With the Democratic primary about 75% of the way done, I want to step back a bit and explain the big-picture reason that I never warmed up to Kevin Drum. It's not so much that he's all that far to my right, nor that he's pretty selective when evaluating American political history. That's hardly uncommon in punditry. Rather, it's the fact that I think he's basically running a con, and one with the potential to cause distinct damage to the progressive cause.
I mean this as a provocation.
Kevin Drum has a piece up at HuffPo telling us why he never warmed up to Bernie, and we have a supportive diary here.
First off, he’s largely wrong about American political history. He concludes:
Work your fingers to the bone for 30 years and you might get one or two significant pieces of legislation passed.
claiming the only two “revolutions” in American economic/political history are the end of slavery and the New Deal. Yet, there are at least two others that would classify as “political revolutions”.
The LBJ era’s Great Society programs: Medicare, Medicaid, improvements to Social Security and Food Stamps. All alongside the drive to pull African-Americans into the Great Society. That was a political revolution. Equally important, but often under-appreciated was the revolution LBJ’s administration brought about in our immigration policy. That alone has fundamentally remade the demographics of this country. Prior to the Immigration acts of 63, 65, it was virtually impossible to immigrate to this country unless you were from Europe or perhaps the Americas. The Reagan Revolution: Which resulted in drastically reduced tax rates, especially on capital gains and started us on an experiment with de-regulation.You could add more, including the slow burn reconstruction reversal that was Jim Crow.
The broader point is this. American political history (and indeed, human political history) is a story of punctuated equilibrium. We work for decades (or centuries in some cases) to build the support for ideas. But when the opportunity and circumstances arrive, they tend to be realized all at once, creating a new equilibrium. Then we muddle along for decades till we face another need to change direction. That change requires a catalyst. Here’s Drum’s view on whether we are at such a moment:
Unemployment? Yes, 2 or 3 percent of the working-age population has dropped out of the labor force, but the headline unemployment rate is 5 percent. Wages? They've been stagnant since the turn of the century, but the average family still makes close to $70,000, more than nearly any other country in the world. Health care? Our system is a mess, but 90 percent of the country has insurance coverage. Dissatisfaction with the system? According to Gallup, even among those with incomes under $30,000, only 27 percent are dissatisfied with their personal lives.
Like it or not, you don't build a revolution on top of an economy like this. Period.
Yes, unemployment is low, about where you’d expect to be in the tail end of a recovery. But it’s not always about where you are right now, our view of our economic condition is path dependent. What people experienced during the great recession is stalled careers, lost savings, lost homes, lost dreams and persistent economic insecurity. The Gallup poll Drum uses found that satisfaction drops with household income. In any case, the survey question was not about the economy or financial life, but about “personal life” as a whole. Even those who have seen extreme privation can find personal satisfaction in family and community. That doesn't mean they aren't scarred by the wolf that was at their door.
Drum’s claim that we are all pretty pleased about our lives is undercut even further by Gallup’s finding that 76% of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the nation. That might be because many believe no one has answered for the financial crisis which may in turn explain why so many are receptive to an anti-establishment argument.
It is also misleading of Drum to use averages when discussing a highly unequal society like the US (we have far higher income inequality than India for example). But I’m glad he did because that lets me discuss median income. Median income is $52,000 per household (half make more, half less), while the average is $72,000. That divide of $20,000 is a large one and speaks to the inequality in our country. 60% of households make less than the average of $72,000. But 72 is bigger than 52, so Drum's selectively using an average to make the case that the peasants really have no reason to be upset.
When writing about inequality, you probably shouldn't dismiss the economic insecurity many people feel. And people have good reason to feel insecure. Median household net worth is under $70,000 (or less than a year’s average income). Those in the bottom 10%, have negative net worth (-$7,000). When you reach 30%, you find net worth around $7,000 (that’s half what it was in 2000). A third of our country has virtually nothing to fall back on if they lose jobs or benefits. Real median household income over the past 30 years is charted to the right, and the picture is not pretty. With the evisceration of unions and industrial jobs, power in the employee-employer relationship has shifted decidedly towards employers. That means the fortunes of American workers are exceedingly tenuous. No wonder so many are discontent.
In a follow-up to the piece, Drum says half the responses he’s received have fallen into this category:
OMG, thank you for finally writing what I've been feeling all along.Drum’s post is in many ways, an elaborate exposition on how he does not like Bernie’s tone. So I’m not surprised he got this reaction from many. I suspect what these folks are really feeling is:
I once had an uncomfortable political discussion with my plumber/doorman. Bernie sounds like him.
Immediately followed by the thought:
Hillary sounds like my manager or CEO. She sounds effective, and experienced.
This view is ubiquitous among the professional classes. Bernie speaks in a declarative, working class idiom. Our own mandarins are very uncomfortable with this. Most reflxively assume that their discomfort means it is ineffective or dangerous. I fully expect them to present convoluted justifications for their dismissal of the very real feeling of insecurity and injustice that Bernie has tapped into. But, what really bugs me about Drum is the concern trolling.
But there's a decent chance that Bernie's failure will result in a net increase of cynicism about politics, and that's the last thing we need. I hate the idea that we might lose even a few talented future leaders because they fell for Bernie's spiel and then got discouraged when it didn't pan out.
And let’s not mince words, this is concern trolling. It’s not at the same level as the argument that Nader lost Gore the election and therefore the left should just shut up and go along. It’s one level up in terms of indirection.*
It's also not true. Americans are cynical about politics and the intentions of their elected leaders because many have endured decades of declining incomes while eyeing a transparent revolving door between industry and Washington. So if you want to identify the causes of their cynicism I don’t think one 74-year old’s failed run for the Democratic nomination will do the trick.
* BTW, the 2000 election was lost because Gore campaigned poorly, had the wrong recount strategy, couldn’t win his home state and had to run away from the incumbent president who'd been caught with his pants down in the Oval Office.