Podesta on the election results - The End of the Grand Conservative Experiment

If you have not received the e-mail from the Center for American Progress, it is here, under the fold:

MEMO

To: Interested Parties

From: John D. Podesta, President and CEO, Center for American Progress Action Fund

Date: November 9, 2006

Re: The End of the Grand Conservative Experiment

There is a longer-term significance to the 2006 election that transcends the shift in Congressional control and the collapse of the Bush presidency and its capacity to govern.

The post-Goldwater/post-Reagan conservatism has been discredited as a governing philosophy, and simultaneously, a new progressive movement has seized the moment to assert itself to restore credibility to a government that serves the common good, and to provide practical leadership for a nation seeking a better future and a more secure world.

The results were unambiguous. Voters rejected the Iraq war and the failure of neo-conservative foreign policy. Voters rejected the redistribution of wealth to the top and demanded a return to policies to help the middle class and the least fortunate among us to get ahead. And voters rejected the accumulation of political power for its own sake and self-aggrandizement. The existing regime was deemed to be too corrupt, too inattentive to human needs, and too removed from the practical consequences of its inept foreign policy theories. For the first time in recent memory, these electoral results were cast not in gray, but in black and white.

Consider the history. Forty years after they ventured into the post-Goldwater wilderness, the radical right claimed control of the White House, the leadership of both houses of Congress, and the balance of the Supreme Court. They worked ceaselessly to recreate a nation in its narrow ideological image. Conservatives ran the table of governance for six years, and they pursued an unrelenting campaign to convince the country that ideological extremism somehow served the public interest.

That effort failed in a resounding fashion. In just a few months of divisive campaigning and ill-considered strategy, President Bush and Karl Rove managed to dismantle the Republican Party's governing majority by appealing to only the most conservative elements of its base. The returns reveal that the neo-conservatives/radical agenda drove off voting blocks that turned to the Democrats instead. Three critical trends:

* First, according to the national House exit polls, Democrats won every income category under $100,000; all non-college educated voters; and Catholics. Democrats essentially split married voters. They won nearly six in 10 of both moderates and independents. As a result, the Reagan Democrats have returned home.
* Second, the Republican coalition has collapsed under the weight of conservative extremism and incompetence. Economic conservatives are repelled by the nation's fiscal position. Foreign policy conservatives are appalled at the neo-conservative experiment in Iraq. And social conservatives are dispirited by the hypocrisy on values and the corrupt form of "business as usual" practiced in Washington.
* And third, and most importantly, the door is now open for a genuine progressive majority in the nation that is urgently seeking a new direction.

As a result, the 2006 elections have revealed that the four pillars of conservatism--a strong defense, lower taxes, less government, and family values--no longer sustain a voting majority and no longer command support as a governing philosophy. The failures of the conservative government and movement in these four areas became motivating factors as voters cast ballots on November 7.

Strong Defense. On no issue have conservatives and Republicans dominated more in the past forty years than as the protectors of the American people. The failure of the war in Iraq--verified by the midterm results--has weakened our national security and stripped away the veneer of conservative potency on the issues of defense and national security.

Before he first took office, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney promised the nation's armed forces that " help is on the way ." Few pledges from the 2000 campaign today seem more terrifying or absurd. The axis of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz has decimated the morale and readiness of the greatest military machine the world has known.

The conservative stewardship of the Iraq war is perhaps the most demonstrative example of their failed ideological experiment.

* Conservative stewardship of the Pentagon has left us with an Army that is overstretched, over-deployed, and struggling to recruit new soldiers;
* The neo-conservative mission to spread democracy, narrowly defined as "elections," has backfired, empowering extremist voices and leaving the United States more vulnerable and hated in the region;
* Getting the U.S. caught in the middle of a civil war in Iraq has weakened our country's ability to address the real threats it faces from global terror networks and the spread of nuclear weapons; and
* The vast waste of U.S. tax dollars spent on corrupt contractors and cronies of the conservative administration (even the removal of the Inspector General reviewing how our tax dollars are being spent in Iraq) has stripped them of trust to even manage the books of a war.

This isn't strength--it is weakness that has consequences not just for our military but our larger foreign policy objectives as well. Here again Iraq proves the point.

