The Middle Class and the Political Center

In the State of the Union address tonight, Barack Obama can set the stage for a political comeback from 2010's "shellacking" that would, in fact, be even stronger than Bill Clinton's storied comeback in 1996 -- because Obama has a chance to sweep a Democratic House back into office with him if he does the right things politically and policy-wise. However, he has to resist the siren call of a D.C. political and media establishment, with their deeply flawed version of what "centrism" is, and instead focus on the real center of American politics: the hard-pressed middle class. He has to focus like a laser beam on the policies that help the middle class by creating new jobs, rebuilding the American manufacturing base, helping small business to grow, and preserving the parts of government that directly help the folks in that middle class: Social Security, Medicare, education and student loans, and rebuilding our roads and bridges.

It is certainly unsurprising after all my years in politics -- in fact, it is the most predictable thing in the world -- to see the D.C. version of centrists argue in favor of things that would damage, and politically anger, the middle class. Nevertheless, it has been disturbing to see what groups like Third Way are calling for in their recent policy memoranda: cuts in Social Security and handing legal bailouts to the big banks so that it will be easier for them to foreclose on homeowners. Other D.C. establishment centrists like Alice Rivlin of the Brookings Institution are calling for Democrats to willingly accept big cuts and/or a private voucher program for Medicare. D.C. establishment folks think Democrats shouldn't press so hard to safeguard consumers from the banking industry.

Here's the thing that is stunningly obvious from all the available polling data, though: voters, most especially swing voters, hate the idea of policies that do even more damage to their already shaky economic standing. As pollster Guy Molyneux from Hart Research Associates so eloquently put it recently: "When it comes to Social Security, opinion elites are from Mars, voters are from Venus." In fact, pollsters like Molyneux, Stan Greenberg, and Celinda Lake argue that Obama's willingness to put Social Security cuts "on the table" has done as much to damage him as any other issue. Thank goodness he has decided not to endorse cutting Social Security or raising the retirement age in the SOTU. Hopefully this will help him stop the bleeding with seniors and other Americans violently opposed to Social Security cuts (which is most of the population).

Every poll I've seen shows voters overwhelmingly hate the idea of Social Security and Medicare cuts, and of raising the retirement age. Every poll I've seen shows voters want the government to rein in the big banks and protect consumers. Every poll I've seen shows that voters want government to help American manufacturers gain protection from unfair competition abroad, want to stop outsourcing, and want to invest in infrastructure and education. The D.C. centrists never seem to quote polling numbers when advocating cutting Social Security or legal bailouts for big banks or policies that promote outsourcing, simply because no such polling exists. None. Yet they still argue that this kind of "moving to the center" will solve all of Obama's problems.

There's a telling sequence of questions in the last Democracy Corps poll that came out last week. When asked a generic question about the Deficit Commission proposals with no details except for that the plan would cut the deficit by $4 trillion dollars by 2020, folks were enthusiastic, supporting it 57-19. When the very next question in the poll gave a three-sentence description of the major policies actually proposed, the numbers went to 34 percent in favor and 54 percent opposed. So it was plus-38 when it came to cutting the deficit generically, and minus-20 when you spelled out cuts in Social Security, raising the retirement age, and other key components of the plan. Want another example? On a contrast question in the same poll where a strong pro-deficit commission argument was laid in contrast to an argument for investing in education, infrastructure, research, and "a clear plan to make things in America once more," the pro-investment argument won 58-35.

These D.C. centrists need to take just one minute and focus on what the white middle-class swing voters -- who they claim to be obsessing about -- actually want. As I wrote right after the 2010 election:

Check out these numbers from a Stan Greenberg poll done for the Campaign for America's Future. Stan did a careful analysis of which voters were the key swing voters, and what he found is striking:

