Biden and The Democrats Should Party Like it’s 1934

Val Heath

Val Heath is a former investigative journalist living and writing in Boston with his family. Currently, he is a communications professional while finishing a master’s degree in economics. He did not learn how to make sourdough bread during the pandemic.

Related Post Roulette

29 Responses

  1. Burt Likko says:

    In a sense, the GOP’s strategy of “overtly govern to exclude Democrats from voting and damn the racial optics,” and “campaign on cultural issues instead of good policy” has a bit of genius to it, as it transcends the existence of any actual pressing issues that government needs to address and is proof against vagaries of the economy.

    Such political luxuries are denied to Democrats, who instead seek to keep their grand coalition intact and thus deal out half-measures and tolerate grumbling out on the margins of their various constituencies, and must stake their claim on the promise — and its relative fulfillment, or not — of competent government.

    And how, exactly does one measure competency in government? Money. The delta on GDP the September before an election is a good indicator of how the election is going to go, only the problem is anticipating what that delta is going to be in fifteen months. Right now, we’re looking at a phenomenal delta, enough so that, as the OP notes, we’re tasting noticeable inflation for the first time in nearly forty years. (Pro tip: it’s been happening all along, just really slowly.)

    So I generally agree with the OP: it makes sense to govern when governing opportunities present themselves, and there is such an opportunity now as Democrats (barely) control both houses of Congress. Such an opportunity may not come again during President Biden’s Administration.Report

  2. Burt Likko says:

    A second thought: is the fear amongst Dems that this is 1994; that Republicans will accuse Biden of “overreach” and come up with something that looks like a new Newt Gingrich and a new “Contract with America?” Because that isn’t going to happen. Republicans don’t want to govern and don’t want to offer ideas of their own and they don’t have anyone with the leadership abilities or ambitions of a Gingrich. (Regardless of the merits of Gingrich’s proposals, either prospectively or retrospectively.) Trump has squashed all of that. Republicans’ only articulatable affirmative idea is “We want Trump back,” and that’s a policy goal unto itself. So keep on campaigning against Trump!!!Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Burt Likko says:

      I don’t think this is 1994 anymore. Democrats can still plausibly lose control of Congress in 2022 but the GOP is a lot less respectable now than it was in 1994 and the demographics of the country are very different. In 1994, the country was whiter and the Silents were still going strong. 2022 has a much more diverse and in many ways more liberal country.

      I’m 40. A lot of my friends have children. A lot of them are moving to the burbs. Many of them despise and are horrified by the GOP. Now it could be that I am an outlier and my friends are probably more left-leaning than the average American but the suburban parents of today do not remind me at all of the suburban parents of 1994 Long Island where I was a teenager.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        Right now in Green Bay my in laws are seeing ads decrying Ron Johnson as unpatriotic and almost treasonous. Said ads are running in prime time on local broadcast TV.

        The GOP needs to be more worried then it is.Report

  3. Chip Daniels says:

    This is an anomalous moment in American politics, where the GOP has become an insurgency force whose only overriding objective is to gain power.

    Historically political parties seek power as a means to some end. But the GOP currently has only one end, which is the restoration of privilege of white males.

    For them, it makes no difference if they raise or lower taxes, make a treaty, pass legislation. Metrics of GDP or inflation or unemployment are irrelevant, so long as the hands that control the levers of power are of white males.

    If this were a marriage it would be at the murder-suicide stage.Report

    • North in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      I disagree. The GOP most assuredly cares if taxes are raised. Specifically they require that taxes be lowered no matter what. That has been the one lode star they have unswervingly followed and it now controls the GOP even more than before. The old GOP had a policy brain that could, in theory, pull, moderate or horse trade on the subject of taxes; that brains’ as decayed as the rest of them so they simply mindlessly go to cut taxes. There’s little else the GOOP really has the institutional knowledge to do anymore beyond that and appointing Heritage Foundation judges. .Report

      • JS in reply to North says:

        >Specifically they require that taxes be lowered no matter what

        Really? because getting rid of the SALT deduction raised a lot of people’s taxes. But they were from blue states, so they’re not technically “people” I suppose.

        And if you dig into it, while their tax cuts generally cut all brackets at least a little, they’re not only incredibly top-heavy, they tend to be “partially” (they’re never actually fully paid for, without voodoo accounting) by cutting benefits and programs for the poor. Often their own rural voters.

        At the end of the day, anyone under upper-middle class tends to end up with less money, not more. And anyone under, oh, several million dollars in net worth won’t notice the “extra” they got.Report

        • North in reply to JS says:

          Sure, but the SALT deduction was part of a larger program of tax cuts that were weighted heavily to the benefit of the plutocrats. Sure the billionaires living in blue states lost a bit with the SALT deduction being eliminated but they made it up and then some in the general cuts for the 1%. The people who were really fished by the SALT deduction modifications were the wealthy and upper middle class professional classes, aka one of the cores of the modern Democratic Party.Report

          • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

            SALT is tricky because it is not progressive as a tax policy and i recall progressive arguments about SALT deductions during the Obama years. And then the worst people in the world manage to limit them and for the worst possible reason. If you want to throw a bomb in progressive wonk circles, ask about whether SALT tax deductions needed to be reinstated or not or whether it is smart politics to do so. You will find people arguing yes and no with vigor.Report

            • North in reply to Saul Degraw says:

              SALT is tough because it sets liberal/left principles dead on in opposition against the material interests of the most vocal and visible liberal voices. Journalists, media figures, academics, all the loudest voices on the liberal side reap enormous benefits from SALT deductions because they make enough money to really benefit from SALT deductions but aren’t wildly wealthy enough for other GOP tax cuts to benefit them more than losing SALT deductions hurts em. It’s like trying to get twee liberal homeowners about upzoning or density policies. Sure their principles say that density is good and exclusionary zoning is bad but they WANT their own homes and neighborhoods to remain expensive and exclusive.Report

              • InMD in reply to North says:

                I certainly miss it. But it’s just the usual F you people who have to work for a living can expect from the GOP.Report

              • Brandon Berg in reply to InMD says:

                If you feel like you’re overtaxed, blame the state government. They’re the ones who are finding you in the Alps, tax-wise.

