When The Future Of The Planet Is At Stake, There Is No Middle Ground

In his latest public service announcement, Robert Reich begins by saying he's hearing a lot about socialism lately, "mainly from Donald Trump and Fox News." I guess he doesn't get out much. The "menace of socialism" is in every GOP message, from every Reoublican candidate running anywhere and everywhere-- and from the rotgut Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Did you hear the booing when former Colorado Governor Frackenlooper tried using socialism as a punching bag last weekend at the California Democratic Party convention? Slimy little worm John Delaney-- who wanted to be seen being booed in San Francisco by his Fax audience-- was even worse. So yes, Republicans, as Reich says, "are trying to scare Americans about initiatives like Medicare-For-All, a Green New Deal, universal child care, free public higher education, and higher taxes on the super wealthy to pay for these." But it's not just "Republicans." It's conservatives-- meaning all the Republicans and a significant number of congressional Democrats.

Reich says to ignore the screeches of"Socialism!" from the right, which he says we should do because "these initiatives are overwhelmingly supported by most Americans" [and] for the last 85 years, conservative Republicans [he's forgetting the conservative Democrats again] have been yelling "socialism" at every initiative designed to help most Americans. It was the scare word used by the Liberty League in 1935 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed Social Security. In 1952, President Harry Truman noted that 'Socialism is the epithet they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.' Truman went on to say 'Socialism is what they called public power, social security, bank deposit insurance, free and independent labor organizations, anything that helps all the people.' Truman concluded by noting 'When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan DownWith Socialism... what he really means is Down With Progress.'"

Do you remember a character-- Morton Kondracke-- from the '80s weekly sit-com, The McLaughlin Group? He played a simplistic conservative boob whelped substitute sensationalism for serious journalism when political formatting on TV was still in its formative years. Needless to say, he eventually graduated to Fox News. Today I saw a commentary of his--same old song and dance-- extolling the corporately owned and operated New Dems, the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. "The media, perpetually mesmerized by ideologues and charisma," he wrote, "have virtually anointed radical leftist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the future of the Democratic Party. In fact, it should focus on Rep. Derek Kilmer and the House New Democrat Coalition he chairs." [Twitter followers]

• AOC- 4.23 million
• Derek Kilmer- 24,900
• Morton M. Kondracke- 395

"The Progressive Caucus, representing ultra-liberals," he wrote, "numbers 95 representatives. But New Democrats number 101, including most of the 40 newcomers who took seats away from Republicans in 2018 and 21 who won in 2016 Trump districts." He probably isn't aware that among the 101 New Dems are are 15 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus he attempts to smear as "ultra-liberals," whatever that is:

• Katie Hill (CA)
• Gil Cisneros (CA)
• Lisa Blunt Rochester (DE)
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (FL)
• Darren Soto (FL)
• André Carson (IN)
• Lori Trahan (MA)
• Brenda Lawrence (MI)
• Angie Craig (MN)
• Steven Horsford (NV)
• Brendan Boyle (PA)
• Madeleine Dean (PA)
• Veronica Escobar (TX)
• Don Beyer (VA)
• Adam Smith (WA)

Still, the '80s relic wrote that "If the party wants to maintain or enlarge its majority in 2020, it needs to keep attracting independent and some Republican voters, which won’t happen if it’s identified as left-liberal, advocating unaffordable Medicare for All, free college for all, a guaranteed income for people who don’t work and abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. And if it’s preoccupied with ethnic identity politics, as in offering reparations to African Americans to compensate them for the effects of slavery and racism. Already, top Republicans including President Trump and House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy repeatedly refer to 'the Socialist Democratic Party.' They know that less than half of voters say they’d vote for a candidate who is a socialist (like Bernie Sanders) or is seen as one (like Elizabeth Warren)."

The feebleminded Kondracke is an octogenarian who grew up while FDR was president and while the Republican Party of his childhood was making the exact same arguments he makes. During that time, when conservatives were screeching about "socialism!" this is how American voters responded. Herbert Hoover was still president in 1930 for the midterms. The GOP entered the elections with a massive 270-164 seat majority. They lost 52 seats and the Democrats flipped control of the House, John Nance Garner becoming speaker. Two years later, amid the screams of "Socialism!" FDR made Hoover a one-term president, beating him 22,821,277 (57.4%) to 15,761,254 (39.7%), the GOP down to just 6 states. The Republicans lost another 101 seats in the House that year. I guess people either didn't believe the "Socialism!" ploy or they liked the idea. And it didn't stop there. In 1934, the GOP lost another 14 seats and then two years later, another 15 seats. The 1936 House of Representatives consisted of 334 Democrats, 8 Progressives, 5 Farmer-Labor members and just 88 very sad radical right Republicans mumbling "Socialism!" to each other. (Oh, and the Senate... the GOP lost 5 seats that year, leaving a =n awkward balance-- 74 Democrats, 2 Farmer-Labor members and a Progressive vs just 17 lonely Republicans wondering if they should start rethinking the "Socialism!" tactic. Kondracke's a worthless fool. He goes on to describe the conservative agenda of the Rrepublican wing of the Democratic Party-- stopping Medicare-For-All, stopping the Green New Deal, etc.

A problem for the moderate New Dems is that they are moderate. Or, as Kilmer himself admitted to me, their rallying cry sounds like “What do we want? Incremental change! When do we want it? As soon as it’s feasible!”

(Actually, political moderates need to find a more dynamic word than “moderate” to describe themselves, the way liberals rebranded themselves “progressive.”)

"Conservative?" "Reactionary?" They both fit way better than "moderate."