'Liberal Agenda' In Congress? Not Even Close (Joe Rothstein's Commentary)

July 30, 2009

By Joe Rothstein
Editor, EINNEWS.COM

David Brooks is a conservative-minded columnist who regularly appears on the editorial pages of the New York Times and as an analyst on the PBS network's News Hour. I'm from a different political persuasion, but I sometimes find myself agreeing with Brooks' conclusions, and more often than not , even when I don't agree with him, I admire his thoughtful and informed arguments.

But Brooks published a column the other day that I feel compelled to challenge. Why? Because it symbolizes what's wrong with today's political debates.

Brooks' column derides congressional Democrats for being on a “liberal suicide march.” His argument? Let him tell you:

“It's not that interesting to watch the Democrats lose touch with America. That's because the plotline is exactly the same. (as the way Republicans followed their own right wingers to defeat). The party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes.”

And, of course, they have Nancy Pelosi (from San Francisco!) at the wheel of this careening, out of control political machine.

If David Brooks thinks the Democratic congressional agenda is “liberal?” I've got news for him.

Here's what a “liberal” agenda looks like:

--Single payer health care
--A carbon tax, not cap and trade
--A revision of the tax code to make it progressive again
--A rewrite of NAFTA and other trade agreements to provide U.S. workers with a more level playing field, plus environmental controls that don't penalize U.S. business.
--A card-check program to give workers a chance to organize into unions again.
--Public funding of political campaigns
--An end to the senseless “war on drugs” and a more rational drug policy
--More U.S. Supreme Court justices in the mold of Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan, who will provide real leadership for progressive causes.
--A massive infusion of money to rebuild neglected U.S. roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, high speed rail, schools and other infrastructure.
--Universal broadband, accessible and affordable in the smallest of communities.

….Etc.

Does Brooks.....does anyone, see any of that on the front burner of Congress? Do we hear any of this kind of talk coming from the White House?

Of course not. Instead, we're seeing a string of watered down compromises that move a progressive agenda a few degrees to the left from the right angle where it's been stuck for decades. It's been so long since anyone in Washington has taken progressive politics seriously that the barely left of center initiatives we're now seeing look to institutional Washington eyes like radical departure.

You seldom see anyone with a real “liberal” agenda invited to discuss it on TV talk shows, or even to comment on events of the day. The ideas and commentary I read in magazines like The Nation, or American Prospect, or In These Times seldom show up on the op ed pages of mainstream newspapers.

When reporters talk about “moderates” or “centrists” they really are referring to those deeply concerned about not offending the business community, or raising taxes on the wealthy, or making any major changes to the rightest policies we've been living with for so many years.

Since Reagan---actually before Reagan when the political climate shifted in the U.S. to make Reagan possible---we've been trash talking government, idolizing unrestrained free markets, tearing down economic protections, and making our tax burden fall heavier on the middle class.

These policies have brought us boom and bust, the current economic meltdown, the savings and loan crisis, 50 million medically uninsured, crumbling infrastructure, a weakened educational system, skyrocketing national debt and trade imbalances that are the true dagger at the heart of the U.S. economic system.

Why shouldn't there be an open, serious discussion about the failures of the current system and options for changing it? Why is single payer such a radical idea? Hundreds of millions of people live in countries that have it, and it works very well. Why aren't we adjusting our trade policies that have cost the U.S. far more in wealth than any current or foreseeable national deficit? Why aren't we putting people to work on massive infrastructure projects, the way most other western countries are doing? China's doing it, and its economy is reviving much faster than the U.S.

In other words, what's wrong with discussing a real liberal alternative to the duct-tape fixes we're currently tinkering with? My guess is that the American public would be excited and positive if leaders would offer real alternatives.

Voters are looking for serious alternatives to those that have mired us in this mess.

Instead, what the public is seeing in Congress, and from the Democratic leadership generally, are baby steps, not a “liberal” agenda gone amok. And voters are not especially happy with it. Neither am I.

David Brooks, this isn't liberalism you're seeing. Not even close.

(Joe Rothstein can be contacted at joe@einnews.com)