Obama

Peter Beinart's Washington Post column today argues that Sen. Obama should embrace an income-based affirmative action proposal.

For these voters, Obama can't make race go away by ignoring it, especially because the GOP and the media won't. He needs to acknowledge their fears and do something dramatic to assuage them. Paradoxically, his best shot at deracializing the campaign is to explicitly make race an issue.

He can do that with a high-profile speech -- and maybe a TV ad -- calling for the replacement of race-based preferences with class-based ones. That would confront head-on white fears that an Obama administration would favor minorities at whites' expense. It would be a sharper, more dramatic, way of making the point that Obama has made ever since he took the national stage (but which some whites still refuse to believe): that he represents not racial division but national unity.

In general this is a bad idea. For one, I doubt it'd actually do much to solve the problem. Did we end segregation and slavery by focusing on class? Doing something about these large-scale problems requires a far more powerful moral argument.

Essentially what Beinert is afraid of is that a racial argument will make Obama seem like he's for "them" and not for "us." But Sen. Obama doesn't have to argue that it's policy for "them." Rather, he could seize on the spirit of optimism and unity that's distinguished his campaign to make the case for bringing people on the fringes of American life into mainstream society.

Because these marginal and "undeserving" folks are, of course, us. For middle class folks it just takes a look back a generation or two to see that marginal folks were once your family. My grandparents grew up in the Jewish ghettos of Chicago and New York City- they, too, were considered marginal, but the opportunities created by the educational system and an inclusive economy made their exit from the ghetto possible. If we can make sure that they made it out, we can do it for the folks who are still struggling.

We need to recognize that large groups of people who are just like us are still being excluded from prosperity. Some of this exclusion is based on race- some of it region- some of it gender- and yes, some of it is based on being low-income. But it's not income that unites these folks- it's the fact that they've been excluded. And it's the fact that we've all experienced exclusion that unites us all.

In a thoughtful TPM Cafe post, Theda Skocpol argues that despite Obama's current lead, McCain is actually doing a better job of shaping the agenda:

Why isn't Obama getting his economic message across with a few bold symbolic gestures -- eyecatching programs (not necessarily really new) that he uses to feature what he proposes on gas prices, college access, family leave, etc? This whole area needs much more thought. The elite media find it boring and irrelevant to talk about the huge distributional consequences of an election like this—after all, most of them are rich and spend time talking to other rich folks and insider "analysts"—yet ordinary voters have to be able to wrap their minds around specific examples of what Obama and Demcorats can do to make life better. It up to Democrats to use eye-catching moves and message discipline (lots of surrogates at once) to get specific messages through on the economy. So far, little effectiveness here, yet this is what Democrats should have going for them in this election!

....

Creative thinking about better agenda-control needs to happen now, in his campaign, in the DNC, and in the Congressional leadership. Too much attention is focused on fighting the last war, preparing to avoid the Swift-boating-type attacks Kerry lost in August 2004, rather than on shaping this war, which is a new one on different but equally tough terrain! This election is an agenda-shaping war to focus on real-life economic concerns and convince ordinary voters that Obama and the Democrats CAN make a difference for them. If they don't believe that, voters, especially older ones, will take the safe course and install McCain for a while.

My former chief, CBPP's Bob Greenstein, has an impassioned defense of his former employee Jason Furman at the Huffington Post. Bob rightly skewers some of the reporting on Furman—particularly an erroneous report that he favored Social Security privatization.

I do have to gently disagree, however, with a two of Bob's arguments. First, he states that:

Everyone involved in the 2005 debate over Bush's privatization proposal knows it was Furman's devastating analyses shredding the Bush plan and skewering the arguments of privatizers that formed the intellectual core of the successful opposition. Democratic Members of Congress, unions, and grassroots campaigns against the Bush plan built much of their critiques on Furman's work.

The suggestion that "everyone involved" in the SS debate "knows it was Furman's" work that "formed the intellectual core of the successful opposition" is a bit of an overstatement. (Also, while saying "I'm the greatest rapper alive" is standard in hip-hop, it's somewhat out of place in policy analysis). Furman's work on SS at CBPP was great, but it was only part of a larger Team Progressive effort that formed the "intellectual core" of the defense. Ezra Klein is closer to the mark when he notes that Furman:

... was a staunch ally during the Social Security privatization fight, and did as much as any economist not named Dean Baker to push back on the then-pervasive idea that Social Security was in crisis and required conservative reform.

