Time magazine’s Joe Klein found the lesson (11/7/12) in Obama’s re-election. And it involves… wait for it… moving to the right:
It will, and should, be argued that the election was a mandate for moderation. The last month of Mitt Romney‘s campaign, when he rushed to the center and suddenly made it a race, ratified the real will of the people: a sensible centrism that runs deeper than the over-caffeinated bluster that seems to dominate the media. The election hinted that the third rail of American politics–the certain death that comes to those who question entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare–is beginning to lose its juice.
So the result of the election “hints” at a moderate plan to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits? It’s hard to find that outcome in the results; the public has never supported the idea of cutting such “entitlements,” and there’s no reason to think the electorate shifted much. Two exit polls show that 2012 voters are not interested in a “bargain” that would cut benefits in either case. This shouldn’t be confused with the prospect that Obama might pursue a “grand bargain” that cuts benefits. That’s certainly possible–but it’s hard to see how that is what the public wants.
There’s a convention in the corporate media to advocate for “moderation” and “centrism”–Tom Friedman might be the master of this particular genre of punditry. Usually their idea of the “center” isn’t about what the public wants, though; it’s usually a set of policies well to the right of popular opinion. That could make it awkward for them to keep saying that Democrats need to be more like Republicans–which is why appeals to “centrism” are so handy.
It is amusing that people think of Klein as a liberal. (He thinks he’s a liberal too!) I guess this is because he kind of liked Bill Clinton. That doesn’t mean liberal to me, but whatever. The broader issue here is that these pundits think the sensible center is whatever they all believe. These are people who think their $200,000 (And up!) salaries qualify them as middle class when it places them rather highly inside the upper class. I’ve written about this almost universal delusion of high income earners:
Income Class
Another aspect of this that I find increasingly frustrating is how “liberal” commentators are usually only liberal when it comes to social issues. I care very much about social issues, but our high level of income inequality is a bigger issue. No amount of same-sex marriage is going to provide nutritional assistance to under fed children. But since these upper class pundits know no malnourished children, they figure there must be no problem. They know lots of (upper class) gay couples though. Aren’t they magnanimous to treat these marginalized people so well?!
Dear Misleader may have a mandate from the voters
But the realities of power speak to a different mandate
And it’s a safe bet as to which one he’ll follow, isn’t it?
Another aspect of this that I find increasingly frustrating is how “liberal” commentators are usually only liberal when it comes to social issues.
Fair has talked about that for some years now; they even had an Article entitled “I am not a liberal, but I play one on TV”. They are only as liberal as their uber-mench masters allow them, which is essentially “none at all”.
Even in pundit land, it’s hard to miss the reality here. In the first debate Romney “won,” What did he talk about the most? End of discussion.
I for one think it’d be great if Obama moved towards the center. It’d mean he was finally starting to move left from his first administration’s conservative policies.