Last November, when the Tea Party Express was just building up a head of steam, it seemed worthwhile to stop for a minute and listen to a country song. Why? For one thing it's a really good song, and it had a great hook. "Here in the real world," it says, away from those powerful guys in Washington and New York, "they're shuttin' Detroit down."
That theme was so inclusive and compelling that conservative singer John Rich (John McCain's campaign troubadour) was able to get noted lefty Kris Kristofferson to act in the video, along with Mickey Rourke. That made the song important and interesting. How was John Rich's message able to win over those guys? Because it was simple and true: The people who got us into this mess are doing just fine, and the people who worked hard and played by the rules aren't. What concerned me back then was that this message, while compelling and accurate, could wind up benefiting some of most bank-friendly politicians on Earth. The Republicans who deregulated banking (along with centrist Democrats) could wind up with more power. They'd then be in a better position to carry out their agenda of blocking the modest banking reforms and economic fixes being recommended by the White House and Congress.
Isn't that pretty much what's happening?
Reading Arianna Huffington's new book Third World America made me think of that song again. There's a medical phenomenon called "blindsight," where people who seem to be partially or completely blind are able to respond to visual information under test conditions. The theory is that they're not blind at all, but are unable to consciously process the information they're receiving from their eyes. Isn't that what's happening in the country right now? Most people aren't economists or policy wonks, after all, so they probably haven't "seen" this chart:
(source)
But on some level they know it. And they may not have seen this chart, either (from CBS Moneywatch via Mike Konczal), but you can bet they "know" it too:
People need ways to integrate and process all the information they're receiving. They're struggling with the cognitive dissonance they experience when they're told the economy's doing better, because they know that in their world it's not. Human beings have always used stories and songs to integrate the information they receive, and we need better stories and better hooks than we've been getting lately.
Know what's a good hook for these troubled times? "Third World America." Know what's not? "Recovery Summer." So score one for Arianna before the cover's even cracked. The "recovery summer" theme was bound to ring false for the millions of Americans who still live in a devastated economy. That was destined to reduce the credibility of the very institutions that prevented even greater damage - institutions that could do more to help them.
We've seen the Administration move toward a more coherent narrative in the last week, but will it be enough? "I ran because I felt that we had to have a different economic philosophy in order to grow that middle class and grow our economy over the long term," the President in Friday's press conference. That sounds like a story worth telling.
Third World America is direct and clear in its message: Decades of aggressive corporate lobbying, driven by bankers and other large corporations, have led to a series of policy decisions that are eroding the American standard of living. The details are all there: The financial industry's gone from 2.5% of our GDP in 1947 to 8.3% right before the meltdown. Financial profits went from a maximum of 16% between 1973 and 1985 to 41% right before the crisis hit. And rather than being chastened by their failure, or disciplined by taxpayers in return for being bailed out, bankers have embraced their old ways with enthusiasm. Meanwhile the American households that rescued them lost $13 trillion in wealth between mid-2007 and March 2009.
There has been, in economist Simon Johnson's words, a "quiet coup" led by a classic "oligarchy." Bankers now exert enormous control over both the economy and the political process. People see that, and they're angry. Anyone who wants to discuss the current state of affairs better be prepared to speak plainly - "third world America," "quiet coup," "oligarchy" - or they'll be ignored.
Some of us are actually old enough to remember when the American dream was at its peak. Even if you were just a kid, you knew certain things: If you worked hard, you could retire in financial security. You lived in a country that led the world in science research, education, and social mobility. We designed things, built things. We were creating the future. Many of us later traveled into Third World countries for work or pleasure. We were saddened by the crumbling roads, unsafe bridges, and unregulated companies poisoning the air and water. The income inequities seemed so unjust, and the people's inability to heal their country through a free political process was tragic.
Little did we suspect we might be looking into our own future.
But Arianna's not just crying in her beer. The final section of the book details a series of fixes, which include: Campaign financing. Citizen activism, with less reliance on politicians as saviors and more on ourselves as the agents of change. Spending on infrastructure and education. Bank reform with teeth. Homeowner relief. Service to others. Moving your money away from predatory financial institutions.
