Which Side of the Barricade Are You On?

[n2doc]

Democratic strategist Doug Sosnik was a close adviser to President Bill Clinton, and he’s famed in Washington circles for his closely held, big-think memos on the state of American politics. We got our hands on his latest—in which he warns of a rising populist tide that threatens to swamp Republicans and Democrats alike—and are reprinting it in full here with his permission.
***
For some time now, the daily commentary has focused on the public’s increasing anger and frustration about the sluggish economic recovery, dysfunctional government and a failure of leadership. But all this analysis misses the more fundamental point, which is that Americans’ alienation from our political system and its leaders has been building for more than a decade. This extended period of dissatisfaction has had an extremely corrosive effect on the nation’s social fabric.

The current discontent with the leadership in our country, coupled with long-term domestic economic trends dating back to the early 1980s, is beginning to force a redrawing of the political lines that have separated Americans since the culture wars of the 1960s. An emerging movement in our country is calling for change to the status quo and to the leadership class. Across the political spectrum, there is an growing populist push for a retrenchment from global affairs, with a renewed focus on the problems here at home. Americans are worried about the struggles of the battered middle class, whose real incomes have not improved in more than two decades, the elimination of special deals for the wealthy and big business and the protection of the public’s privacy from what they see as predatory companies and an intrusive federal government. These are the issues that will dominate our politics going forward, and we will see populists from the left and the right increasingly come together to force change.

A decade of anger and disaffection

There is a pent up desire for dramatic change that has been shaped by a confluence of major events in the United States and around the world. In the last 10 years the country has fought two wars, faced the greatest worldwide economic meltdown since the 1930s and experienced the most significant technological transformation since the Industrial Revolution. The nation has also undergone a major demographic makeover, shifting from a majority white country to an increasingly multicultural society. Throughout this period our leaders have failed to manage the pace of all this change and to face up to the severity of our challenges, resulting in disillusionment and deep divisions among the public by race, age and income.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/which-side-of-the-barricade-are-you-on-100302.html

[OffWithTheirHeads]

1. Yup. Pretty much.

[bvar22]

2. I know where I stand.

DURec!

[dreamnightwind]

3. Rec'd for visibility

Interesting read, some of it is right on.

It's great to see that these issues are getting the attention of a party insider like I presume Sosnik to be. It's about time, and then some.

Unfortunately the inside-the-bubble think is everywhere. It's how these kind of people see the world, the lens they observe it through, even when writing about populist rumblings outside of the beltway.

For one thing, he totally buys into the center-right country B.S. That's a real shame. The people have been given nothing to the left of center-right candidates, due to a firewall maintained by the two political parties. The people would be quite happy to support left-of-center candidates, though such will have to overcome out of control corporate campaign contributions and a corporate media that wants no part of anything on the left.

He also buys into the "Americans want smaller government" B.S. We're constantly told we want smaller government, by the media, by the Republicans, and the Democrats don't do enough to push back on this because their corporate donors want less regulation so are pushing the smaller government meme, hard.

What we want is government that works for us and not for corporate interests, for the 99% rather than just for the 1%. Is that smaller government? Who knows? It's not about the size, it's about who that government is serving.

He gives a lot of weight to the supposed failure of Obamacare in his arguments. He uses that to support the "Americans want smaller government" meme, and to say it is further proof that government is broken and can't do anything right. I have never liked Obamacare, it's a RW think-tanks' uniquely American (corporate actually) solution to a problem more social democratic countries have solved all over the globe. But to use a newly rolled out program's initial hiccups as way to show the ineffectiveness of government is absurd. They'll work out the initial kinks in the system, then we'll see how well (or not) it controls costs and delivers healthcare.

It also buys into the myth that the redistricting done after the 2010 census has made it unlikely for much reform to happen until after the next census. What it ignores is that, with a disgruntled public that is slowly waking to the issues of inequality, the redistricting can actually work against the Republican party. What they do is make a few very safe districts for Democrats, then spread their own vote across as many districts as possible to give them a slim margin of victory in many gerry-mandered districts. With a small realignment of public opinion, all of those districts come into pllay, because they use a small margin when redistricting in order to carry as many districts as possible. So that is actually fairly unstable and can be flipped the other way in many districts at once.

So I'm not too impressed, really, if this piece is representative of our party's thinking. It's the corporate-centrist money party taking a fearful look at the disgruntled people who have been hurt by its policies. The solutions considered appear to be market solutions, getting our ineffective government off of the taxpayer's backs and out of the way of the designs of capitalist exploitation.

It isn't all bad, I'm probably a little harsh here, there's just this world view which seems to guarantee the wrong conclusions. The good is that they're paying attention to inequality and eroded wages/salaries, which is huge. Are they doing so in order to enact system fixes to these problems, or are they more concerned with how to politically position their candidates in this environment? Probably the latter, not much indication of the former in this article. Very interesting read, though, so K & R.

[Earth_First]

4. I know where I'm at... nt

[Brigid]

5. Great article.

I like Mr. Sosnik's optimism. However, he seems to believe that positive change won't be happening until the next decade. I am not so sure the rising frustration of the people will wait that long without boiling over.

[blkmusclmachine]

6. ,

,

[TheJames]

7. Notice the source. n/t