At its core, conservatives have failed to get the most basic fundamentals of our foreign policy right--the ideas and follow-through that make the world safer, better, and more prosperous than the generation before us. Somewhere between the neo-conservative view of the world and the pragmatists in their ranks who should have fought harder to resist them, they've forgotten about life's fundamentals: the need for security and personal safety. Iraq and its people have those same basic needs.

In Iraq, while peddling a vision of freedom and democracy, the president and Donald Rumsfeld became dangerously disconnected from the everyday reality of most Iraqis--lack of food, clean water, and electricity on top of lawlessness that has deteriorated into chaos, a situation worse than civil war. The conservative cornerstone of their foreign policy worldview has been that the Iraq adventure would secure democracy in the region. Fundamentally, though, the building blocks for a functioning democracy in Iraq were never laid. Why? The conservative vision didn't include it, the neo-conservatives who sought the war never planned for it, and thus their execution of the war that ensued as a result has been an abject failure

Not unlike conservative domestic philosophy, their foreign policy has waived the flag, staking claim to great values but, in the end, coming up long in promise and short on results. It is conservatives' disconnection from the core beliefs that founded our country--fairness, equality, respect for law, and checks and balances--and their own vaunted and lofty worldview that has left them isolated here at home.

In many ways, the chaos in Baghdad, Gaza City, southern Lebanon, and along the Afghan/Pakistani border fit perfectly with a conservative vision of the world--there is no government, everyone has a gun, and extreme religion dominates the politics. In 2006, American voters turned away from this narrow view and voted for a new direction and alternative strategies to address the growing problem of instability in the world. The election results were nothing less than a rejection of the misplaced priorities, a flawed sense of propriety, and the short sightedness of conservative foreign policy.

Lower Taxes. Conservatives have relentlessly argued for cutting taxes on the very wealthy, promising (in their words) that the rising tide will lift all boats. Instead, the idea at the core of their economic philosophy has saddled future generations with massive debts owed ironically to China, South Korea, and Japan.

The ideological movement that made "lower taxes, less government" their national anthem crumbled under the weight of having to match forty years of ideological philosophy on taxes and the economy with the combination of their perilous (and expensive) go-it-alone defense strategy, unforeseen enemies, unpredictable natural disasters, and the sheer corruption and greed of their enablers once in power.

Consider that during a five-year, $400 billion war, with an unexpected $200 billion tab for the Hurricane Katrina cleanup, a conservative president with the aid of a conservative House and Senate:

* Passed budgets that resulted in deficits of $378 billion in 2003 , $413 billion in 2004 , $318 billion in 2005 , and $248 billion in 2006 ;
* Raised the debt limit by $3 trillion to $9 trillion ;
* Passed a multi-trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy that cut taxes for millionaires by an average of $112,000 ; and
* Increased pork barrel spending from 4,155 earmarks totaling $29 billion to 15,832 earmarks totaling $71 billion in 2006 .

These economic policies produced only rising costs, rising debts, and falling incomes for a struggling middle class. Thus, the midterm results are better understood when one takes into consideration the following:

1. Wages stagnate. Factoring in inflation, hourly wages were only 0.9 percent higher, and weekly wages were almost identical in August 2006 and in March 2001. Wages were actually lower in August 2006 than in November 2001, when the recovery started.
2. Benefits have disappeared. The share of private sector workers with a pension dropped to 45 percent in 2005 from 50.3 percent in 2000, the last year for which data is available, and the share of people with employer-provided health insurance dropped to 59.5 percent from 63.6 percent over the same period.
3. Family debt is on the rise. In the first quarter of 2006, families had to spend 13.9 percent of their disposable income to service their debt--the largest share since 1980.
4. Savings plummeted. The personal savings rate of -0.6 percent in the second quarter of 2006 was the second lowest since the Great Depression. Also, by June 2006, household debt rose to an unprecedented 129.3 percent of disposable income.
5. The poverty rate climbed to 12.6 percent in 2005, the last year for which data is available, from 11.3 percent in 2000.

