Croak of the Day

Is this really my first post of 2012? So it is. Well, I've been busy. And it's just a "what he said."

Anyhow, today's Croak of the Day goes to Robert Reich.

The Republican right thinks Paul’s views on the economy are responsible for this fire among the young. I just now squared off with Larry Kudlow and Steve Moore on Larry’s CNBC program, both of whom are convinced young people are attracted by Paul’s strict adherence to the views of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, and Paul’s desire to move America back to the gold standard.

Wrong. The young are flocking to Ron Paul because he wants to slice military spending, bring our troops home, stop government spying on American citizens for the purpose of homeland security, and legalize pot.--link

Occupy the Ballot Box?

Yesterday, in Balloon Juice comments, I wrote:

There are factions of Occupy that are quite radical; it is an anarchist movement, after all. Rather like a US political party internally, come to think of it. Link

Could it be? Could Occupy be the seed of the next major US political party? Let's see: young people, check. Women, check. Libertarian left, check.

Maybe...

On Occupy and Violence

In answer to Ian Welsh, advocating that Occupy tolerate violent anarchism.

Occupy is an anarchist movement with or without the violence. I do not see how inviting a crackdown is going to help Occupy as a political movement: when it comes to violence, Occupy is not a patch on the government, or even private security forces. Occupy's great strength lies in its widespread popular support, and in the real grievances it gives voice to. If it turns into a factionalized violent movement, it will lose that support and much of its power.

[Later thought: violence is inherently authoritarian. Can anarchism ever be violent?]

Political Spectrum, 1931 vs. 2011

[In response to Jay Ackroyd at Balloon Juice, comment, Eschaton, post, and DougJ at Balloon Juice, post. Originally posted in response to DougJ, lightly edited.]

A generation ago what Jay and Stuart are calling “centrism” and what you are calling “centrist corporatism” would have been simply called “conservatism.” Two generations ago, what you are calling “the outright insanity of conservatism” would have been called fascism.

In FDR’s time, the far right of the political spectrum was fascist and the far left was communist; the center was what FDR called liberal. Now the political spectrum is between the Tea Party Republicans—fascist in all but name—and the liberals. Unsurprisingly, then, the center of debate in Congress is what Doug has called “centrist corporatism.”

We had, until recently, lost the far left of the political spectrum, and the moderate had been marginalized. The how and why of this are not entirely clear. The anti-union activism of Reagan and his successors was part of the story, as was the fall of the Soviet Union. Probably the imperial Presidency; the intense militarism of the Cold War period, which continues to this day; and the consolidation and politicization of the national news media that was enabled by Reagan-era policies also contributed

So a big part of the story was a successful reactionary movement that has emerged into politics as “centrism.”

And now Occupy, enabled by new technology, ideology, and vaguely Gandhian tactics, brings back left anarchism. It’s an astonishing development, and one which I only dimly foresaw. In stated policy Occupy is liberal: at the popular center. But in practice it is pure left anarchist. How this will play out in electoral politics—or if it will play out, or if it will be silenced for years to come—remains to be seen.

Thinking it over, I think I see the short-term triumph of centrism. Occupy has already shifted the terms of debate far enough that the radical right looks less credible and I think this will tell in the 2012 elections. But I do not see actual liberal, or even a bit further left, policies being adopted at the Federal level for some years to come. I've been predicting 2020 as the watershed year and this still seems plausible: it will take time to raise a new generation of liberal politicians and bring the Supreme Court back to the true center. But just possibly it will be faster: if the Obama administration, like that of LBJ, decides that it is best to side with the reformers. On the other hand, it could also be slower: the reactionaries are deeply entrenched and very wealthy.

How do we shift the balance? Can we?

"Important Ideas Have Been Discovered—or, Rather, Rediscovered"

Mark Thoma commenting on John Cassidy's article on Keynes, link.

Paul Krugman commenting on Thoma and Cassidy in The Amnesiac Economy.

And then I read Andrew Sullivan writing about how he learned to love the "hippies" of Occupy, link. Sully says some sensible things:

The theme that connects them all is disenfranchisement, the sense that the world is shifting deeply and inexorably beyond our ability to control it through our democratic institutions. You can call this many things, but a “democratic deficit” gets to the nub of it. Democracy means rule by the people—however rough-edged, however blunted by representative government, however imperfect. But everywhere, the people feel as if someone else is now ruling them—and see no way to regain control.

This could have been written in 1931. It isn't only economists who have forgotten. Activists, commentators, and political scientists have forgotten, too.

I wonder if Occupy remembers?

Iraqi Veteran Critically Injured by Police at Occupy Oakland

The Oakland Tribune has the story.

Trying to feed the corvids, are we?

What's striking is that the decision of police to undertake action against OWS seems to bear no relationship to the conduct of the protesters. OWS seems to be a kind of Rorschach blot for local governments: they see what they want in it, and act accordingly.

Afterthought: OWS and the Overton Window

Cole, missing the point,

Now if we can just focus this energy into primary challenges and swing the Democratic members of the money party to the left

Not going to be the Democrats, John. May not be any party like we recognize. I don't see how any major US political party can win on liberalism in the current media and rhetorical environment.

I am starting to believe that electronic media has broken the forms of the US government. It is hard to escape the sense that any Presidential candidate now must act a bit like Ronald Reagan: that looking Presidential has overwhelmed executive competence as the requirement for gaining office. In the system, top to bottom, we have a triumph of symbol over substance. And so people hold liberal beliefs, but make conservative votes.

There's a lot to be thought out here, and I have only the time for occasional croaks. But what would a government for a mediated world look like?