The presidential campaign is breaking down along familiar ideological lines, according to New York Times reporter John Harwood (1/12/12):
American voters loathe both major symbols of the forces squeezing their pocketbooks and life savings.
President Obama will seek re-election vowing to rein in one of them: Wall Street. Mitt Romney will focus on the other: Washington.
There are some complications (Republicans attacking Mitt Romney’s “vulture” capitalism for starters), but Harwood assures readers that soon enough the candidates will be back to the sensible middle.
But what’s the center?
Romney’s right-wing rhetoric about Obama’s fondness for Big Government and European socialism is a staple of his campaign. But the evidence of Obama’s leftward anti-Wall Street message is a little harder to come by. This is where Harwood sees it:
He called for a 21st-century version of Theodore Roosevelt’s progressive movement that would raise taxes on the wealthy to finance job-creating improvements in infrastructure, education and scientific research. Mr. Obama’s view draws strength from voters’ antipathy toward a Wall Street culture thatprospered while Main Street struggled–and then received a taxpayer bailout.
Harwood tells readers not to much worry about what they’re hearing, since they’ll be back to The Middle soon enough:
Dramatic oratory aside, Messrs. Romney and Obama are seeking ways to position themselves as reasonable centrists in a general election. Mr. Obama on Wednesday announced that he will offer new business tax breaks for companies that return jobs to the United States. Mr. Romney has defended Social Security against Mr. Perry’s ideas for transforming it, and criticized Mr. Gingrich for suggesting a weakening of child labor laws.
The implication, of course, is that neither of them is being particularly reasonable now. In the case of Mitt Romney, perhaps that means he doesn’t really mean Obama is seeking “to put free enterprise on trial.” To Harwood, Romney’s centrism is that he supports child labor law and doesn’t believe Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. That doesn’t tell us much.
But as the Christian Science Monitor reported, Romney’s actual Social Security plan would “gradually raise the retirement age to reflect increases in longevity.” That’s not a particularly popular idea, but it’s the kind of thing corporate media tend to support.
As for Obama, is it really reasonable centrism to call for corporate tax breaks? Harwood seems to think so, especially when set against the left-wing Obama who calls for tax hikes on the wealthy to finance jobs programs. But those unreasonably progressive policies would seem to be fairly popular, even by the Times‘ own polling.
As is often the case, when media say “center,” they don’t mean policies that most people support. They mean policies that seem sensible to them. The two are not the same thing.
My God, Harwood’s assertions are the most idiotic boilerplate imaginable. He fits right in. Is this how our democracy ends? As an utterly witless farce? Of course, Mr. Harwood is actually talking to his fellow employees at the Times, and his close friends. So maybe the end isn’t nigh, but still. The quest for the Magical and Wonderful and Awesome Center goes on, all through the Beltway . . . .
It would be nice to see a viable left candidate and a viable right candidate and we would see where the true “center” lay. I suspect that most people, faced with the options of gutting the social safety net, partially gutting the social safety net, and strengthening the social safety net, they would opt for security, and awould pay taxes for it, were they given the clear choice. Instead we get “centrists” who demand cuts in the name of “improving” and right-wingers who demand abolition in the name of “improving.” Social security, which has such a big trust fund that its loans are financing government debt in almost every other area might be in trouble some day so it either needs to be cut back dramatically or abolished. It is the tragedy of the American voter is that both positions are labelled “saving” social security.
That was an interesting thought, that “people are living longer.” Is that true now? I keep reading of how so many millions have no health care, and that more and more jobs are part time with no benefits. Then I read about PA and the contaminated ground water, and how the polluter company fulfilled their water contract by supplying clean water, but now those people are on their own.
I read about Camp Lejune and their contaminated water, contaminated since the 1950s, which affects millions of soldiers and families. Then too, so many families are on food stamps and food pantries are runnning out of food. This gets even more depressing with farm animals getting antibiotics to fatten them up, and some say MERSA started from this. It’s really hard for me to believe that Americans are living longer, or will be living longer.
What will all those unemployed people do that are too young for social security and too old to be hired? Why can people be too old to be hired? If age is an issue, shouldn’t most of Congress be let go too?
Raise the age of social security because people are living longer? I don’t think that’s logical or true at all. I read too, that during the last Gilded Age, that the average life span was 48 for men and 50 for women. I guess that solves the population problem, but it certainly doesn’t do much for the FUTURE of a country.
Oh Mr. Harwood, “centrists?” It all seems so delusional with politics as a huge black hole, eating up all the energy in sight. Christian Science Monitor, are people really living longer, and if not, what’s killing them?
So many people underestimate the need for fresh, potable water. It’s a resource that will be as valuable as any resource, if not more so, in the coming years. Think of all the things you do in your own household that require water. We can’t live without it.
