Cross-posted at Project
Vote's blog, Voting
Matters
By Steven Rosenfeld
Why is a progressive as smart as Robert Reich ceding Tea Party
talking points as he analyzes this moment in 2010's unfolding political
narrative?
In an
otherwise barbed column saying no one should be surprised when big
business does what is in big business's bottom-line interest (whether it
leads to oil spills, coal mine collapses, Wall Street meltdowns, etc.),
Reich stumbles into the "big government' and "angry electorate"
rhetorical quicksand:
"This country is now having the sharpest and most emotional debate
it's had in more than a century over a deceptively simple question:
Which do you trust less - Big Business (including Wall Street) or Big
Government?"
Reich continues by
summarizing the rightwing position, that "government is on the loose
because of the giant stimulus package; the yawning budget deficit and
hair-raising national debt; the 'takeovers' of General Motors, Chrysler,
and AIG, along with the firings of several executives; and the huge
health-care bill," and concludes, "Until six months ago, the latter
narrative, emanating from the Republican right, seemed to be winning the
hearts and minds of an ever more angry electorate."
Stop right there. "Big government" is not an entirely accurate
description of what is happening in government today, as public
services--particularly at state and local levels where most people
interact with government--are significantly shrinking and being reduced
by revenue shortfalls. That is not government run amok. That is
government running away, downsizing in city after city and state after
state.
Nor is the "angry" mood of most 2010 voters an established or forgone
conclusion, although these are the strategic concepts and buzzwords
used by Tea Partiers, who hover
ideologically somewhere between hardcore Republicans and Libertarians.
It would be a big mistake to suggest that the electorate, the body
politic that elected President Obama, is now sporting Tea Party views.
To be fair, Reich's column suggested that we need an effective big
government to rein in irresponsible big business. But there is a danger
in his framing that buys into Tea Party rhetoric--and he is not alone.
Too many Democratic pundits also have written off the upcoming mid-term
elections, expecting to see sizeable losses instead of defending the
very voters who elected the current Congress and White House occupant.
And who were those voters? You would think that progressives would
know and rise to their defense. Major slices of society voted in
historically unprecedented numbers in 2008, and they were not Tea
Partiers. In fact, the 2008 presidential exit polls showed many
conservative Republicans stayed home and did not vote. Instead,
low-income people making less than $15,000 a year, numerous minority
communities, and young people all cast ballots at historically
unprecedented rates.
Is the 2008 electorate angry? Perhaps. Maybe it is angry that
government did not do more to stop Wall Street from wrecking the
economy. Maybe it is angry that health insurance reform would not take
effect for years to come. Maybe it is angry that public services are
being slashed because too few state and federal legislators are willing
to stand up defending the very services that taxes pay for.
A recent
poll by the Pew Research Center suggests that American attitudes
are not what has been portrayed in 2010's dominant anti-government
narrative, and an upcoming Project Vote poll will further explore
the 2008 electorate's views on government and its performance. In the
meantime, the media needs to be very careful about buying into a
campaign narrative about supposedly over-reaching government and
increasingly angry voters.
The danger in forgetting who actually voted
in historic numbers in 2008 is that those voters may not turn out this
fall if they do not hear progressive voices defending their issues and
concerns. That would be politically tragic--and just what the Tea
Partiers want.
