NY-23
Posted by WARREN MOSLER on November 3rd, 2009
I view this as a populist revolt against the power elite in Washington that’s seen as a conspiracy between govt, big business, labor leaders (at the expense of union members) that enriches itself at the expense of people working for a living. The saw their local party nominate what they considered a Pelosi friendly candidate who would not have won in a primary over Hoffman, who would have won and ran as member of the Conservative party. With Scorzzafava not only dropping out but supporting the Democrat after a meeting with Pelosi representatives and presumably cutting some kind of deal, and Hoffman moving into the lead in some polls, the national conspiracy suspicions appear to have been confirmed, which should further support this ‘national uprising.’
Last I saw what’s called the Tea Party (anti tax) movement is about 20% Democrat, 30% independent, and 50% Republican. And it looks like they reject all party leadership (including the Newt, see below) and seem unresponsive to leadership in general. There are a few organizers who work from the bottom up to organize turn outs, an effort they proudly refer to as akin to ‘herding cats.’
The national media, for the most part, is dismissive, insulting, and in general does not get it and misrepresents what’s happening. All of which increases the support and participation of this rising revolt.
Sarah Palin, for example, commands 45% of voters in national polls (last I checked). The media, which is necessarily composed of ‘intellectuals,’ attacked her (and President Bush) largely on the grounds of not being smart enough to deserve any votes, contrasting her with the highly intelligent and well spoken President Obama. However, this is also perceived as bullying by the large segment of the population who either share some of her views, or simply don’t like bullying in general, and particularly from the media. When the ‘intellectuals’ in leadership positions act like this and see their power threatened by what they make clear they consider ‘inferiors’ they can quickly get in a battle they can’t win and can take all of us to a very bad place.
Gingrich Condemns Conservative Leaders For Driving Moderate GOPer Out Of NY Race
The Plum LineGreg Sargent’s blog
Sign of the times. Newt Gingrich, himself long considered a leader of the GOP’s conservative wing, is now condemning conservative leaders for driving moderate GOPer Dede Scozzafava out of the race for NY-23, warning that if national conservatives keep bigfooting local races the GOP will continue to wander the wilderness around the country:“This makes life more complicated from the standpoint of this: If we get into a cycle where every time one side loses, they run a third-party candidate, we’ll make Pelosi speaker for life and guarantee Obama’s re-election,†said Mr. Gingrich, who had endorsed Ms. Scozzafava…
“I think we are going to get into a very difficult environment around the country if suddenly conservative leaders decide they are going to anoint people without regard to local primaries and local choices.â€Gingrich had endorsed Scozzafava, so this was in some ways to be expected. But it’s interesting that someone once considered a spokesman for the fire-breathing right is now condemning conservative leaders for mounting ideological purges.
And right on cue, DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse sends over a statement using Scozzafava’s decision to drop from the race to elevate Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, who endorsed conservative Doug Hoffman, as the face of the harsh, uncompromising opposition:What this says — emphatically — is that the true leaders of the Republican Party like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Tim Pawlenty have said to all moderates and independents — when it comes to being part of our party you need not apply. The only acceptable Republicans these days are those who subscribe to division, obstruction and a rigid far right wing ideology.
The NRCC and the House GOP leadership, meanwhile, put out a joint statement backing the conservative: “We look forward to welcoming Doug Hoffman into the House Republican Conference as we work together for the good of our nation.â€
[top]
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Warren, I am with you on the disgust with the policies of both parties, which are rented by the oligarchy. But the populist movement that I see seems to be different from the one you see.
As far as I can tell from the outcry, the economic policies recommended are neoliberal “fiscal discipline to Austrian “sound money.” I know you’ve spoken at teabagger events, but I am not hearing anything from that quarter remotely resembling functional finance and modern monetary theory, other than from you.
The “fiscal discipline” and “sound money” myths, which seem to dominate that universe of discourse and on which Hoffman ran, would further devastate the economy, expand the output gap, and generate even more unemployment and underemployment if it were enacted, as you well know. Do you see something I don’t? This actually looks like a step backward toward the crazy to me.
Reply
warren mosler Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I agree.
The interesting part is they agreed with what I said in the speech, and Michael Patrick Leahy, one of the organizers, offered to publish my book based on the 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds draft on this website. Right now I’m expanding on it and working with him to finish a book to be released April 15, which will be used to support a round of appearance on the various talk and news shows. Michael believes the Tea Party type people will be strong supporters along with many other national organizations.