Second, Bob suggests that Furman's hire doesn't necessarily represent a "move to the political center":

.... several news accounts, including a Huffington Post column, portrayed Obama's hiring of Furman as a move to the political center now that Obama has wrapped up the nomination. This, too, is dubious. Prior to Furman's hiring, Obama's two top advisers on economic and fiscal policy were University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee and Harvard economist Jeffrey Liebman. Goolsbee, Liebman, and Furman are all moderately left of center. In fact, reading the work of all three (each of whom is considered a top-notch economists) leads one to put Furman modestly to the left, not the right, of the other two. In recent years, Furman's work has focused, in particular, on how to change government policies so the gains of economic growth are more evenly shared, with more gains going to low—and moderate—income working families and fewer to corporate profits than has recently occurred.

While it may be true that Furman is modestly to the left of Goolsbee and Liebman (the distinction isn't clear to me based on their written work), the real divide here involves Furman's views on fiscal policy as well as the role of economic institutions—particularly collective bargaining, new basic labor standards like paid leave, and other forms of market regulation—in creating an economy that works for all Americans.

Obama doesn't exactly have a boldly progressive economic agenda, but it includes many progressive elements—such as paid sick days and leave, indexing (not just increasing) the minimum wage, and expanding collective bargaining—that Furman, as far as I can tell, has never publicly endorsed. In my view, the biggest problem with Furman's infamous Wal-Mart paper is precisely his failure to include these reforms, as well as universal health care, as recommendations to "change government policies so the gains of economic growth are more evenly shared." In a subsequent online debate with Barbara Ehrenreich, he had a perfect opportunity to correct this imbalance, but failed to do so—instead, again quoting Ezra Klein, riding his initial argument "to a level of dogmatism that appears unwise."

Greenstein's case for Furman would actually have been strengthened if he had acknowledged the obvious: Furman is pretty much a 1990s-style "third way" guy with the pros and cons that ideology entails. Among the pros, Furman supports the current welfare state and would increase government transfers to low- and moderate-income folks: the cons, he wouldn't require much more from corporate American (other than an increase in the minimum wage). Moreover, he hasn't publicly made the same moves to the left as some others in the Rubin camp. Importantly, Obama is already on record supporting many of the key elements of a progressive economic agenda, one that does require more from business. It's our job to make sure he holds to those positions whoever his advisers may be.

Uchitelle in the NYT, Borosage, and, my favorite, Dean Baker on why Obama (wisely) didn't pick a crazy-ass progressive economist like say, Dean Baker.

The reality is that if Obama had picked a progressive economist (a.k.a. a Neanderthal protectionist), who had not been initiated into the Wall Street club, he would have gotten beaten up so badly by the media that he would want Reverend Wright to come back for more press events.

There's also supposedly a video of Baker floating around in which he exclaims, in his prophetic voice: "God bless American capitalism? No, God damn American capitalism!"

Furman argues in Uchitelle's article that his own views are "irrelevant.” But that strikes me as spin—the blow-up around Furman's appointment will help keep him fair and balanced, but based on his writing and quotes, he's a true believer in Rubinomics, and it's inevitable that those views will influence the advice he gives.

Baker is probably right about how a progressive economist would have been treated by the media, and Borosage is right when he says Furmangate really isn't about Furman, it's about Obama's economic views. But I'd still love to see an economist from the non-Rubinite camp on Obama's staff alongside Furman. And to be even more super-duper-radical, how about a woman on either the paid staff or unpaid economic advisor list (right now the same list of roughly five white guys is regularly cited). My top pick for either would be Heather Boushey, who's currently working for the Joint Economic Committee on the hill, has as much or more policy savvy as Furman, and knows way more about labor market economics, which I hear just might be an issue in this election, than he does.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty disappointed by the selection of Jason Furman as Obama's head economic guru. Read Furman's April piece in Slate that instructs the next President on fiscal policy for some clues on what his advice will be. Basically, Furman is a liberal deficit hawk. In the article, he makes clear that the next president should prioritize deficit and debt reduction.

Now, Furman is the good kind of deficit hawk, and he's gotten better with time. He favors an extended health care plan and has become decent on long term budget issues. He doesn't think the sky will fall if you raise taxes, nor does he think tax cuts and savings accounts are the answers to all life's problems. But he does say it's ok to veto spending bills, and he's still operating in the Clintonian paradigm that puts deficit reduction above all else, which means spending will be foregone. That's bad for social programs and the prospects for shared prosperity.

Why wouldn't deficit hawkery produce shared prosperity now when it did under Clinton? Because times have changed. We're in the middle of a recession, and our fiscal policy now is to pump up flagging demand and avoid a deeper recession (stimulus, etc.). The biggest problem with today's economy is that nobody has any money anymore. What jobs are left suck, our insurance system sucks, basic necessities are more expensive, and, as a result, everyone's up to their eyeballs in debt, and now that debt's come due for a lot of folks. And Furman thinks reducing the deficit will fix this? Is that what Obama thinks too?

