The Potential Impact of Jindal's Message - HuffPost

[WillyT]

The Potential Impact of Jindal's Message
Lincoln Mitchell
Assistant Professor in the Practice of International Politics, Columbia University
Posted February 27, 2009 | 09:45 AM (EST)

<snip>

Bobby Jindal's response to President Obama's speech on Tuesday was deservedly panned by pundits across the political spectrum. Avoiding the temptation to make ad hominem attacks on Governor Jindal due to his awkward folksiness, and extraordinarily reductively inaccurate analysis of the problems in our economy and his proposed solutions is not easy, but I will try.

Jindal's speech, nonetheless, suggests that the Republicans are not going to try to reinvent their party, but will instead go back to the playbook which, for the most part, has served them well over the last third of the twentieth century. The following passage from Jindal's speech, while singularly unoriginal, taps into something powerful in Republican mythology.

"Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need?"

While the delivery evoked the image of a high school debater struggling through an awkward opening statement and the anecdotes that followed were not exactly Reaganesque in their charm or delivery, the central messages, that the Democrats are the party of tax and spend and that government is part of the problem, were the ones that have helped Republicans get elected reasonably consistently for most of my lifetime and would not have sounded out of place coming from Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich or any number of Republican politicians who have led their party to big victories over the last decades. While the Republican Party may seem to be all out of ideas and, at least for now, not really relevant to policy making in Washington, we should not underestimate the resonance of these appeals.

In recent decades, hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested by conservatives in convincing the American people that the Democrats are the party of tax and spend and that government is part of the problem. Although any reasonably serious observer of politics over the last decade can see that the Democratic Party certainly has no monopoly on taxing and spending, Jindal's narrative about the Democratic Party is still powerful. The Bush administration, as we all know, took fiscal irresponsibility and deficit spending to levels unprecedented in American history, but for many voters, the Democratic Party still remains the party of tax and spend. Thus, while Jindal's critique is not precisely true, it is believable, and in politics the latter is at least as important as the former.

While it is not, in any meaningful sense, the case that the Democratic Party is the party of tax and spend, they are a party of tax and spend. Of course, the other party of tax and spend, or more precisely, borrow and spend, is the Republican Party. For Jindal, and other calculating Republican strategists, this nuance can be brushed over, because what matters is not which party is fiscally responsible, but which party voters see as being more fiscally responsible. Jindal is betting that the Republicans are still seen this way by voters who will be willing to forget the Bush years, or dismiss them as an aberration, just as many quickly forgot the massive debts run up by the Reagan administration. Over the next few months, charges like those made by Bobby Jindal, will become increasingly common. The Republicans will likely repeat these charges, which after decades, voters are primed to believe, until they begin to sink in.

The task for the Democrats, at all levels, is to remind voters that this analysis is not true; and that it was Republican policies of tax, borrow and spend, albeit largely on foreign policy fantasies rather than useful infrastructure and programs, that created the debt problem our country will face for years to come. It should also be kept in mind that the real cost of the Iraq war will likely dwarf even this massive stimulus bill. No Republican should be allowed to get away with a speech like the one Bobby Jindal made without the Democratic leadership; and not just, or even primarily, the White House, pushing back and reminding Americans about the enormous debt the Bush administration ran up, and the shoddy record of Republican fiscal prudence, which goes back for decades. Moreover, it is critical to proactively take this issue away from the Republican Party by attacking them for their fiscal incompetence and the rampant spending during the six years that their party controlled congress and the presidency.

Even in a best case scenario, the economic recovery will be slow. The Obama administration, as is evident from the proposed budget, is not close to being finished with the work we all need them to do. It is imperative that the serious efforts to rebuild our country and our economy not be sidetracked by desperate Republicans who suddenly have gotten religion regarding balancing budgets. Jindal's speech is easy to dismiss, but the potential power of his misleading message must be taken seriously.

<snip>

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/the-potential-impact-of-j_b_170509.html

Great point!

