Please give to The Capital Times Kids Fund.

Memo to Obama: It's the economy, senator

An editorial  —  8/20/2008 5:26 am

The definitional issue of the 2008 presidential campaign, for candidates and voters, is all but certain to be the sorry state of the American economy. And as he accepts the Democratic nomination for president, Barack Obama must communicate a commitment to renew and revitalize that economy by making a clean break not just with President Bush but with corporate-friendly policies that reward Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.

Let's be clear: George Bush did not create the country's economic troubles. Conservative Republicans and centrist Democrats, including Bill Clinton, laid the groundwork with free-trade agreements; deregulation of key industries; and the radical restructuring of investment, banking and credit regulations.

Yet, while there is plenty of blame to go around, there can be no question that Bush and the Republican wrecking crew that ran Congress for most of his two terms turned trouble into a crisis. That crisis is characterized by human costs that mount daily in the form of foreclosure threats and credit crunches, rising unemployment and inflation, record trade deficits, and a general sense of malaise that has three-quarters of Americans saying their country is headed in the wrong direction.

In Wisconsin, it is symbolized by the decision of General Motors to prepare for shuttering the General Motors plant in Janesville -- a move that threatens to leave thousands jobless and devastate small businesses and communities across the southern tier of the state.

John McCain's "response" to the crisis is no response. The Republican who would be president admits, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." He surrounds himself with advisers like former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, who dismisses the fears of Americans about keeping their homes and jobs as "whining." And McCain actually sounds more like Bush than Bush when it comes to repeating the discredited dogmas of free trade, deregulation and tax cuts for the super-rich. It ought not be difficult for Democrats who gather in Denver to nominate Barack Obama to campaign successfully against the Republican promise of

more of the same and maybe worse

.

Yet polls suggest the presidential race remains close, even in battleground states such as Wisconsin that have been pounded by more than seven years of Republicanomics.

Where's the disconnect?

Barack Obama is more than just a brilliant orator; he is an agile thinker with enough real-world experience to relate to a country that is scared about a lot more than rising gas prices. He secured the Democratic nomination because he represented what millions of Democrats saw as a break from both the failures of the Bush years and the compromises of the Clinton years that preceded them. It was not just "hope" that allowed Obama to upset the expectations of cautious mandarins who have guided the Democratic Party's fate through too many losing presidential races. It was the promise of fundamental change.

Yet perhaps fearing the "liberal" label, perhaps feeling pressures imposed on so "historic" and "barrier-breaking" a candidacy as his, Obama has since securing the nomination erred frequently on the side of caution when it comes to the economic debate. He has tried to have it both ways on health care reform, suggesting an enthusiasm for universal coverage while criticizing the mandates needed to achieve that goal. He has seemed to abandon the tough talk about renegotiating NAFTA that once underpinned his appeal to working-class voters. And because presidential candidates define so much of the electoral landscape, Obama's populism deficit is constraining Democrats.

The party's draft platform is a case in point. To be sure, the document goes places Republicans never will -- calling for strengthening rather than privatizing Social Security and, due to a determined campaign by Progressive Democrats of America and the California Nurses Association, embracing "guaranteed" health care for all. The language on trade policy is, thanks to prodding by the Citizens Trade Campaign and its union allies, more detailed and generally sounder than in 2004. But the platform still pulls punches, avoiding a full embrace of the progressive/populist policies that proved to be winners for Democratic congressional candidates in 2006. The caution is concerning.

When Obama takes the stage in Denver Aug. 28, and when he and his fellow Democrats hit the campaign trail this fall, it won't be enough to gripe about Bush and McCain or send soft signals. Voters in rapidly de-industrializing states such as Wisconsin need to know that the promise of a new direction involves the renewal of their communities. The rural voters that could swing from Republican red to Democratic blue will require more than vague centrism to inspire a change of party loyalties. The change they will believe in must be firm in its recognition that government is a part of the solution -- as firm as was the Bush administration's cynical rejection of that truth. If Barack Obama is Franklin Roosevelt to John McCain's Herbert Hoover, he and the Democrats will win not just the presidency but a robust enough congressional majority to give America a new New Deal. And it will take nothing less to undo the damage of the Bush/Cheney interregnum.

An editorial  —  8/20/2008 5:26 am