Elections of 2010: Pragmatism & Problem-Solving

Related subjects: Economic Recovery, In the Loop, J.E. Robertson, Obama administration, Opinion, U.S. Elections, U.S. Politics, U.S. news, Vote 2010, World Leader Pretend Comments (0)

31 December 2009 :: J.E. Robertson

The elections of 2010 will not be about the specter of “socialism”, nor about terrorism, taxation, or gay rights: they will be about which party can present the most far-reaching, most credible pragmatic approach to solving the actual problems the nation is facing. They will be about whether or not Pres. Obama deserves support in his historic efforts to bring the nation out of a range of crises he was elected to resolve, or better put: whether or not the nation could benefit from his having that support.

The last week of 2009 has seen one of the ugliest and most sinister attempts at fetid feckless electioneering, when Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) decided to use the foiled terrorist plot of 25 December, the logic and strategy of mass murderers, to collect money for his campaign. It is the single most flagrant use of terrorist activity for personal gain by any member of the United States Congress in recent memory, and it may in fact violate federal laws on campaign finance and material gain linked to terrorism.

2010 must be a year in which such misanthropic manipulations are sidelined by a purposeful and committed debate on the merits of real ideas. The historical imperative of this moment is not, as Rep. Hoekstra would have it, grandstanding in order to consolidate power around a hard-core of anti-democratic scaremongering and opportunism; it is to find ways to work together for the betterment of the nation and the healing of economic faultlines that continue to threaten future prosperity.

What we know of Rep. Hoekstra, from his use of terrorist activity for his own personal gain, is that he is not thinking seriously about how to solve the problems facing the people of his district, his state or the nation. The Republican party has spent most of the last 2 years crafting a politics of trumped-up rhetorical naysaying, devoid of practical policy proposals, unwilling to cooperate in any way with the nation’s new majority party and relentless in the tactic of making false claims meant to inflame anxiety and even visceral hate.

The result has been ridicule in some cases —as when the party presented an “alternate budget”, consisting of 19 pages, several of which were title pages or blanks, with no math, no bottom line, and nothing but a cursory outline of long-standing Republican doctrine, or when the party created a special new website consisting of cartoons that proposed tax cuts as the solution to all the nation’s problems— and deep division in others —as when the national party betrayed its local chapter to support a Conservative party candidate who called the Republican a “socialist”.

The “tea party” anti-tax movement has morphed into a kind of front group for Republican strategists seeking to radicalize public opinion against Democratic policies, but by virtue of that marriage of convenience, has now evolved into a direct threat to the Republican party nationwide, with polls showing broader support for a hypothetical Tea Party than for Republican party candidates. The problem is a severe scarcity of proposals oriented toward basic problem-solving, i.e. doing the people’s business.

The Democrats, for their part, have lost standing mainly owing to their own infighting. Fierce dogmatism on a range of specifics in the healthcare debate has split the party between conservatives and progressives, a division conservative propagandists have sought to exploit. Fox News’ Glen Beck has openly sought to align the entire idea of American progressivism —5-day work-week, paid vacations, women’s suffrage, civil rights, Social Security and Medicare— with both fascism and communism, and has openly called for a purge.

The lies of Glen Beck are legion, to the point where responsible commentators on his own network have criticized him for inflammatory and even absurdist rhetoric. But such hate-speech has divided the Republican party, between radicals who believe the false claims and conspiracy theories and conservatives who want a conservative but entirely Constitutional future, in which power changes hands peacefully and there is such a thing as a loyal opposition.

While television punditry appears enamored as ever of the Machiavellian undercurrent, and promotes the idea that all this rhetorical chaos is somehow a boon for Republicans, it cannot be overlooked that extremist rhetoric is tearing the party apart, with some leaders calling for a purge of any ideologically “impure” Republicans and others calling for a pragmatic expansion of the party’s tent. But none of this will matter if the Republicans fail to muster credible solutions to real problems and the Democrats organize around that strategy.

A year after the credit crash of 2008 hit its deepest depths, the banking sector appears increasingly secure, and overall economic indicators are improving. The lot of the average citizen, however, remains degraded, and the second wave of the Pres. Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is getting ready to come to the aid of communities, states and families in need of investment and job creation. It is expected that sometime in the spring of 2010, job creation will be restored and recovery recognizable to the average citizen.

Late 2010 will also see widespread publicity surrounding the advent of the world’s most advanced electric cars (EV), from Tesla Motors and other cutting-edge innovators. The infrastructure of a clean energy economy will be taking shape, and Pres. Obama will be able to announce real successes in helping to divorce US economic prosperity from the whims of oil-rich regimes overseas that are hostile either to the US itself or to American democratic values.

The Republicans will have refused utterly to be part of any of the solutions that are in effect and beginning to work, and by fall 2010, the disparity between the new pragmatist Democratic approach and the radicalized Republican obstructionists will be coming into high contrast. Voters will have to ignore Republican propaganda alleging that Democratic policy successes amount to a “destruction” of “our way of life”, but Democrats will be able to make the case that Americans are free to choose their way of life and Democratic policies have helped to secure their freedom to do so, by shoring up the economy, creating a new reduced-carbon energy infrastructure and investing in education.

The pragmatist approach is the salient political virtue the mainstream media are ignoring, but neither major party can afford to ignore this reality: the party that makes a more credible case for its devotion to pragmatic problem-solving and principled public service, will win. Economic hard times do not favor extremist culture-warriors or anti-government tax abolitionists; they favor leadership that knows how to cope with grave problems and how to shepherd the nation out of troubled waters.

The Republicans’ worst problem is 2010 is that they appear unserious, because they continue to propose no serious solutions to the most pressing problems, even going as far as to suggest that nuclear arms reduction is not a good thing and that global climate change is not only not happening but is the product of a planet-wide hoax involving tens of thousands of scientists over half a century, and all world governments. The Democrats’ worst problem is they appear persuaded by some of the most hollow Republican attacks, and division and waffling could undermine their credibility as pragmatists.

So, at the risk of sounding redundant, to win in 2010, a candidate, or a party, will have to demonstrate:

1. Real engagement with efforts to solve the nation’s problems;
2. A cooperative, pragmatist approach;
3. A commitment to relaying facts, not propaganda, to voters;
4. A rejection of extremist claims and a commitment to help the president heal the economy;
5. Recognition of what affects real quality of life choices for ordinary people.

And a final point of political strategy will clearly be to cast credible pragmatic solutions as opposed to the endeavors of one’s opponents, who might be less credible, less serious, less engaged. The two major parties will both also face the problem of turnout and of unity. Turnout for conservatives is good for Republicans only if conservatives vote Republican, and Democrats need to make sure pro-Democratic independents don’t stay home or use the midterm elections as an opportunity to “make a point” by voting third-party.