And deficit hawkery is bad politics. It's not conservative as much as it's pro-status quo, cautious, and centrist. All it's really good for is opposing things you don't like, in the sense that it's more a reason to be against something than it is to be for something. You are for something that is good and against something bad, and while fiscal recklessness is bad, fiscal restraint isn't necessarily all that good. In other words, revolutions are not made on fiscal responsibility; they are prevented. Not particularly inspiring stuff, and, while it might be a somewhat successful defensive strategy, it does nothing to advance progressive policy.

Bottom line: Obama's signaling he won't push the envelope on fiscal policy.

A great part of Obama's speech last night:

The people I’ve met in small towns and big cities across this country understand that government can’t solve all our problems – and we don’t expect it to. We believe in hard work. We believe in personal responsibility and self-reliance.

But we also believe that we have a larger responsibility to one another as Americans – that America is a place – that America is the place – where you can make it if you try. That no matter how much money you start with or where you come from or who your parents are, opportunity is yours if you’re willing to reach for it and work for it. It’s the idea that while there are few guarantees in life, you should be able to count on a job that pays the bills; health care for when you need it; a pension for when you retire; an education for your children that will allow them to fulfill their God-given potential. That’s the America we believe in. That’s the America I know.

This is not altogether different from the rationale behind the New Deal, the philosophy of shared responsibility that gave us the Golden Age of shared prosperity (albeit shared mostly among white men). FDR (with apologies to regular readers who may have seen me highlight this quote too many times already):

In every land there are always at work forces that drive men apart and forces that draw men together. In our personal ambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up, or else we all go down, as one people.

This is also a break from the recent past. Clinton conditioned public action on whether people "worked hard and played by the rules." So progressives had to prove that people were doing that. The best we seemed to do was enact social policy that motivates people to "work hard." But these times call for much more ambition.

This frame could serve a progressive agenda well, I think. The central question it raises is not what "they" are doing to fulfill their end of the social bargain, but what "we" are doing for our part. Is our nation ensuring that "no matter how much money you start with or where you come from or who your parents are, opportunity is yours"? Is there a basic level of security for all Americans? This is the debate that we need to have about poverty and inequality. We can talk about "opportunity" and "security" all we like but unless the questions are about what we are doing, I don't think we'll have the conversations we want.

Moreover, this vision is rooted in a belief in national solidarity and fraternity. People who work to undermine our common bonds, in our politics and in the economy, don't share this belief. That's why this part of the speech was unsettling.

I trust the American people to realize that while we don’t need big government, we do need a government that stands up for families who are being tricked out of their homes by Wall Street predators; a government that stands up for the middle-class by giving them a tax break; a government that ensures that no American will ever lose their life savings just because their child gets sick. Security and opportunity; compassion and prosperity aren’t liberal values or conservative values – they’re American values.

Leaving aside the questionable and unnecessary attack on "big government." On the one hand it's probably smart to connect these values with the American creed, but couldn't he have just said that these are both liberal and American values? That progressive values are American values? As it is, he's implying that conservatives share these values. And they don't. Many of them don't believe that Americans are brothers and sisters. They hate liberals, resent minorities, and flout their responsibility to the public. Those don't sound like American values to me.

Few states have shed as many middle-wage jobs as North Carolina in recent years. So, now that the Tar Heel State has become a battleground in the presidential primary contest between Sens. Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, the candidates have decided to channel their inner populists.

In appearances from the mountains to the coast, both candidates have talked about standing up to special interests, battling rapacious oil companies, supporting fair trade, valuing workforce training and bringing jobs to distressed rural areas. Yet no matter how passionately or skillfully they sound populist notes, neither candidate ever sounds quite on key. Why should, say, a dislocated textile or manufacturing worker in small struggling cities like Hickory or Rocky Mount trust what either candidate says? And for that matter, what are Obama and Clinton saying that is any different in substance or style from what Al Gore or John Kerry said when they were campaigning for president?

This is not to say that the economic positions of the Democratic are interchangeable with those of the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. Substantive differences exist and in many ways, Democratic ideas are rooted in a commitment in a shared prosperity. Yet when the candidates try to connect those ideas to the people and communities most adversely affected by economic change, they sound unconvincing and uninspiring. That disconnect constitutes perhaps the largest obstacle to the adoption of more inclusive economic policies on both the federal and state levels.

I think there's something to be learned about how to talk about poverty in Obama's recent speech about race. Take this section:

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.