In the end, economic reality superseded the conservative rhetoric of talking a good game on taxes and the economy. Most Americans were working more hours, but without a rise in pay. The vaunted tax cuts never really materialized for most of them either. Healthcare security for workers now feels like a thing of the past. And fluctuations at the pump brought with it uncertainty about our energy future that has become embedded in the national psyche.

Working and middle class voters were driven away from the Republicans. Democrats won majorities among every income level below $100,000 per year and carried non-college educated voters by eight points. More than half of all voters said the economy was either not good or poor, and nearly 80 percent of these voters cast their ballots for Democrats.

The conservative claim that improving macroeconomic indicators, such as supply-side tax cuts, soaring markets, rising CEO pay, and corporate profits somehow helped those in the middle of the income ladder fell on deaf ears.

The decline in voter trust of conservatives to responsibly manage the economy and rein in government spending, is a rejection of a "tax cuts or else" policy they campaigned on for decades, and put into practice and law under their stewardship of the economy. Government spending and debt has never been higher than under this conservative stewardship of the economy.

An intrinsic advantage held by conservatives over progressives--arguably without merit given the strength of the Clinton era economy--is now a proven net negative. Their chance to prove their theory has been a failure.

Government is the problem. For the past 50 years, conservatives have told us that government is the problem, and for the past five and a half years, George Bush has worked hard to make that claim a reality--giving us corrupt, exclusive, imploding, ignorant, and just plain bad government.

They deserve our grudging credit: conservatives have told us government doesn't work and they have built a government that doesn't work for the majority of the American people. Instead, they have built a government that works only for themselves.

Conservatives have institutionalized a seamless network between lawmakers like Tom DeLay and the lobbyists who pay to keep them in power. And living in a world where there was always a lobbyist to pick up the check, it's no wonder they did nothing about rising health care costs, declining real wages, improvident uses of energy, or declining American competitiveness. They live within their own world, where government is a money-making machine, shrunken down to a size only capable of looking after a select few who can pay to have special interest favors written into the law.

Nothing illustrates this better than Hurricane Katrina. When things go terribly wrong, there's no real substitute for the government. Legions of volunteers rushed to aid the Hurricane's victims in New Orleans, Biloxi, and Gulfport, and great credit is due to the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and thousands of churches. But churches don't plug levees, deliver drinking water, or steer swift boats into swollen canals. Katrina has taught us that if you want to reduce government to a dangerously small size, the first victims will be those it abandons with no means to escape the rising water.

Family Values. That the war in Iraq seemingly trumped all other issues can easily mask the corrosive effect that incompetence, arrogance, dishonesty, hypocrisy, and scandal had on the election result and the conservative's 40-year claim on representing family values.

The conservative values coalition imploded in the midst of outright hypocrisy and a failed moral vision. The White House's marked indifference and antipathy towards its religious base turned its faith outreach into little more than the "*%$#!-ing faith based thing" that Karl Rove so eloquently sought. The symbols of by Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson gave way to DeLay, Foley, and Pastor Ted.

In a dramatic shift from 2002 and 2004, Republicans lost Catholic voters and suffered serious losses among religious voters overall. Conservatives no longer "own" the religious voter and the progressive faith movement proved that values and policies centered on efforts to ensure human dignity and uphold the common good are more compelling to faith-oriented Americans than gay marriage and abortion.

Conservatives have long-sought political shelter in their trumpeting of "family values." A look-back at just the last two years gives one a good sense of how the conservative claim to values has been laid bare:

* Katrina may have provided the first tangible crack in the "compassionate conservative" value armor: Contrast President Bush's decision to remain on the ranch in Crawford as Hurricane Katrina did its worst with his decision to fly back to Washington in order to stop Michael Schiavo from removing his brain-dead wife, Terri, from life support. Consider Michael Chertoff's comments that maybe all those people who didn't have cars ought really to have paid attention to the evacuation order. Or ponder the comments of conservative matriarch Barbara Bush, who after visiting Superdome survivors in the Astrodome noted that "so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them ."
* Conservative's relatively short grip on power in the House of Representatives resulted in a pervasive culture of corruption, even by Washington standards. It resulted in a "pay-to-play K Street" scheme, which rewarded lobbyists who made campaign contributions in return for political favors doled out by conservatives in power. Consequently, Delay, Abramoff, and Cunningham flourished. DeLay explicitly stated he would operate by " the old adage of punish your enemies and reward your friends ." (To gain influence over legislation, trade associations, and corporate lobbyists were ordered to do three things: 1) r efuse to hire Democrats , 2) hire only deserving Republicans as identified by the congressional leadership, and 3) contribute heavily to Republican coffers).
* The fallout from the revelation that a collusion of conservative leadership in the House and White House resulted in the protection of a pedophile and sexual predator among their ranks in Congress may not ever accurately be measured in a poll. The ultimate betrayal by the very conservatives, who decried sexual misconduct of every stripe, was laid bare by the Mark Foley scandal and the cover-up that ensued.
* Lastly, conservatives have used wedge issues such as gay marriage as state ballot measures to both underscore their claim to family values and draw their conservative base to the polls at election time. The failure to elect conservatives in Virginia and Wisconsin has signaled the end of the success of this strategy for conservatives. Progressives in this election successfully used our own issues as a means to implement our own brand and stake our claim on issues we believe reflect the moral values of fairness, compassion, and stewardship most Americans hold dear. Minimum wage was on the ballot in six states and in each instance, backed by a broad coalition that included moderate and progressive faith leaders, the measure passed. In each state, progressives also made significant pick-ups up and down the ballot. And in the most closely watched initiative battle, voters in Missouri voted to fund embryonic stem cell search at the same time they were voting in a new, more progressive senator.

The Progressive Opportunity

The congressional midterm elections have served to open a new door for progressive governance and sweep away the façade of the conservative nirvana. The question for progressives now is clear: After a massive experimental rollback of a century of progress, can we take advantage of the opportunity to change the terms of the debate and put forward new ideas and deliver?

Seizing the opportunity requires progressives above all to make real the value of the common good and demonstrate the progressive commitment to strength. We will only succeed when we demonstrate to the American people that in this time of uncertainty and insecurity, the new progressive era will give them some measure of control over their lives.

Success will not come through process; talk of prioritizing alone cannot undo the inherent anxiety of a country longing most earnestly for results. Nor can progressives achieve success by repackaging, redefining, and "reframing" old ideas. And it certainly will not come by over reading the rejection of conservative ideas.

Just as progressive reformers in the 20th century sought to improve conditions for Americans by harnessing the power of the national government to assist the needy and vulnerable and to regulate and balance a chaotic economy, we must take this opportunity to confront our biggest challenges-- 47 million Americans uninsured ; 3 7 million Americans in poverty ; growing personal debt; and stagnating wages and benefits.

With the American business community, we can reinforce the grand bargain that helped create record profits while still supporting a solid middle class with a steadily rising standard of living. We can demonstrate our commitment to integrity in our governance with action and results. And on behalf of the millions of voters who made their voice on the war known in this election, we can lead a misguided president and a war gone terribly wrong to a more successful conclusion.

Progressives can predictably and even understandably be distracted by the overwhelming magnitude of the job at hand--undoing the damage wrought to the country after so many years of conservative governance.

As new leaders take the reigns of power in congress, they have a tremendous opportunity to demonstrate progressive principles through specific, concrete actions that help:

* Build a nation of opportunity for everyone regardless of background;
* Reawaken America's conscience--a sense of shared and personal responsibility--that helps build community;
* Reform government so it is truly of, by, and for the people: transparent, effective, and committed to the common good; and
* Use America's awesome strength to bring the world together, not pull it apart.

As much as FDR rebuilt the nation with his New Deal, as much as TR put progressive values in action, today's progressives have an opportunity to add a new chapter in the American debate on the limits and duties of government.

In the end, 56 percent of Americans in this election said they disapproved of the war in Iraq and a nearly similar proportion expressed a desire for the U.S. to withdraw some or all of its troops. The election results represent nothing less than the consequences of misplaced priorities, a flawed sense of propriety, and short sighted-ness of conservative foreign policy.

The opportunity given to progressives cannot be overstated, just as the midterm election results cannot be over read. We have been given the chance to prove ourselves worthy of taking back the reins of governance, but a heavy responsibility is now ours to lead the way out of the near ruins that conservative ideology has rendered on the state of our union.