• Swing voters supported a message about challenging China on trade, ending subsidies to corporations that send jobs overseas, and stopping NAFTA-like trade deals over a message about increasing exports, passing more trade agreements, and getting government out of the way by 59-28
• Swing voters supported a message about ending tax cuts for those making over $250,0000 a year, adding a bank tax to curb speculative trading, cutting wasteful military spending and ending subsidies to oil companies over a message about cutting 100 billion dollars from domestic programs, raising the Social Security retirement age, and turning Medicare into a voucher program by 51-37
• Swing voters supported a statement about politicians keeping their hands off Social Security and Medicare over a statement about raising the retirement age by 62-36
• 89% of swing voters supported a statement about full disclosure of campaign donations and limiting the power of lobbyists
• 90% of swing voters supported a statement about cracking down on outsourcing and creating jobs by fixing schools, sewers, and roads in disrepair



• Even when framed in direct opposition to a statement about stopping increasing government spending and tax increases, swing voters said they were more worried that we will fail to make the investments we need to create jobs and strengthen the economy by 54-44.

Now, I think it is important to note something here about the polling I am seeing: Swing voters are swing for a reason. They do not respond as well to the same fire and brimstone purely progressive/populist message I would delight in. Swing voters are very skeptical of government and new taxes; they think there is a lot of waste in government, and need to be convinced that Democrats want to be accountable for cutting that waste; and although they hate the big banks and are very skeptical of corporate power over government, a lot of them work for big companies and get nervous when all they hear is corporation bashing. In the DCorps poll, a purely progressive contrast message attacking tax cuts for the rich and corporations compared to the same pro-deficit commission message that I mentioned above was only in a statistical dead heat rather than winning 58-35 as it did regarding the investment in jobs message.

The focus when talking about economics needs to be on jobs, and on fighting for the middle class. Democrats need to be entrepreneurial populists. We should be pro-small business, pro-manufacturer, pro-technology company, willing to help get the banks to invest in businesses, and willing to reduce paperwork and regulations for small businesses, tech companies and manufacturers as long as their workers, consumers, and the environment are not hurt in the process. We can do all that while fighting the big banks who are speculating and giving themselves big bonuses while not lending to the Main Street businesses that are actually creating jobs; we can do all that while taking on the big insurers who have been making the health care system dysfunctional for everybody; we can do all that while challenging the big oil and coal companies to clean up their act.

In the SOTU address, President Obama has a great opportunity to reframe the entire debate, changing it from the broad philosophical Republican talking points about cutting spending and the size of government, and moving it to focusing on what is the best thing to do for the great American middle class. In his speech, he should clearly lay out a strong, unequivocal pro-middle class agenda:

1. He should go a step further than just not endorsing the deficit Commission's suggested Social Security and Medicare cuts: he should make 100 percent clear that under no circumstances will he support cutting Social Security, privatizing Medicare, or raising the retirement age. He should lay down the gauntlet and announce that he will veto any bill that comes to his desk that does any of those things.
2. He should make as the central policy platform of his speech a bold new plan to create middle class jobs, including new spending on roads, bridges, research and development, expanding access to the best technology for everyone, and education; new help for small business to get loans from banks hoarding their profits; and creating a new plan for developing new manufacturing sectors in green jobs and other industries of the future. To fund these new programs, he should call for a financial transactions tax, so that the speculative bankers who did so much to cause our economic crisis can help pay for getting us back on track.
3. He should make clear that he going to be taking on the banks, pushing them hard to invest in American businesses and to write down the mortgages of middle-class homeowners whose mortgages are underwater.
4. He should show the American public that he is absolutely serious about rooting out government waste by reforming wasteful government contracting; ending corporate subsidies to big energy and agribusiness companies; allowing Medicare to negotiate cheaper drug prices; and cutting waste in the military budget.
5. He should announce that his new Chief of Staff Bill Daley and his new Economic Adviser Jeff Immelt, two figures who know the business community well, are going to sit down with every CEO of a Fortune 500 company which is making profits right now to discuss how they can do more to create American jobs over the next couple of years.

