The two parties agree on austerity
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S press conference on July 11 marks a major shift in how he is presenting the deficit issue.
Obama's mantra had been we need to fix the deficit (i.e., to slash government spending and have modest tax increases) at the same time as we have targeted spending on infrastructure, etc., to lay the basis of economic growth. The deficit was a long-term problem, but the emphasis now had to be on growing the economy with attention to the deficit on the side as well.
As of July 11, Obama is now saying that we still need spending on infrastructure, but that we need to create stability and certainty first in order to encourage private-sector hiring. Businesses, he claims, need to know what the situation will be years hence. That is why we need a long-term budget deal that will cut government spending. Once we have solved that problem, then we can move on to the targeted spending we need on infrastructure, etc.
So the emphasis in Obama's rhetoric has shifted nearly 180 degrees from "spending first" to stimulate the economy to "deficit reduction first" to supposedly create stability.
This is a major shift by Obama--at least in how he publicly presents the problem. This is a wholesale acceptance of the way the Republicans have framed the issue for the last two-and-a-half years. Republicans keep repeating that the reason business is not hiring is because of "high taxes" and "too much regulation." Now Obama says he agrees!
The difference is that Obama also wants a new stimulus someday. Of course, when "someday" comes, the Republicans still won't agree since they want to shrink government even more. For them, if the free market isn't working the solution is always an even "freer" market.
Obama's shift is an example of Karl Marx's statement that "being determines consciousness." In practice, Obama has accommodated to Republican priorities. Now his verbal presentation of the problem is catching up to his practice.
WHAT DOES this mean for workers, students and the poor? If a deal is struck (which it is likely to be, because the ruling class doesn't want the U.S. to go into default), it will like mean a "short-term" plan of cuts of $2 trillion over a 10-year period with little or no tax increases. This means even more cuts to government programs--even the previously "untouchable" Social Security and Medicare. Such a deal will create howls of opposition and the potential for new waves of struggle.
It also means that, even within the Democratic Party, there will be opposition to Obama's full embrace of Republican priorities. There may be opposition to the deal struck among some Democrats in Congress. There is also likely to be a relatively serious challenge to Obama in the Democratic primaries. This will open up more space for socialist politics.
But it will put the onus on socialists to be clear that the problem is not just Obama's sellout to the Republicans, but the whole program of the Democratic Party--left, right and center. Dominant Democratic Party politics embraces the ruling class drive to austerity and the creation of a low-wage working class. Many people will think that the problem is that Obama is becoming a Republican, rather than that his politics are a solid expression of Democratic politics in crisis.
When nearly every Democratic president since Franklin Roosevelt is accused by progressive Democrats of being a Republican in Democratic clothing, even Democrats need to reconsider the real nature of the Democratic Party.
This is not to deny that there are definite tactical, and sometimes strategic, differences between and within the Democratic and Republican Parties--but the goals are the same. Some sections of the ruling class would like to see more spending on infrastructure, etc.--but the overall drive to austerity and low wages trumps this. When the two conflict, austerity comes out on top.
There has never been a better time to build an independent working-class alternative to both parties--in elections and, most importantly, in struggle!
Steve Leigh, Seattle
