Obama's tax cuts. Put out a national ad with Hillary in it, urging people to vote for Obama because of healthcare and because he is the right candidate for women. Mention Biden's votes for women--his proven track record. Dems have everything necessary to fight this time.