:shrug:

[roseBudd]

1. The GOP tax cuts are all deficit financed. The math is undisputable.

No go out and write LTTEs and comment about it on MSM newspaper sites

Here is a good one to jump in on. It's Ohio so it's a state we will probably always need to pay extra attention to.

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=edit0202&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ae8ab9c9c-3e4b-46b9-a08d-a17c4ecdcdc7Post%3aa3481df4-8a7c-4cef-9b7a-5ab042fe9470&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com

[navarth]

2. One of our biggest jobs is to police the corporate media.

They'll be spewing the Repig lies as fast as they can. Currently we reality-based people have a good hold on the internet and a microscopic portion of the TV and radio. They still have great control over the microphone.

It will be hard work to counter their propaganda.

[pretzel4gore]

3. 'nothing fail like success when working for the devil'

i think that's the reactionary right's problem in a nutshell. There is no left, and the airplane with one wing must go around in circles. Putting in Pres Obama really hasn't dealt with the problem. There is no left left in America, as Lewis Laphan (Harpers Magazine) noted back in mid 90's

[spanone]

4. if you take away taxes, the repulican party has no platform at all

[cilla4progress]

18. Right!

"I GOT NUTHIN'"!

(Except Palin, Jindal, Limpballs)

[backscatter712]

5. Speaking of folksy.

I just remembered that SNL skit from last year that had Will Ferrell doing George W. Bush, Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin, and "Bush" was endorsing "John McCain" saying "When you think of John McCain, think of me. Think of this face." while McCain was desperately trying to escape.

During that skit, "Bush" told "Palin" "I tried to talk folksy, but it came across as douchey."

[jhain]

6. *please* keep this kicked

Thank you WillyT. This is VITAL.

[WillyT]

7. You Are Quite Welcome !!!

:hi:

:kick:

[Skidmore]

8. Kick

[glitch]

9. All they ever had was the backing of a major organized crime family. If they've lost that,

if their backers are at best retiring to the shadows for awhile, at worst moving on to a new front, either way they've got nothing.

They're just the little dumbfounded pawns left holding the empty bags.

[radfringe]

10. size of the government is not relevant

it's how smart and capable are the people running the government that makes the difference.

[hfojvt]

11. but spending is not the problem, like this article implies

In the 1960s, real spending by the Federal Government rose by 57%. The debt rose by 31%, but it was only 381 billion by 1970. In the 1970s, spending rose by 42% and the debt grew by 139%, but it was still only 909 billion in 1980. In the 1980s, spending grew by 35.3% and the debt grew by 253%!! So, in table form

decade - SG - DG - DA (Spending Growth,Debt Growth, Dollars Added)
1960s - 57% - 31% - 90.4
1970s - 42% - 139% - 528.1
1980s - 35% - 252% - 2,297.3
1990s - 12.5% - 75.6% - 2,422.4
BY - 26.5% - 59% - 3,322 (Bush Years 2000 - 2007)

What happened? Look at income taxes. In the 1960s, income tax revenues grew by 122%. In the 1970s by 170%, and in the 1980s by only 91%. In 1970, income tax revenues were 8.7% of GDP. In 1980, they were 8.75%. By 1983, thanks to Reagan's tax cuts, they had dropped to 8.17% and to 7.59% in 1984 and 7.93% in 1985.

This may not seem like a big deal, the difference between 8.75% and 8.17% or even 7.59%, but our GDP is huge and thus .5% of our GDP is huge too. Figuring the difference between 8.75% and the actual for each year plus 4% interest, the difference comes to $824 billion between 1983 and 1997 when income taxes finally rose to 8.88% of GDP. Doing the same for the Bush years 2002-2007, the difference is $840 billion.

One problem may be that Iraq war expenses are not included in the numbers I have, which would make spending increases larger, but still the bigger problem was that revenues only grew in the seven years by 5.1% in real terms.

The other thing driving the debt is demographics. FICA revenues - FICA expenses get added to the debt and those surpluses plus interest are a big part of our debt total now.

