Why is a progressive as smart as Robert Reich ceding Tea Party talking points as he analyzes this moment in 2010’s unfolding political narrative?
In an otherwise barbed column saying no one should be surprised when big business does what is in big business’s bottom-line interest (whether it leads to oil spills, coal mine collapses, Wall Street meltdowns, etc.), Reich stumbles into the “big government” and “angry electorate” rhetorical quicksand.
“This country is now having the sharpest and most emotional debate it’s had in more than a century over a deceptively simple question: Which do you trust less – Big Business (including Wall Street) or Big Government?” he writes midway through the piece. Reich continues by summarizing the rightwing position, that “government is on the loose because of the giant stimulus package; the yawning budget deficit and hair-raising national debt; the ‘takeovers’ of General Motors, Chrysler, and AIG, along with the firings of several executives; and the huge health-care bill,” and concludes, “Until six months ago, the latter narrative, emanating from the Republican right, seemed to be winning the hearts and minds of an ever more angry electorate.”
Stop right there. “Big government” is not an entirely accurate description of what is happening in government today, as public services—particularly at state and local levels where most people interact with government—are significantly shrinking and being reduced by revenue shortfalls. That is not government run amok. That is government running away, downsizing in city after city and state after state.
Nor is the “angry” mood of most 2010 voters an established or forgone conclusion, although these are the strategic concepts and buzzwords used by Tea Partiers, who hover ideologically somewhere between hardcore Republicans and Libertarians. It would be a big mistake to suggest that the electorate, the body politic that elected President Obama, is now sporting Tea Party views.
To be fair, Reich’s column suggested that we need an effective big government to rein in irresponsible big business. But there is a danger in his framing that buys into Tea Party rhetoric—and he is not alone. Too many Democratic pundits also have written off the upcoming mid-term elections, expecting to see sizeable losses instead of defending the very voters who elected the current Congress and White House occupant.
And who were those voters? You would think that progressives would know and rise to their defense. Major slices of society voted in historically unprecedented numbers in 2008, and they were not Tea Partiers. In fact, the 2008 presidential exit polls showed many conservative Republicans stayed home and did not vote. Instead, low-income people making less than $15,000 a year, numerous minority communities, and young people all cast ballots at historically unprecedented rates.
Is the 2008 electorate angry? Perhaps. Maybe it is angry that government did not do more to stop Wall Street from wrecking the economy. Maybe it is angry that health insurance reform would not take effect for years to come. Maybe it is angry that public services are being slashed because too few state and federal legislators are willing to stand up defending the very services that taxes pay for.
A recent poll by the Pew Research Center suggests that American attitudes are not what has been portrayed in 2010’s dominant anti-government narrative, and an upcoming Project Vote poll will further explore the 2008 electorate’s views on government and its performance. In the meantime, the media needs to be very careful about buying into a campaign narrative about supposedly over-reaching government and increasingly angry voters.
The danger in forgetting who actually voted in historic numbers in 2008 is that those voters may not turn out this fall if they do not hear progressive voices defending their issues and concerns. That would be politically tragic—and just what the Tea Partiers want.