The so-called “Overton window” is so broken that ‘liberal’ President Bill Clinton was, in terms of the effects of the policies of his administration, more conservative than Richard Nixon, and frankly about in line with Eisenhower by many measures. The composite mean of the American political and social spectrum is radically conservative compared to pretty much any nation in Western and Central Europe save for contemporary Hungary and Poland.
Personally, I think it is a good thing to have a spectrum of political views within our two major parties even if you favor progressivism because that push-and-pull ensures that the views of the overall population are being represented and acts as a brake on implementing sweeping policy changes to rapidly because even good changes require time for people to adjust and to shake out the flaws. Radical change results in radical reaction including regime change or takeover by unscrupulous leaders to their own ecocentric ends.
However, we currently have one party that is actively purging any moderating or self-critical elements from its ranks (and no, the “Never Trumpers” and moderate Republicans are not going to reverse that trend without some outside influence or total leadership collapse), and even conservative-leaning Democrats need to form a cohesive line to reverse the most onerous policies and legislation in the time they have because the odds of retaining Senate control in the 2022 elections are not favorable to say the least. It is one thing to negotiate internally within the party to get to a compromise on minimum wage (and there are credible arguments that a $15/hr minimum wage, which is quite high in purchasing power parity measures even compared to progressive Western democracies like Germany and Belgium, is a bridge too far for many states as it will disproportionately impact small businesses) but the public airing of grievance and defiance on a critical stimulus and support is not a good look for Democrats.
…
The measure seeks at once to curtail the coronavirus pandemic, bolster the sluggish economy and protect the neediest people within it. Republicans voted unanimously against it and assailed it as unnecessary and unaffordable.
It would inject vast amounts of federal resources into the economy, including one-time direct payments of up to $1,400 for hundreds of millions of Americans, jobless aid of $300 a week to last through the summer, money for distributing coronavirus vaccines and relief for states, cities, schools and small businesses struggling during the pandemic.
Beyond the immediate aid, the bill, titled the American Rescue Plan, is estimated to cut poverty by a third this year and would plant the seeds for what Democrats hope will become an income guarantee for children. It would potentially cut child poverty in half, through a generous expansion of tax credits for Americans with children — which Democrats hope to make permanent — increases in subsidies for child care, a broadening of eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, and an expansion of food stamps and rental assistance.
…
My bold.
Well, dang. Naturally the Republicans are against it. “Neediest people”?? Who cares about them?
While I’m still pissed that this bill didn’t include a minimum wage hike (eight Dem Senators thought $15 by 2025 was too high?!), on the whole this is a really great bill. The $1400 is in there up to $75K, the $3000/year child support is great, and there’s a whole bunch of other good stuff. The Dems compromised way less on this bill with only 50 Senators and what, 222 Representatives, than they did with ~58 Senators and >250 Reps at the time the ARRA (the Obama stimulus) was passed in early 2009.
I’m starting to think the Democratic Party may be getting a clue.
I’m hoping they’ve figured out that they’ve only got a year and seven months and that their best chance of getting any longer than that is to manage, somehow, to become the party that Gets Things Done.
Yep, both parties are making a bet here. Democrats are betting that fiscal stimulus and a stepped-up coronavirus response will have the economy roaring back to life by the time the 2022 elections roll around and happy voters will reward the Democrats. Republicans are betting on the historical trend that midterm elections go against the President’s party, and don’t want to muddy the distinction by joining on with Biden’s initiatives.
My gut says that the Republicans are “righter” on this. Content voters tend not to turn out at all in midterm elections, whereas aggrieved voters (i.e. most Republicans nowadays) do. The Democrats best hope for a good midterm is that Republican nominate candidates that are so obviously coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs that Democratic and independent voters feel threatened.
I’m feeling threatened already, thanks. Almost everybody who’s left in the current Republican party, at least among those active in it, appears to me to indeed be coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs; if only in that they’re fools enough to support the ones who are obviously so.
Whether enough of the people who produced that massive D turnout last fall will continue to feel threatened is of course another question.
I think that’s a bad way of putting it. The way the midterms have historically gone against the party in the White House, and the reasons for it, are simply a fact of life. It’s not like there’s a Democratic bet that takes that off the table altogether.
What they’re doing is making a bet that this bill will help counteract that effect. Of course the odds are still against them; the question is, how much of a dent will the effects of this bill make in their underlying disadvantage? I’d say that going big has maximized their chances (for now) of a big dent in this underlying disadvantage, but it still doesn’t make them favorites to hold Congress.
