“The best defense is a good offense.”
There’s been plenty of squawking from the left and even from progressive Democrats about the Democratic Party. Obama is seen as a centrist or a pragmatist or… well, pick your own label. The bottom line is that he has done virtually nothing to advance any semblance of a progressive agenda. Washington and the media seem to enjoy telling Americans what is “on the table” and what is “off the table”. Perhaps it is time for an entirely new table.
The scope of discourse in the US is painfully narrow. The entire framework of debate, often couched in dire terms about deficits and debt, has become focused on sacrifices Americans must make. We’re told Social Security will go bankrupt and that Washington is here to help us avoid that by making painful, yet necessary, cuts. We’re told that
Medicare and Medicaid, while good programs, must be squeezed due to cost increases.
We’re told that America’s corporate taxes are the highest in the world and that they must be reduced for the US to remain competitive. We’re told that massive subsidies to Big Oil must be preserved so that our energy needs can be met. Hidden behind these and other corporate welfare programs, of course, is the not-so-subtle threat that your job
will be exported if you raise any objections about them.
Democrats are playing on a table selected and controlled by right-wing Republicans. When the question becomes “how much should we take away from the elderly, the poor and just common working folks” instead of “how much should we take away from Wall Street and its investors, from the military-industrial complex and from Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Pharma and the rest of the corporate welfare state”, there can be no progress on the progressive agenda.
So, let’s spend a little time talking about just what “going on offense” could mean.
The wars, unpaid for of course, ran up a $5 trillion (that’s trillion with a “t”) tab. Who benefited from the great fear campaign? Military contractors made a bundle. Oil companies have seen record profits too. If debt and deficits are a concern, that seems like the most sensible place to recoup (uncoup?) the money. Declare both wars over; shut down foreign military bases; make deep… very deep… cuts in the military budget. Why is no one in Congress discussing 25% cuts… 50% cuts… 75% cuts… even 90% cuts? Could it be that those we elect are fearful about the political fallout… or worse? I mean, we’ve all heard the phrase “guns or butter”. Wouldn’t it seem reasonable to call for an honest national discussion about which priority Americans prefer? The discussion is not even on the table.
Instead of subsidizing greedy multi-national industries that provide “necessities” to Americans, let’s talk about nationalizing them. It is nothing less than propaganda to argue that “greed is good” and that the profit motive makes these companies successful. What they’re doing is blackmail. You can’t live without your food, your meds, your oil, so we can charge you anything we like and you even have to subsidize our efforts. That’s the perfect case for nationalizing these industries. Throw the banks in there, too, while you’re at it.
Instead of talking about the amount of Medicare cuts, suppose wetalked about providing Medicare for all Americans and expanding what is covered. Even those on Medicare incur huge medical bills or are forced to buy supplemental coverage. Let’s put an end to that. Before we spend trillions “defending Americans” by fighting unnecessary wars around the world, how about defending the health of Americans right here at home? Until all Americans have the opportunity to obtain quality health care at an affordable price, we have no business pumping our tax dollars into the military-corporate state. That’s the priority I would establish; you won’t hear the issue discussed on the Sunday morning propaganda shows. Such themes are “off the table”.
And let’s not leave Big Pharma out of the Medicare discussion. If Medicare were allowed to negotiate prices using its massive buying power, the US could save roughly $130 billion per year. To their credit, some Democrats raised this issue several years ago but it was defeated by the Republicans in Congress. This issue, however, should have been the first words out of Obama’s mouth during the so-called “fiscal cliff” negotiations. Perhaps he said something about it; I didn’t hear a word. He certainly didn’t rally the American people to demand lower prices for Medicare drugs. Another issue off the table.
Obama allowed the fiscal cliff discussion to wallow into a discussion of taxing the wealthy “a little bit more”. Well, why not a lot more? I had a chance to watch Richard Wolff on C-Span about a week ago. He pointed out that FDR called for a 100% tax on all income above $25,000 (equivalent to about $350,000 today). Think about that! A 100% tax. That’s called going on offense. And taxing income isn’t good enough regardless of the rate. We also need to start talking about taxing wealth.
Look, we’re in a class war and we’re losing very badly. Our government does not represent our interests. You can’t call it democracy, or even a republic, when we, the people, are not being represented. The “get money out of politics” meme, while well-meaning, is a dead-end. You can’t “get money out of politics”, or frankly do anything, unless you first demand leadership that represents you. And, you can’t have leadership that represents you unless that leadership is willing to make a 100% commitment to engaging the class war. That’s what going on offense means.
When Democrats, even liberal Democrats, are willing to fight against cuts but aren’t willing to truly engage the battle against concentrated wealth, corporate welfare and the corporatizing of our lives and our culture, the difference between Republicans and Democrats becomes very slim indeed. Fighting against cuts, without a major realignment of our economy, inevitably leads to austerity measures. Put another way, without going on offense, our future is a lost battle.
(crossposted at FDL)
Comments
quit worshipping the free market while subsidizing it
I agree that is it long past time to allow Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate prescription drug reimbursements. The same people who constantly tell us about the power of the free market are the very ones who want to subsidize the 'free market'.
I also think it is long past time that America review the length of a patent granted for medications. In America, a drug patent lasts for 20 years. That prevents access to cheaper generic versions. Legal maneuvering by the drug manufacturers can often extend the life of a patent.
India does not even allow drug patents. That was a law passed in 1970. The benefits of that decision were not truly appreciated until the AIDS crisis. A 20 year drug patent is quite literally a death sentence for people, simply in the name of profit.
Great essay
And I agree unless and until we have elected leaders that are willing to offer solutions that are common sense measures but will be veiwed as extreme by TPTB and hold their ground we will never have sensible governance.
Unless and until we have "leaders" that put the people over worrying about the parking spot they might get on the hill we will continue to be fed scraps while they eat at the table.
Everything you stated makes so much since yet making any of it happen seems a futile excersize when so many supposed D's are willing to accept the scraps given while screaming thank you sir may I have another. I fear that the American electorate has become so disenfranchised that they have begun to throw their hands in the air. We just can't afford that.
Thanks and welcome to our little slice of sanity.
Drug prices.
The president took that off the table in 2009 to keep Big Pharma from opposing the health care bill. Total bullshit.
this is why I believe we must vote 3rd party
assuming they actually count the votes...they probably do, possibly, maybe...not voting leaves a lot of questions but voting 3rd party gives a hard count of how many people are opposed to what the Democrats (and Republicans) are doing. It shows exactly how many votes are lost by their pursuing a corporatist line.
I was disappointed that Jill Stein got such a low vote. I'm pretty sure that more than 1/2 of a percent of the people in the country dislike the policies of the Obama administration, from the left. But maybe some were scared of "Romney!" and maybe some didn't vote.
So instead of the administration thinking there's a considerable number of people that have to be listened to, it just goes along with the same old disregard. And if "Romney!" had won because of it? Too bad. I'm tired of being scared that it could be worse.
The best offense is to punish those, who fraudulently claim to be on our side, at the ballot box.
Very nice to see you here.
And your cross post from FDL is very welcome.
Great essay. Thank you.
Good to see you here, Welsh.
You don't have to worry about nasty O-bots, at least. :)