Those people you mention in Dimock, PA, Gloriana, have contaminated wells. Parts of this state are being “fracked” and this is one area that has had hydraulic fracking. Apparently, the gas company fulfilled their state water contract by trucking in fresh water to these residents, for a time, but now that the contract has been fulfilled, the water is no longer being trucked in and the wells are still contaminated. Dimock turned to the E.P.A. for water, but the puzzling thing is that the E.P.A. won’t supply fresh water until they study the matter. Can’t they study it and supply fresh water? I know the above is off message but I had to write about the misery of these folks.
Sometimes I think there are simply too many people in the world for the jobs needed to sustain them but population control is a whole other issue that would drive the fundies nuts, (as well as others). But, hey, if Willard thinks corporations are people and we certainly are people, why can’t we get corporate tax breaks, subsidies, and all kinds of loopholes, too?
Please let it be known Elaine that the good people of Dimock pa have been informed with rock solid evidence that those wells were contaminated(methain) BEFORE the fracking began.Fracking did not cause ,or even contribute to this problem ,and the companies look forward to their day in court.Till that time they have generously agreed to bringing in water for good public relations.
The center of politics hopefully will be(or become) what is a sensible process of extracting ourselves from this massive debt,ideology aside.Of course according to the one guidepost we all must agree on.The constitution.
The position of the gas company is that they did not cause any methane. It is not the position of the Department of Environmental Resources which claims that they (gas company) is responsible for the methane in the water. Also, the folks of Dimock were never able to light a fire to water coming out of their tap before fracking began. Now they can, strangely enough.
http://citizensvoice.com/news/dep-cabot-drilling-caused-methane-in-lenox-water-wells-1.1255042#axzzliyOo3xOG
The water samples are in the same zone now as before.The methane is increasing on a natural bell curve.The drilling companies have the facts and science on their side.I believe this will be a slam dunk.they will present water sample tests 20 years ago moving forward.There is no spike due to fracking.Read T bones pickings.he has fracked thousands of drill points,without a hitch for decades.The science is good.The insurance is good too for any mistakes.Why is it good?Because the companies seldom have to pay off.That is not nefarious ,it is a fact.If I came to your house tested your well ,and gave it a high methane count(with the science indicating it will worsen)….then started drilling.Well it is a stretch to blame the drilling for the methane.Let the courts hear it out.We shall see
Aren’t facts confusing? Even after the state PA Dept. of Environmental Protection has the data to show that some PA wells have been contaminated by a gas company, (read above article: “Cabot drilling caused methane,”) those who refuse to accept it, will continue to deny it and will make up their own explanation. No, folks, we don’t want to be confused by facts.
Acetone, aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, ethane, lead, methane, silicon, strontium—just a tiny sample of chemicals used in fracking.
Certain chemicals are natural in shale formation but they are NOT natural in drinking water.
May I interest anyone in a mug of coffee laced with the above and more? It’s natural.
Many of the chems you noted are contained IN the gas reserves.What are you trying to say in relation to what chemicals are being ‘introduced”into the fracking process?And what facts do you have that fracking is causing/has caused a significant environmental concern?Here is a better question.Of all the major scientific methods now in use to create energy for the past twenty five years ,how many have received a clear bill of health- without dissent from EPA?That would be zero percent!The EPA IS that arm of the government that quite literally would never agree on anything left to their own devices.
Okay, let’s take methane–found in well water contamination in Dimock. Methane can occur naturally but in PA it was determined that the methane was the result of fracking. Scientists looked at the molecular composition in Dimock, PA’s water and found it to come from thousands of feet below the earth’s surface whereas typical methane deposits are near the earth’s surface.
http://www.propublica.org/article/epa-sees-the-risks-to-water-workers-in-new-york-fracking-rules
Sorry, you may have to type in above URL on your own and it will tell you everything you’ve always wanted to know about fracking. Do your own research.
“Scientists looked”…….Sounds like a 1950s movie.Elaine you are stating as facts what has not yet been heard or accepted in court.Lets wait until it is heard to see if what you say is true.Far from avoiding this controversy the energy companies are chomping at the bit for their day in court so sure are they of the science being in their favor.I find that as revealing.Unless you are casting aspersions on the courts in PA…….
These are facts from scientists, not from me. The PA DEP doesn’t make accusations unless they have proof because they know that gas companies, with unlimited amounts of money, will challenge the conclusions.
For those interested in being educated on this matter, doctors are now urging a moratorium on gas drilling in populated areas until health impacts are better understood. The info can be obtained by accessing this site:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-17/fracking-moratorium-urged-as-doctors-call-for-health-study-html
Since over 30 states are fracking,I believe, and yours might be one of them, this is one of the best sites I’ve come across to explain hydraulic fracking and impacts on water, soil, air, problems with waste disposal, etc. My apologies to FAIR for being so off-topic.
http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic fracturing 101
Elaine …Of course they are(trying to stop any move forward in energy exploration).What more would one expect.How about we agree to hear the case, and abide by the courts decision after looking at the evidence.Is that not fair?