I'd add another to that fine list: Stop judging the tea party radicals around you. Sure, some may be extremists and racists, but lots of them are just frightened and angry. They're trying to reconcile what they "see" with what they're being told. Right now they believe a false story, but it hangs together and makes them feel sane in a seemingly insane world. Demogogues have always used these kinds of stories to exploit human fear. You can't blame people for believing a false story if they haven't heard the real one.
So don't blame the individuals, blame the story. Tell them a better one. The truth is a helluva story. But even the truth works better if it has a good hook.
_________________________________________
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at "rjeskow@ourfuture.org."
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Robert Scheer: 'The Great American Stickup': Is Bush Really To Blame For The Economy?
Neither of these formulations is true! We have had bad leadership in both realms for decades - bad corporate leadership from self-satisfied MBAs, bad government leadership from ideologues with more loyalty to their ideologies than to "the facts on the ground" (now there's a phrase that's getting tired). And worse yet - decades of an unholy alliance between the two, which this article describes so very well.
In short, I do not blame angry Tea Party folks for their anger, and yes, they are being "demagogued." However, they tend to label those who disagree with them in any way, and once the label is on, the ears and mind are closed. Yes, of course, they have no monopoly on this practice; folks on all parts of the political spectrum do it, but absolutism and oversimplification make open discussion difficult.
Keep in mind that there are really two different stories coming out: one for the rural and religious, another for the educated and angry. One states that God is on the side of judicial "originalism", laissez faire economics, and the destruction of the welfare state- and fuels it through fear of "foreign enemies." Another turns the intellectual fathers of modern liberalism like Payne and Jefferson into caricatures of Ayn Rand (never mind that one heavily influenced the public education system and the other came up with the idea of "basic income"... and both lived in an agrarian world) to try to push the so-called "libertarianism" of today (conservatism without the morality) into the "real" liberalism in the minds of Americans.
There is no one-size-fits-all.
And frankly I find it amazing that conservatives can keep both of these storylines going at once.
The antidote to the Tea Party isn't a new story. It's to destroy the story that holds these people with VERY different values together.
Count me among the "educated and angry" although the rural and religious are equally irritated. Most Conservatives understand why laissez-faire capitalism failed so spectacularly. It decimated its clients and customers.
I do thoroughly agree with you that "no one size fits all" where politics are concerned. There are reasonable Liberals and Conservatives. Pity they are not more newsworthy. What we need are a few rock star Moderates, or is that a contradiction in terms.
The rhetoric coming from opinion leaders, particularly in the Tea Party camp, is decidedly "objectivist" in character and contains the historical fabrication of the so-called "classic liberals." It seems obvious what group is in the driver's seat.
But the rank and file conservatives, the ones who still have their common sense, aren't going to look up to see who's driving until the car crashes.
For all the sane members of the Tea Party movement, isn't it strange that the candidates they support end up being crackpots?
That's the problem with disorganized mass movements, particularly when more organized political groups start taking advantage of the chaos to push their own agendas (Assorted fringe elements of the right have started filling leadership roles, while Democrats use the TP in ways similar to how Republicans use the Green Party).
That we have a different world view informed by extensive study should come as no surprise. You and I might read Locke, Rousseau or the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and come away with entirely different opinions. It makes neither of us stupid.
A certain amount of respect and politeness from both sides would not come amiss in moving the discussion forwards.
Monegan said. “In her case, she is not mature enough or doesn’t understand that or she has such a large goal that she feels she knows what’s best for everybody, doesn’t really need any other input.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-14/inside-palins-life...-in-alaska/
See More
As a Conservative leaning Independent, I simply have a different world view than yours. In mine responsible people live within their means, get a good education, do what is necessary before doing what is only pleasant and work very, very hard. I expect the rewards of this lifestyle to come mostly to me and not the government.
I understand the necessity for international finance and big business, but believe the rules under which they operate should guarantee the lion's share of the benefits accrue to workers in the US. Sensible, simple and consistent rules which do not stifle commerce and are easy to both comply with and enforce are a reasonable expectation from our government. So far we have not gotten "reasonable" from either party.
That the average voter has more sympathy for tax payers than tax takers should come as no surprise.
There is no such thing as a 'self-made man'. Someone helped you get to where you are today...further, we live in a society where the "rewards" we enjoy came in part from the hard work (and tax dollars) of those before us...so I don't see paying taxes as some horrible burden on my life...it's my participation in this great nation. I also understand that there will be things the government spends money on that I don't agree with. However, there ARE things the government spends on that I DO agree with, so I try to keep some level of perspective. If my tax dollars go towards some poor person's education, I figure that helps us all in the long run, since it increases that person's ability to be a productive citizen...which lowers my burden as a taxpayer.