I’m hopeful and looking forward to the possibility of getting a national audience to get all this into the public debate.
Reply
November 4th, 2009 at 9:29 am
1. I’m glad someone else recognizes that there is a “national uprising” going on.
2. The main drivers for the movement — as far as I can tell — are the fears over a loss of freedoms, both personal and monetary. It seems like the majority of the movement is critical of the democrats for pushing higher-regulatory schemes (ie: nationalized healthcare, cap and trade, etc.) and critical of republicans for not doing anything to counter these schemes and protect the interests of the people.
3. I think people want politicians to hold to the same level of fiscal responsibility as their own households. While that may be misguided for the federal goverment, it is exactly what the state governments need to do.
4. I think a platform of cutting taxes at the federal level (instead of increasing spending, which would be perceived as part of a power grab) while quietly running deficits (until more understanding of MMT permeates the populace) in addition to repealing of large amounts of the current regulatory structure in the US is what is most needed and would most resonate with the “national uprising.” Interestingly, that platform is not too far from Reagan’s.
–Phil
Reply
November 4th, 2009 at 11:54 am
@ Phil: Interestingly, that platform is not too far from Reagan’s.
Reagan and Thatcher’s fundamental neoliberal economic meme was “fiscal responsibility,” i.e., the basis of economic policy is to run perpetual surpluses, which, according to MMT, is deflationary. This results in increased non-government indebtedness, or else an increase in the output gap. This is the hang-over from which the US is now suffering.
Reply
November 4th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
One approach:
1. Promote the idea to eliminate the future issuance of Treasuries as a legitimate, viable, new approach to Federal govt monetary operations. Propose to let the fiscal deficits build up as excess reserve balances which doesnt matter anyway. With no outstanding Treasuries to point to, the debt-phobes will have nothing to worry about.
2. Then Warren’s campaign can focus solely on a re-examination of public purpose.
Reply
Jim Bair Reply:
November 4th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Better yet, invoke Abraham Lincoln’s Greenbacks while you’re at it…
Reply
November 4th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
@Tom Hickey
Reagan was attacked repeatedly for running deficits. I may be wrong, but I don’t remember the federal government ever running a surplus under Reagan. The last surplus I recall was under Clinton — and that is the hangover under which the US is now suffering.
–Phil
Reply
Tom Hickey Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
It is true that Reagan departed from his own neoliberal economic policy but the meme of “fiscal responsibility” stuck and it is now attributed to him (argument from authority, as if Reagan knew anything about economics. Of course, the appeal of the meme is the mistaken comparison of household and firm finance with government finance. As a result it has intellectually and emotionally captured the country.
Reply
Matt Franko Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Here is a link to Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Republican convention speech.
Most of us here were probably in diapers or still a “glimmer”, but from what I understand of history, this was the defining moment for today’s “Conservatism”, and greatly influenced Reagan to get involved in politics.
Do a search on the text; try to find “taxpayer’s on the hook”, “we need to balance the budget”, “we’re leaving our debt to our grandchildren”, “we’re a debtor nation”, “the dollar’s going down”, “we’re spending like sailors”, etc….I’ll save you some time: it’s not there!
The only miniscule mention related to economic policy is this ONE sentence: “We Republicans seek a government that attends to its inherent responsibilities of maintaining a stable monetary and fiscal climate, encouraging a free and a competitive economy and enforcing law and order.” That’s it…. In the WHOLE long speech.
Warren’s platform is truly conservative, in contrast to how today’s modern “fiscal conservatives” would have it.
Resp,
Reply
November 8th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Now it seems Warren can capture the Libertarian vote also:
I found this link to a recent Cato Institute “Shadow Open Market Committee” report. The Cato Institute is a leading Libertarian “Think Tank” in Washington.
Excerpt (Cato recommends): “the Fed should enlist the help of the Treasury and the Congress to secure the power of interest on reserves to put a floor under the federal funds rate by modifying the regulation of the federal funds market to exclude all but depository institutions eligible to receive interest on reserves from lending in the federal funds market, or by allowing all institutions eligible to lend in the federal funds market to earn interest on deposits at the Fed.”
Much of the Cato policy recommendations focus on tax cutting/less taxes which is also very congruent with Warren’s platform. Here it looks like they want to eliminate the challenge to orderly rate setting that the GSEs present as identified by JKH and Scott F in another thread. They must see some form of increased liberty in this detailed point of conducting monetary policy. Resp,
Reply
JKH Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Not a bad analysis of the different variables involved in “exiting”. Coherent at least.
Reply