What if that'd been about poverty? Our task would then be to bind the particular grievances of the poor to the larger aspirations of all Americans.

I don't think the anti-poverty community has taken up this task yet. Like the African-American community vis-a-vis race, we're still arguing over whether to conceal the fact that we represent the poor or aggressively assert their interests. But I think this is a false choice, and Obama's speech shows it to be a false choice regarding race. We need to talk about both the common-ness and the uncommon-ness of poverty.

To do this, we need to articulate what makes us similar and different. We should argue that deep down everybody wants the same things and that we're tied together, as Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, "in a single garment of destiny." There are differences between the haves and the have-nots, but they coexist with what makes us the same. Indeed, because we share the same fate and aspirations, we have to wipe out differences in structural conditions. It's unjust for the same people to be treated differently.

There's a similar tension and spirit that animates FDR's 2nd inaugural- between the "forces that drive men apart and forces that draw men together." He argues that we have to be against division to be for the community. Similarly, we must be against poverty to be for an inclusive nation. FDR said "we all go up, or else we all go down, as one people," after he said he saw "one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished."

Addressing poverty doesn't conflict with the building of a strong national community (or economy, if you like)- it's the fulfillment of it. It's a necessary step towards it. We have to talk about both in dynamic connection with each other.

So being explicit about poverty (I also like how FDR talked abour poverty as a condition, rather than a "people," too. Like saying "low wage jobs" instead of "working poor." People in poverty are just like everybody else- it's only their particular conditions that are different.) and not talking about it should complement each other. I don't know if I'm making sense here. But I just think it's worth exploring how anti-poverty groups can get beyond the endless arguments over whether to talk about poverty or not, rather than having the same old fights again, with possibly the same results.

Mark Schmitt finds "communitarianism" in Obama's speech about racial reconciliation.

I'm mystified when people talk about Obama as if he were pure ego, as if he believes that the "Barack Obama brand" itself delivers change. He is in fact the most deeply communitarian politician -- in the sense of Michael Sandel or Charles Taylor's inarguable point that our identities cannot exist outside of our of social interactions and networks -- I have ever seen. His identity -- as African-American, as Christian -- is chosen and it is chosen because it situated him within a community.

For Sandel and others, "communitarianism" was a critique within liberalism to the overly "atomistic" and legalistic view of identity of rights-oriented liberalism and particularly the influence of John Rawls. There was an attempt in the 1990s to build a kind of political movement around the idea, and Bill Clinton adopted some of the language, but it didn't really go very far, partly because, as Paul Starr writes in Freedom's Power, "it has at best been a supplement or corrective to tendencies within liberalism." But in Obama that supplement or corrective can be quite substantive, as I thought was shown in Alec McGillis's comparison of Obama and Edwards in their approaches to poverty -- for Edwards poverty is about not having enough money, and the solutions are economic, including helping people move to where jobs are, where Obama was attracted to comprehensive efforts to rebuild community, including the non-economic aspects of life.

In today's speech, community played a role of lifting the question out of the stale argument about identity politics, and remind us that it's about much more than who's black, who's a woman, who said something that might be considered racist, who has an advantage because of their identity. One's identity is indeed the sum of your experiences and social interactions and where you situate yourself in a community. I thought Obama basically did that for everyone in his speech: himself, Rev. Wright, his own white grandmother, and even Geraldine Ferraro.

A community-centered vision for the economy and anti-poverty policy also has particular resonance in focus groups and public opinion surveys. The individualistic Rawlsian model has run its course, and the public is ready to hear a message that stresses our obligations to the community over what others owe us.

I've always thought of the Center for American Progress as either the Clinton Administration in exile (and waiting), or an institution that at least houses the Clinton Administration in waiting. But according to Michelle Cottle in this TNR piece, CAP is a hotbed of pro-Obama-ism:

... just when you thought the abandonment couldn't cut any deeper, it turns out that Obama--this upstart, this freshman, this guy no one in Washington had even heard of five years ago--has captured the affections of a Beltway institution widely seen as an unofficial outpost of Team Hillary: the Center for American Progress.

....

.... CAP's national security team is overwhelmingly pro-Obama, with many members advising the campaign. Executive Vice President for Policy Melody Barnes was an early supporter, while Senior VP for Domestic Policy Cassandra Butts has been an Obama chum since law school. Some veteran Clintonites (such as Smith and Daalder) have joined the revolution. And, among junior staff, Hillary folks are a rare breed. This isn't to suggest there aren't plenty of Clinton devotees still in residence, especially in CAP's upper echelons. But supporters of both candidates say the in-house divide tilts heavily in Obama's favor. ....