Your positions sound eminently reasonable...here's the thing I wonder: if you are in fact a "Tea Party" person (I won't say "radical"), do you believe that, say, Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck has better ideas? These are the people that supposedly speak, sort of, for the Tea Party "movement" or whatever it may be. I guess if I were in your position, I wouldn't know where to go in today's political landscape for leadership. (I'm not sure I do anyway.)
Democrats were to blame and it wasn't the moderates. It was the entrenched leadership. Democrats love "too big to fail". Having banks that are dependant upon them gives them more control over the banking industry than having countless number of small banks competing with each other.
The deregulation of Wall Street, or America's financial system, took place during the Clinton administration. In 1999, the Financial Services Modernization Act was passed that undid restrictions.
Don't judge them? Their votes, along with those of their brothers in arms, are killing us. They voted for Palin, then went around acting like they'd done somebody a favor and were waiting for people to pin a gold star on their foreheads.
I judge them to be stupid. They judge me, as best I can tell, as a bigoted elitist Satanic communist socialist who works tirelessly to destroy America. You should be telling them not to judge me, not the other way round, because they have got me completely wrong but I'm still waiting for someone to prove they aren't stupid, or to point out a group of intelligent people who believe in terrorist fist bumps and Kenyan Nazi American Presidents.
These people do not have some sort of special learning disability. There is a perfectly good reason why they can't make sense out of graphs and charts: they can't make sense out of ANYTHING. That's been the problem all along.
If we stand silently by while stupid continues to do its thing, stupid will think it's doing a bang-up job and this ship sinks. Tolerance only goes so far, and tolerating people who want to put illiterates in charge of nuclear weapons while they run this country into the ground is asking too much. I don't tolerate those things, I stand up and fight against them. As you should.
Absent any reference to Arianna Huffington, Eskow's article, like John Rich's song, would resonate with populists as well as progressives. However, calling them stupid will probably decrease your audience share rapidly.
In the spirit of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" you might want to make a common cause with anyone who wishes to emphasize the economic needs of Main Street over those of Wall Street.
"In perhaps the clearest sign yet that economic change is gathering pace in Cuba, the government plans to lay off more than half a million people from the public sector in the expectation that they will move into private businesses, Cuba’s labor federation said Monday. "
16 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
If you tax the wealthy so much, where do you think they will go? Overseas, is my guess. However, I agree with most of your post, apart from spreading the wealth.
Favorite (1) Flag as Abusive (0)
____________________________________________________________-
Fine let them go. I don't think there's another place in this world where they could keep as much of their wealth as they do here. They haven't bought enough politicians in other countries YET or they wouldn't be here anyway would they?
We don't like big bailouts, big deficits, big business, big banks, big pharma, or big government. We really are the "little people" in the very best sense of the words.
I for one am sick of politicians trying to put a label on me so they can lead me by the nose. I prefer free thinking, thank you very much. Sorry that some don't care for my views because I don't *conform* to their idea of what a liberal or conservative should be. NOT.
We belong to that growing group which asks, "What makes you think this will actually work? Has it been successful elsewhere, and under what circumstances? If not, can you please give us a statistical model and a scoring by the CBO."
This has far less to do with political skepticism than simply conceeding adult common sense trumps politics every time.
No more Party, corporate, PAC or outside funding. Lobbying for profit should be made illegal, as should lobbying for any entity which is not a 501c3 charitable organization. Also, any lobbying must be done by persons within the legislator/candidate's district at the local office, not in Washington. Then you would see candidates who actually represent their districts.
I did not like big government when LBJ, Nixon, Carter or Reagan ran it, and my attitude has not changed with Clinton, either Bush or Obama.
Yes, indeed, and it's liberal policies that have substantially destroyed that America. You're talking about a time when the federal government was a fraction of its current size, when we had balanced budgets or close to them, and when the overall tax burden on middle-class families was a fraction of what it is now.
And 'the American dream" was to make it big, to achieve success, to (gasp, heaven forbid) get rich. Now you guys bash and demonize anyone who makes $250K or more as the greedy, selfish, evil "rich."