Still, it has not primarily been spending that got us into this debt.

[WillyT]

12. I Agree, But...

What he's talking about, is the meme the Republicans have successfully used over the last several decades to gain power. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, it matters if the Republicans can tap into voter anger by making them believe it is true.

Remember... Clinton passed his tax hike\budget package in 1993 without a single Republican vote. And just two years later, the Republicans swept into power (after being the minority for 40 years) in the congress by whipping this "big tax and spenders" horse.

The author is just saying that he thinks they are planning to use this strategy again for 2010, and that we should be prepared to smack it down every single time.

Always be prepared...

:shrug:

[hfojvt]

13. part of the mem though, is that we need to cut or control spending

as a way to balance the budget. That it's runaway spending that has created the deficit/debt, when that is not true.

[Berry Cool]

14. There's only one thing the Repugs have going for them now

and that is that while Bush was a curse to them that they are trying to escape from, they know the general public still has a misconception of Reagan as a hero.

We need to do two things to kill the threat of Republicanism's return:

1. marry the party in everyone's mind inextricably with the failures of George W. Bush

2. educate people so they realize that the whole mess we're in right now started not with Bush, or with a Democrat, but with the man so many people still regard with reverence, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

[whoneedstickets]

15. The strong relationship between Tax cuts and Market Bubbles...

..should also be examined. Following Reagan's tax cuts we had Black October 1987, W's cuts gave us this collapse. Wealthy people when they obtain a tax windfall invest it in 'hot' high-return markets which generates bubbles that would not occur if the supply of investment capital were to grow steadily rather than spike from a tax cut.

[kickysnana]

16. kick

[jhain]

17. Think about it

and think about it some more.

[BlooInBloo]

19. Shorter Mitchell: None.

[WillyT]

20. Maybe... But Frank Rich Has Similar Concerns...

<snip>

But that good news for Obama is countered by the bad. The genuine populist rage in the country — aimed at greedy C.E.O.’s, not at the busted homeowners mocked as “losers” by Santelli — cannot be ignored or finessed. Though Obama was crystal clear on Tuesday that there can be “no real recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis,” it was telling that he got fuzzy when he came to what he might do about it. He waited two days to drop that shoe in his budget: a potential $750 billion in banking “asset purchases” on top of the previous $700 billion bailout.

Therein lies the Catch-22 that could bring the recovery down. As Obama said, we can’t move forward without a functioning financial system. But voters of both parties will demand that their congressmen reject another costly rescue of it. Americans still don’t understand why many Wall Street malefactors remain in place or why the administration’s dithering banking policy lacks the boldness and clarity of Obama’s rhetoric.

Nor can a further bailout be easily sold by a Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, whose lax oversight of the guilty banks while at the New York Fed remains a subject of journalistic inquiry. In a damning 5,600-word article from Bloomberg last week, he is portrayed as a second banana, a timid protégé of the old boys who got us into this disaster. Everyone testifies to Geithner’s brilliance, but Jindal, a Rhodes scholar, was similarly hyped. Like the Louisiana governor, the Treasury secretary is a weak public speaker not because he lacks brains or vocal training but because his message doesn’t fly.

Among the highlights of Obama’s triumphant speech was his own populist jeremiad about the “fancy drapes” and private jets of Wall Street. But talk is not action. Two days later, as ABC News reported, the president of taxpayer- supported Bank of America took a private jet to New York to stonewall Andrew Cuomo’s inquest into $3.6 billion of suspect bonuses.

Handing more public money to the reckless banks that invented this culture and stuck us with the wreckage is the new third rail of American politics. If Obama doesn’t forge a better plan, neither his immense popularity nor even political foes as laughable as Jindal can insulate him from getting burned.

<snip>

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01rich.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print

:shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

21. (shrug) Yah, if you only snip the downside of Rich's article, it's very alarming...

But in the context of the other 3/4 of the article being good for Obama, not so much.