                The SALT deduction was just bad policy, pure and simple. It allowed state governments to raise taxes and pass about a third of the bill on to other states. This is part of the reason why your state taxes are too high.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Brandon Berg says:

                although most of those state-and-local-government set their tax policies with the understanding that it was a Federal write-off, and if the policy had been “your constituents will not get Federal relief for high local taxes” they maybe wouldn’t have done it the way that they did.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to DensityDuck says:

                A lot of people don’t want to pay taxes.

                They also make a moral issue out of it.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

                I generally try to say ‘screw the morality, let’s talk practicalities.’

                But then you have situations like this, Somehow it’s always good and moral (not to mention good policy!) to ask a little less of those with the most in exchange for a little more from those who are doing well, but could still lose it all in a medical crisis or financial meltdown caused by the legal gambling habits of our betters, who of course deserve all the breaks they get.

                Bottom line is I’ll gladly pay a little more in the name of ‘good policy’ when they are asked to do the same. Until then I will keep saying F em.Report

              • InMD in reply to Brandon Berg says:

                Nonsense. My state and local taxes at least go to public services that may in theory benefit me. Whether they do in practice is another question, but hey at least local and state officials are a bit more accountable. Further the idea that it’s somehow good policy to give another kick to the middle class so that the 1% can pay a little less (all on the federal credit card of course) is the one that needs defending.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to InMD says:

                Removing the SALT deduction was specifically an FU to blue states. It was only feasible because the tax bill was written in secret and rushed through on a party-line vote.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to North says:

        You are correct in one sense, that the plutocrat wing is laser focused on cutting their taxes, but the what is anomalous is that the real shotcaller power within the party is now mostly with the rabid white identity rank and file base.

        The plutocrat wing would have been fine with a Jeb or Romney, but the rank and file hated them and we got Trump instead.

        Its not that the rank and file don’t want tax cuts; Its more that actual policy outcomes just don’t matter to them much anymore.

        Like those dairy famers who went bankrupt and still vote Trump, or the rural people who got Biden stimulus money and still support Trump, or the people gasping for air on a ventilator who hope to live long enough to vote for Trump again; No matter what the outcome of policy, Trumpism still feeds them with what they truly want.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to North says:

        On the other hand, I think the GOP of 1994 would have curb stomped people like Gossar, MTG, Gaetz, and Boebert very quickly instead of lauding them as heroes.Report

        • North in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          Agreed. I wasn’t around but at least in the political world I get the vibe from all that I’ve read that the GOP leadership would have taken such figures to the woodshed for this kind of behavior.Report

        • LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          Why do you think this? The Newt Gingrich of 1994 is when the current trend in Republican politics really accelerated. Yes, Newt actually did end up negotiating with Clinton more than advertised and the hardcore members weren’t as flamboyant or numerous as the 2021 Republicans but they were getting there.Report

          • North in reply to LeeEsq says:

            I’m looking more at the practical history. Newt did negotiate and there were a lot of the older school decorum style GOP around. They’d have taken those characters to the woodshed if for no other reason than they were embarrassing to the right and way out over their skis by the standards of hyperbole that existed in the 90’s.Report

            • InMD in reply to North says:

              The party’s head was still firmly William F Buckley with Ned Flanders filling in the rank and file. It’s hard to envision the Jerry Springer crowd that runs the show now coming up with something like the Contract With America, merits of said proposals aside.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

                I was there. I was one of the Ned Flanders. And what you’re saying is true, but in hindsight I recognize that the embarrassing Charlie Kirk types who I thought were fringers, were just vulgar versions of the Buckley types. And vice versa.

                Its no great mystery why the entire party fell at Trump’s feet. He doesn’t have some great superpower, there isn’t any great secret. He just said loudly what they were all saying quietly. And he gave them what they had been craving in pure uncut form.

                The Buckleys and Bushes and Reagans of the party banished only the vulgar and ill mannered, but never defined a right boundary of what was acceptably conservative.

                Buckley famously wrote that the white minority had the right to impose its will upon the black majority. Although he later very softly recanted, it wasn’t true; They all saw white males as the only legitimate holders of power.Report

            • LeeEsq in reply to North says:

              I’m kind of doubtful about this.Report

  4. Pinky says:

    …and do what?

    You’ve just written an article about how the Democrats have to do something big, and you forgot to even hint at what you want them to do (other than whatever’s buried in the spending bill).Report

    • North in reply to Pinky says:

      I think it’s implied that Biden and his party need to do succeed in what they’re currently trying to do. They’re pushing an absolutely mind blowingly ambitious reconciliation bill with a million things packed into it. If they can manage to somehow pass that beast, (bonus points if they can get the smaller bipartisan infrastructure bill through too) then no one can claim they put a timid foot forward.

      Passing it, though, is going to be quite a feat.Report

  5. CJColucci says:

    Tax and spend, tax and spend, elect and elect.Report