Bread for the Masses (and the middle class and...

...the fairly well off and most small to medium sized businesses and manufactoring, the professional class,etc)


Read the whole thing yourself, but below is an interesting bit from the middle of a Mother Jones post where Kevin Drum delineates the supposed self-absorption of his liberal principles:

Now, it's true that I'm generally in favor of reducing or eliminating government programs that don't work. Who isn't? But self-interest plays a big role here, even if we don't always like to admit it. Like Matt, I think we should eliminate ag subsidies. But that's a pretty easy stand to take since I'm not a farmer. Earlier today I suggested we do away with Fannie Mae because we subsidize housing too much. I can afford that too, since I already own a home and don't need any help buying one. High tax rates on the rich? That wouldn't affect me much, so I'm OK with it. National healthcare? That would be pretty handy in case I ever want to quit my job, so that's also in my self-interest.

However, I think he is missing the point. Everyone of these policies he uses as examples of his self-interested liberalism (not that he's knocking it, just making a point) is a pretty good example of something that is in nearly EVERY American's self-interest. Let me break it down:

End Agricultural subsidies because "I'm not a farmer". I have news for Kevin: no one is. The miniscule number of people still practicing what any onr thinks of when they say "farmer" are actually hurt by the market manipulations of agricultural subsidies. The handful of people who benefit are the owners (not the workers, only the owners) of giant agriculture and cattle corporations. So Kevin rolls pretty deep on this one.

End Fannie Mae. After their complicity in the real-estate and mortgage-backed securities bubble, many take this view. Or reform them to look like their original inception: a government backed program to proactively seek out lower-income, but loan-worthy housing customers that might have trouble getting a mortgage at a traditional savings and loan. The problem with that mission is that there aren't many "traditional" S&Ls left, only retail-banking subsidiaries of financial services conglomerates, and Fannie Mae was deregulated into a profit-seeking enterprise that was very motivated to work against the interests of their clients, just like private banks do. So it's not a stretch to say their present form is not terribly useful.

High tax rates on the rich? I guess it depends on your definition of "rich". Obama wants to slightly raise taxes on incomes above 200K, the top 2%. Recently there have been musings in the liberal media about much higher tax rates for people earning over a million or 10 million, or a quadrillion or whatever. The point is that Drum is talking about something that wouldn't affect him...or 98% or possibly even 99.9% of Americans. That's not narrow "self-interest", that's a rounding error away from 100%.

Nationalized health care, so he would feel like it was possible to change jobs. Isn't that what America is supposed to be about? The flip side of this is that most businesses would probably love to not have to pay for their employee's health insurance. The entire health insurance industry is essentially a leech on the side of American business and entrepreneurship. And that is not even the worst part. The issue is framed by critics as a matter of "choice", i.e. do I want the government making choices for me about my health care? The only thing I can imagine worse than that is a profit-driven health insurance corporation chosen for me by my employer in charge of my health care. For nearly every American that is the current "choice". I can see how you might not feel like paying for it up front in taxes, especially if you were in that new mega-millionaire 75% tax bracket, but ultimately, in dollar and cents almost every American, employees and employers alike, would be better off with socialized health care.

What I am saying here is that Drum is being too hard on himself and his comrades. I believe liberal policies are correct because they are good not just for me, but for all (or at least 99.9%) of America.

I also know that a sincere, intelligent conservative could make counter-arguments to most of what I have written above. But I don't see that happening in the American right. Not to say that the Democrats aren't essentially corporate lackies, but they are putting forward at least some policies that benefit most Americans. The same cannot honestly be said about the GOP.

Their obstructionism, pandering and lack of any actual budget proposal (?!!!) speaks to a nearly empty constituency. Their ideas almost categorically resonate with only the fearful, the hateful and the incredibly wealthy. Maybe that will change after the elections when the partisanship calms down, but for now the progressive, supposedly borderline-socialists writing for Mother Jones are left fighting tooth and nail for what to my thinking should be "center-left" policies that benefit almost everyone.