As the pragmatic progressive that I am, I have absolutely no problem with rhetorical moves to the center in terms of showing how the deficit can be cut and how waste can be removed from the budget, or showing how the administration is eager to help small business and American manufacturing companies prosper, because a Democratic president can do those things while still holding true to progressive values. What I would have a problem is moving to the Washington center, a well-off elite that supports cuts in the Social and Medicare that middle-class retirees count on, and that supports legal bailouts for the big banks in helping them foreclose on middle class homeowners faster. The people in this country understand what the D.C. establishment, dominated by its big business lobbyists and corporate-funded think tanks, doesn't get: that the budget can move toward being balanced; that new jobs can be created; that the big banks can be said no to -- all without cuts to Social Security and Medicare or the other things in the federal budget important to them.

President Obama has been appointing a lot of people close to big business lately, but I'm not going to care if he shows that he is going to come out fighting for the real center in American politics -- the middle class.

 

Comments

[espressobeans]

08:15 PM on 01/25/2011

Wouldn't that be loverly -- a political party looking out for the middle class! It would certainly solve a lot of what ails us.

[LouGots]

07:59 PM on 01/25/2011

If the Republicans let themselves be turned on Social Security, they deserve to lose. I want them to lose, for that would mean they are to dumb and two simple to run the country.

Victory will go to the party which driver the wedge in the right place. The Democrat program is to put that wedge at $200,000.00 per year, the Republicans need to put at about $30.000.00. The former need the middle class to identify with the bottom quintile, the latter with top quintile..

Social Security is a deal-breaker for a lot of people. It will be crucial for the Republicans to make sure that any changes in SS are laid at the door of the other side. This is going to mean really brutal, cuts of almost everything else: cuts in programs, the abolition of entire federal departments, massive lay-offs. It has to be packaged that way, or 2012 will be 1996 all over again.

[Middle Blue]

06:03 PM on 01/25/2011

American policy should be about "Americans First" in all ways. Specifically, those who build it and pay for it every single day, the middle class. If that one premise underpinned everything, the entire country could 'swing' pretty well.

Such a simple idea could cause us to discuss Free trade vs. Fair trade, for example, in light of how it should be approached to benefit, gasp, 'Americans'

[codycap]

07:57 PM on 01/25/2011

The far left nowadays are what used to be an Eisenhower Republican and the right are John Birchers.

America first, or laizze faire, or any other bumper sticker that keeps us, left and right fighting, should be obvious to everyone by now are just red flags to take our eye off of the sword that the bullfighter is sticking into our hearts.

Corruption is America's problem and until that is addressed NOTHING will help us regain control of our representa­­tives, both left and right. As our legalized corrupt bribery system exists today we are irrelevant­­.

Wake up Americans --both left and right - when we regain control of our representa­­tives -- then is the time to argue ideology. Until then we should fight as Americans to regain our country from the special interests.

Until EVERYONE starts talking and blogging and marching for Campaign Reform we are just spinning our wheels discussing anything that might challenge the special interests.

http://www­­.fairelec­t­ionsnow.­or­g/volun­tee­r/peti­tion (FENA)
http://www­­.freespee­c­hforpeop­le­.org/pe­tit­ion
http://cha­­nge-congr­e­ss.org/
http://mov­­etoamend.­o­rg
http://foa­­vc.org”

[MiddleMolly]

08:18 PM on 01/25/2011

I heartily agree. We need fair funding for elections and we need to do whatever we can to lessen the power of lobbyists.

[Bleubeard]

05:54 PM on 01/25/2011

As more of the rich get richer, and move further out on their side of the balance beam, it forces more of the poor to move further out on their end of the beam. The balancing point may move slightly to one side or the other, but basically it remains the same. But, as the two ends of the beam become more severely overloaded, the beam eventually will snap. And everyone will fall. We must move away from the dangerous extremes before it's too late.

[MiddleMolly]

06:47 PM on 01/25/2011

Interesting analogy. Thanks!!