So it’s interesting that the GQP feels their best play isn’t to attack the bill, but rather to talk about Dr. Seuss and ‘cancel culture.’ They’d rather change the subject altogether than further publicize this legislation by vocally opposing it.
That’s their bet, that changing the subject maximizes their chances, that talking about ‘cancel culture’ and trans bathrooms and Emmanuel Goldstein Antifa and the like gives them their best shot.
Fair enough, I suppose it isn’t so much Democrats “making a bet” as “playing the only hand they’ve got.” I’m probably more skeptical about how much of a dent it’ll make, but the alternative is to just wait around for the Republicans to steamroll them. And it makes a difference whether we’re talking about a 2010 or 1994 where Democrats got absolutely clobbered or a 1982 or 1978 where the President’s party suffered more modest losses.
If the Republicans succeed (with the help of the Supreme Court) in suppressing voting the way they’re working hard at, it won’t matter if the Dems make everyone a healthy millionaire by 2022. Votes for them either won’t happen or won’t count.
Yup. They are hoping that twenty-one months of Democrats busting their asses to fix as much as they can of the most catastrophic and egregious effects of wanton Republican misgovernance will lull the average voter into a reassuring sense of returning normality and taking for granted the basic lawful functioning of government.
Voters who are feeling reassured that democracy as they know it isn’t actually succumbing to active destruction are more likely to buy into Republicans’ cosplaying as responsible leaders who are sincerely concerned about the alleged dangers of Democratic “cancel culture” and “creeping socialism” and “antifa” and so forth.
Same thing happened in 2008 and 2010. Republican irresponsible anti-governance laissez-faire policies exacerbate a massive economic crash that has many Americans genuinely scared that they’ll never see any of their assets again; voting public craps its pants in dismay and grudgingly accepts the necessity of fiscally prudent “do-gooder” Democrats in the leadership.
Then Democrats scurry around cleaning up the mess as best they can with Republicans sulking, complaining and obstructing at every opportunity; voting public is reassured about the fundamental stability of the system and buys into Republican campaign rhetoric that the lingering problems are all the Democrats’ fault.
This is what it looks like when a grown-up is President:
…
First, Biden has been consistently underestimated by the chattering class. He was boring, a weak debater, too old, not progressive enough, they said during the campaign. Biden and his team had the confidence and experience to ignore the trite, conventional and wrongheaded “take” that Democrats were looking for a fire-breathing socialist in 2020. They knew to ignore Twitter, ignore the complaints about an “ambitious” vice president and ignore sneering about his campaign from the basement. What pundits would like to chalk up to luck was in fact a savvy, disciplined campaign.
…
Just as he did in the campaign, he rejected media entreaties to respond to the latest outburst from the disgraced and now former president or from his hysterical enablers obsessed with irrelevant cultural memes. He would not be knocked off message.
…
And for those who whine that he’s not “bipartisan” enough-- the public supports him across party lines, and that’s what counts.
…
In fact, as he observed in a victory lap speech on Saturday, “without the overwhelming bipartisan support of the American people, this would not have happened.”
…
Bipartisanship, the administration maintained, was not found in capitulating to Republicans whose paltry $650 billion plan failed to grasp the magnitude of the dual economic and health threats.
…
It depends on which direction you are talking about. Clinton was FAR more liberal than Nixon and Eisenhower on race relations (yes, even with the 1996 Crime Bill) and women’s rights. Economically speaking, Clinton was trying to move if a leftward direction until his attempts at expanding healthcare were destroyed and his party got destroyed in the midterm elections. Then he went right to save his re-election.
I think at least some of them did not think it was appropriate to re-add it after the Senate Parliamentarian said it ran afoul of reconciliation rules. I think you’ll have less opposition on a stand alone bill.
One could also note that Hilary’s fairly high profile involvement in a UHC plan during Willy’s administration was the beginning of the extreme level of hatred directed at her by the GQP.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question at Tuesday’s briefing as to why President Biden would not be affixing his signature to the $1,400 stimulus checks. (The degree to which his disgraced predecessor convinced national media that his conduct was acceptable, let alone normal, never fails to surprise.) “He didn’t think that was a priority or a necessary step,” Psaki said. “His focus was on getting them out as quickly as possible.” She might have answered: Because he is not a raging narcissist .
Italics in original.
Duh, yeah. That’d be the reason.
And furthermore:
She also might have pointed out that the country is very aware of whom they should thank for the check plus other benefits, including larger subsidies for insurance costs under the Affordable Care Act, an expansion of child tax credits, more food and rental assistance, extended paid sick leave, expanded broadband (popular in rural areas), aid for small businesses, and more funds for coronavirus testing and vaccinations.