Rob't Reich cautions progressives against complacency in the election -- AND on the need to press the president hard if he wins

"Don't for a moment believe 'Romney's dead,' and don't be complacent. The hard work lies ahead, in the next seven weeks.

"And even if Obama is reelected, more hard work begins after Inauguration Day -- when we must push him to be tougher on the Republicans than he was in his first term, and do what the nation needs."

-- Robert Reich, in his post
"Four Reasons Why Romney Might Still Win"

by Ken

Yesterday Noah passed along a link to a website called "Republicans for Obama, which announces itself thusly:

The Republican party isn't what it used to be. Our leaders and our most vocal activists have written moderates out of the party and have refused to work with the other side, to the detriment of the nation. Center-right presidents such as Reagan, Bush Sr., Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower would have no chance being nominated today.

Unfortunately, Mitt Romney has not proven to be able to stand up to our party's most extreme elements. Instead, he has fallen for the "one-size-fits-all" mentality that tax cuts for the already-wealthy will solve all of our problems, and has no workable plans to solve the challenges we face.

President Obama has shown himself to be a common-sense centrist. He has cut taxes when necessary, has taken steps to protect the environment, and has aggressively pursued Islamic extremists who threaten America. Most notably, he has reformed our healthcare system by signing a Republican-inspired healthcare plan into law. In most other points in our party's history, Obama would fit in well as a Republican.

I wrote back that "at least somebody on their side has noticed" that "in most other points in our party's history, Obama would fit in well as a Republican." He agreed, but added: "and too bad not many on our side have noticed!"

Which is why I'm glad Bob Reich framed his exhortation to continue fighting for the president's reelection the way he did, above -- as a double-pronged course of action that stretches beyond Inauguration Day: "we must push him to be tougher on the Republicans than he was in his first term, and do what the nation needs."

In which connection our eloquent colleague Guy Saperstein has come up with what seems to me a sensational frame for the deficit-reduction battles ahead.

It is a mistake for progressives just to say no Grand Bargain and no deficit reduction. There is going to be deficit reduction whether we like it or not---that train has already left the station. What progressives need to do is provide a progressive vision of deficit reduction. Hence, my proposed formulation of deficit reduction that would improve our fiscal strength, while improving peoples' lives:

The best way to reduce the deficit is to [1] Create revenue by creating jobs and investing in future prosperity; [2] Stop spending money on stupid wars and dumb weapons systems; [3] Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the rich; and, [4] Tax Wall Street speculation.

The worst way to reduce the deficit is to [1] Cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits; [2] Continue trying to police the world; [3] Protect tax breaks for the rich; and, [4] Protect Wall Street from paying its fair share.

The first point, that "it is a mistake for progressives just to say no Grand Bargain and no deficit reduction," recalls for me the case that another eloquent colleague, Mike Lux, tried to make during the increasingly ominous run-up to the disastrous 2010 midterm elections, as it became increasingly clear that the Right was going to play heavily on the issue of deficits. Mike, a Clinton administration veteran, pointed out what he insisted everyone who's been on the inside of government knows: that there is a sizable amount of genuinely wasteful government spending, and that it would be both wise and possible for progressives to get ahead of the right-wing spending-cut steam roller and outline areas of waste that could be cut. He got clobbered. Supposedly "smart" people insisted that this would be playing into the hands of the Right, making their deficit-panic case for them.

From our present vantage point, does anyone doubt that Mike was right? Progressives had an opportunity to at least co-own the spending issue, and to defuse the spending-is-evil mania that is now the working principle of the Republican majority installed in the House in that election. Similarly, we on the Left know how much hokum there is in the assault on government spending orchestrated by the right-wing elites whose long-standing aims it serves not honestly but well. But the Right has assumed almost total control of the public framing. I think Guy's formulation could be a valuable step toward restoring some sanity to the issue.

But to return to Secretary Reich's more immediate call to action, I think it could be enormously dangerous to take for granted that the Willard zeppelin has exploded. "Rumors of Romney's demise," Reich argues, "are premature for at least four reasons."

1.  Between now and Election Day come two jobs reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- October 5 and November 2. If they're as bad as the last report, showing only 96,000 jobs added in August (125,000 are needed just to keep up with population growth) and the lowest percentage of employed adults since 1981, Romney's claim the economy is off track becomes more credible, and Obama's that it's on the mend harder to defend.

With gas prices rising, corporate profits shrinking, most of Europe in recession, Japan still a basket case, and the Chinese economy slowing, the upcoming job reports are unlikely to be stellar.

2. Also between now and Election Day are three presidential debates, starting October 3. It's commonly thought Obama will win them handily but that expectation may be very wrong -- and could work against him. Yes, Romney is an automaton -- but when the dials are set properly he can give a good imitation of a human engaged in sharp debate. He did well in the Republican primary debates.

Obama, by contrast, can come off slow and ponderous. Recall how he stuttered and stumbled during the 2008 Democratic primary debates. And he hasn't been in a real-live debate for four years; Romney recently emerged from almost a year of them.

3. During the next 7 final weeks of the campaign, the anti-Obama forces will be spending a gigantic amount of money. Not just the Romney campaign and Romney's super PACs, but other super PACS aligned with Romney, billionaires spending their own fortunes, and non-profit "social welfare" organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove's "Crossroads," and various Koch-brothers political fronts -- all will dump hundreds of millions on TV and radio spots, much of it spreading lies and distortions. Some of this money will be devoted to get-out-the-vote drives -- to phone banks and door-to-door canvassing to identify favorable voters, and vans to bring them to the polling stations.

It's an easy bet they'll far outspend Obama and his allies. I've heard two-to-one. The race is still close enough that a comparative handful of voters in swing states can make the difference -- which means gobs of money used to motivate voters to polling stations can be critical.

4. As they've displayed before, the Republican Party will do whatever it can to win -- even if it means disenfranchising certain voters. To date, 11 states have enacted voter identification laws, all designed by Republican legislatures and governors to dampen Democratic turnout.

The GOP is also encouraging what can only be termed "voter vigilante" groups to "monitor polling stations to prevent fraud" -- which means intimidating minorities who have every right to vote. We can't know at this point how successful these efforts may be but it's a dangerous wildcard. And what about those Diebold voting machines?

I think it's a terrible mistake to forget how massively the electorate has been brainwashed by right-wing propaganda, pushing all the emotional hot buttons its strategists have discovered. A huge amount of megacorporate cash has been invested in that brainwashing, and there doesn't seem to be any limit to the amount of cash available to continue the job.

#