[BOS29]

04:17 PM on 01/25/2011

Mr. Lux, I agree with your pragmatic progressive view point. However, not to be johnny rain clould but you're either ignoring the facts or completely naive. Obama is not going to hold the banks to task. Have you not paid attention to his inattention to the mortgage cirisis. He's allowing banks to dictate terms; and per some reports engage in outright fraud in foreclosing on American homeowners. Many Americans don't care because they see that borrowers are just as culpable as the lenders and their minions. Obama reflects this perspective given the current weak oversight of the banks. As far as SS, his payroll tax cut this year will further weaken its viability and provide fodder for anti-SS demagogues. Investment in infrastructure, education, etc.? Not happening with a Republican House. Closing subsidies on banks and corporations? With Daley and Immelt running the show? Not happening. Also, Obama already cut a deal with big Pharma to not negotiate for fair drug prices; so scratch that idea. He'll cut government "waste" by laying off 15 percent of the government work force; Pentagon excluded where much of the significant waste occurs. I agree with you completely on what needs to be done. However, no matter what he says tonight we really don't have the leader to do what you suggest. Many hope otherwise but two years in with a Democratic Congress didn't result in such policies, what makes you think that anything will change with a hostile House that authorizes spending?

[Middle Blue]

06:04 PM on 01/25/2011

I hate to say it, but Obama is weaker than Carter and not as smart. We need another Reagan or Kennedy next, and I do not yet see one on the horizon.

[CTDFalconer]

06:24 PM on 01/25/2011

Hey, hope springs eternal.

[bradmorrison]

04:04 PM on 01/25/2011

Aside from parts of suggestion number 4, this entire article is a call for more tax and spend. "Taking on the banks" . . .What does that even mean? The financial crises was in large part the result of policies that forced banks to give mortgages to people with bad credit. Now, when those people naturally cannot pay for their house, what is the bank supposed to do? Face it, progressive policy initiated the housing bubble. Banks will not write down loans that they were basically told to make.

[Shaun Hensley]

05:05 PM on 01/25/2011

We live in a Reagan America. Better known as a toilet. We haven't had any progress in this country in over a generation.

[belladio]

07:12 PM on 01/25/2011

Thoroughly wrong.

[Robert Cantor]

03:21 PM on 01/25/2011

The swing voters Obama is 'swinging' for are disposed to vote againsth him
they dont believe govt works for them because it doesn't
unless there is strong policy to bring them into the fold Obama might be leading the Democratic Party to a 2012 slaughter

[farmallboy]

03:20 PM on 01/25/2011

SOTU will be written off and forgotten by the end of the week. Where Obama can begin making a comeback is to begin speaking in simple, easy, headline ready phrases.1) "A country divided between priviledge and poverty is living on borrowed time". 2)"An economic system regularly needing taxpayer bailouts needs to be fixed". 3) "An economy dominated by 10% of the population is 90% sure to fail"
4) "A country with 46 million people without health insurance is a country with 46 million accidents just waiting to happen". Hey, I'm no politician so these one-liners probably stink but the idea is to simplify, start re-connecting to average people, resist being co-opted by "bi-partisanship" if it is, in reality, nothing but a slightly modified GOP Roadmap idea which it must assuredly be to get anywhere in congress. The GOP/TP may wind up self-destructing anyway once the public starts to take the medicine they have in mind or, see the hollowness if they fail on their talking points.

[martman1]

03:19 PM on 01/25/2011

He should move toward the empathetic center.

[Woody25]

03:17 PM on 01/25/2011

President Obama has been a DC Centrist the whole time. The funny thing is that every time he takes two steps to the right, Republicans take four. Then they admonish him to move to the center.

[seawillow]

03:04 PM on 01/25/2011

This is the most Progressive president the Left is likely to ever get. That is, unless Progressives can convince someone, anyone that they are for the "middle class", whatever this is as they define it. Maybe what they mean is "lower class", or "working class". But of course "middle class" sounds nicer, and offers them a much much larger bloc of votes that would ordinarily go somewhere else, somewhere that would actually help them.

[codycap]

03:24 PM on 01/25/2011

Middle class is approx 40 or 50,000 dollars income. That is the average income in the US.

For those who think the poor are wanting to take from the rich.

http://www.lcurve.org/

The US population is represented along the length of the football field, arranged in order of income.

