Tempting, but I’ll Pass:

I recently had a conversation with a liberal activist friend of mine and he suggested that Democrats should “team up with Tea Party types to punish John Boehner” (his words, not mine) for inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress on the topic of Iran, while the Obama administration is engaged in talks with the Iranian government over their nuclear program. My friend is a really intelligent guy, so I tried not to dismiss the suggestion out of hand, but it soon became clear that we just have fundamental disagreements about the nature of the right-wing in current American politics. He’s from the camp that thinks that it’s always a good idea to come together with folks on common ground that you agree upon, and I’m of the opinion that the opposition is the opposition for a reason.

At first glance, it might appear that it would be possible to find common ground with Tea Partiers on at least a few issues. They loudly denounce crony capitalism, which should be a decent starting point for collaboration with liberals who are concerned with the growing domination of American politics by corporate interests. Their rhetoric is, however, just a smokescreen, designed to take advantage of and redirect growing populist sentiment towards policies beneficial to the same corporate interests that the Tea Party faithful regularly denounce. A study funded by the National Cancer Institute found that the Tea Party can trace its roots back to the pro-tobacco lobby that was active in the 1980’s. Given that history, alarm bells should be going off at even the thought that a true partnership could be arrived at.

I’ve spent a few days thinking about my friend’s suggestion, and the only conclusion I can come to is that his proposal likely stems from, at least in part, the growing polarization and resulting echo chamber effect between the parties and the ideological groups that make them up. If all you know about the hard-right is what you hear on the news, it would be easy to mistake these folks for people ideologically committed to putting a stop to the insider deals, which can be all too common. Also, given their flag waving personas, the idea of a foreign leader attempting to influence American foreign policy should be exactly the type of thing that would allow for an alliance designed to punish the Republican leadership. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), I’ve actually had the opportunity to spend some time with the Tea Party base (this is what happens when half of your family is made up of honest-to-goodness wingnuts), and let me tell you there is little to no common ground to be had there, and what agreement that does exist between the far left and right I don’t want a thing to do with.

Simply put, the Tea Party is a reactionary white nationalist party with a heavy dose of theocracy thrown in for good measure. Threats directed at American Muslims after the release of the film American Sniper is just the latest example of the worldview held by the base of this movement. While it theoretically might be possible to use their racism against their congressional leadership on this particular issue, liberals should reject any partnership that would result in teaming up with folks that will likely be spouting rhetoric straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For one thing, there’s a fairly extensive history of idealistic activist types being rolled by the hard-right whenever alliances like this have been formed (feel free to do your own research on this, but trust me it’s there). Additionally, partnerships like this risk attaching a stench to anyone even remotely involved. While you might be thinking that you’re simply defending the administration, or hitting back at an outrageous breach of etiquette by the Republicans, what you would really be doing is giving an air of respectability to some rather nasty Anti-Semitism. So, where does that leave us? I, of course, think that John Boehner’s latest gambit is a bad thing for the country, as it risks undermining the administration as they engage in important negotiations. I also would relish the idea of sowing dissension within the ranks of the GOP. However, in this case, doing so would come at too great a cost (on the other hand, if the Republicans insist on tearing themselves apart I do have stockpiles of popcorn). A better strategy for liberals would be to critique the GOP on the merits, that attempting to use a foreign leader, any foreign leader, to influence the conduct of American foreign policy is a dangerous game that should not be played. Beyond that, we can hope that the Obama administration is able to continue its track record of being able to deliver surprisingly substantive accomplishments in the face of outrageous Republican obstruction and sabotage.

Now We Need To Make Them Pay

The new congress has been seated for a little more than two weeks, and their first order of business has been to attack vulnerable Americans by moving to cut payments to people eligible for Social Security Disability by nearly 20%. The decision is being framed as a way to protect seniors from lazy sloths unwilling to work, and justified as an effort to combat fraud in a system that Republicans say is rife with abuse. Democrats (and anyone concerned about the welfare of vulnerable people) must answer this challenge. Regardless of the false narrative put forward by some journalists and politicians, payments from the Social Security Disability Program are highly accurate with an error rate of less than 1%, and the program is not an easy giveaway to lazy people; only 41% of applicants are eventually approved for benefits with almost three quarters of applicants initially denied. For those who do qualify, this money is essential to their well-being. The program isn't charity or a giveaway, these people have paid into this system, and it needs to be there in their time of need the way it was promised.  

While the GOP appears to be attempting a strategy of divide and conquer, it is essential for Democrats, to hang this move around their neck like an albatross. We must remind seniors of the Republicans ongoing desire to privatize Social Security, and show this move for what it really is—an attempt to weaken the program so that they can eventually dismantle it. The grass roots need to be adamant about their stance that Social Security can only be strengthened, and that any attempt to weaken it will be met with not just complaints but with real consequences. Additionally, educational efforts should be conducted so that seniors are made aware of the efforts to undermine a program that is vital to their security. 

Fortunately, there is an option for ensuring the ongoing solvency of the program, and it will resonate with populist atmosphere currently spreading through the electorate; raise the limit on the amount of income subject to social security taxation. Currently, the limit is $118,500, with income above that threshold exempt from Social Security taxation. Eliminating that cap could close the gap in revenue by 90%,and would only affect the top 5.2% of workers. This needs to be an issue that is front and center as politicians are already gearing up for the 2016 election. A day shouldn’t go by that candidates aren’t asked about their plans to ensure the future of this program, and politicians that do not have satisfactory plans and solutions should not be let off of the hook. They say that Social Security is the “third rail” of American politics. The Republican Party hasn’t just touched it; they are making a public effort to break it. It’s essential that we make them pay a heavy price for that, while working to expand a program that is essential to the lives of millions of Americans.