Median US family income (the family at the 50 yard line) is ~$40,000 (a stack of $100 bills 1.6 inches high.) --

The family on the 95 yard line earns about $100,000 per year, a stack of $100 bills about 4 inches high. --

At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000, a stack of $100 bills about a foot high. --

The curve reaches $1 million (a 40 inch high stack of $100 bills) one foot from the goal line. --

From there it keeps going up...it goes up 30 miles on this scale!

Does it make sense from looking at this graph that we have to cut social services and unemployment to balance our deficit?

We wouldn’t even have to increase taxes on the rich to put the country in the green. Just do to them what they want to do to us.

"Take the Rich Off Welfare", Zepezauer and Naiman

"If you cut 26 percent of the welfare now given to the rich you have instantly balanced the budget."
"If you cut out wealthfare, you could pay off the national debt in 11 years."

[Shaun Hensley]

05:07 PM on 01/25/2011

Nonsense. People would support a Progressive who made a compelling case. Like they did in 2008 with Obama, he won overwhelmingly. If President Obama and Campaign Obama were the same person, we'd be halfway out of the woods by now and only 1/3rd of the country would be irate, instead of 2/3rds.

[JimR]

05:36 PM on 01/25/2011

Poor example, as Obama is and always has been a centrist. Anybody who was paying attention to what he proposed in the campaign and in his "Blueprint for Change" could clearly see that. But many progressives got so wrapped up in his oratory, they deluded themselves into thinking he was a progressive.

[seawillow]

10:47 AM on 01/26/2011

SH: Am confused; do you believe the President is a Progressive, or not?
If yes; ask yourself why he was unable to pass his Progressive agenda. Hint: Presidents do not get to "pass" agendas.
If no; nothing you thought, or now think, or assumed, or say about him matters. Because he is not a Progressive.
Other point: Progressive are a minority of the country. Should President push an agenda that is supported by a minority? Or, should he be President of the entire country?

[Frickett]

02:56 PM on 01/25/2011

The MSM gets blamed ad nauseum for a lot of things these days, but in this case they are deeply culpable. They are reporting [sic] the Repugs agenda as the Repugs want it framed, not as it really is. HB1, HB2, and HB3 have nothing to do with jobs or reducing deficit, it is all about social conservatism (abortion) and making Obama look bad (repealing health care reform), and deficit increase (repealing healthcare reform), but the media is silent on that point except to continue the repetitive Polly Wanta Cracker teabagger mantra of less government. That's NOT what is going on.

They want to privatize and then eliminate SS and Medicare. Paul Ryan's "Roadmap" does all that, and gives even bigger tax breaks to the wealthy and actually increases taxes on the middle class and working poor, as well as rolling back all the reforms in the last two years to protect people from rapacious lenders, careless factory farm disease outbreaks, unscrupulous banks, etc.

We are well and truly doomed unless the American people decide they want the truth and force the 4th Estate to shape up and report the truth instead of spin. Unfortunately, real reporting takes work, and lazy appears to be the new journalistic black.

[martman1]

02:56 PM on 01/25/2011

Great article! That's exactly what he should say. I guess we can dream.

[mtucker57]

02:20 PM on 01/25/2011

extremely thoughtful, insightful, and disturbing.

the question is, does our economic elite gave a d*mn about the middle class? and if not, what then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs3ySRVar-Y

[saltysea]

02:18 PM on 01/25/2011

But Obama IS a New Democrat (Third Way).

According to a well-sourced, but largely unnoticed story in story in Politico early this month, Barack Obama declared in a private meeting with a group of rightwing House Democrats that he was "a New Democrat," volunteraily assuming the discredited brand of the deeply corrupt Democratic Leadership Council.

And the DLC waxes poetic about how they are modernizing "progressive" politics, globally. (See global leaders ignoring citizens and instituting "austerity" programs. http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=187&contentid=895. Enough to make me want to use the word "liberal" again.

Nice thoughts, though. Appreciate your writing.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/president-obama-declares-his-dlc-allegiance-says-i-am-new-democrat

[saltysea]

02:23 PM on 01/25/2011

Should be quotation marks starting at "According" and ending at "Council."

[codycap]

03:29 PM on 01/25/2011

SO

What is your point?