Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn his new book, Positively American: Winning Back the American Middle Class One Family at a Time, Senator Charles Schumer reveals the imaginary constituents that have long informed his political career: Joe and Eileen Bailey. The Baileys live in a suburb of Long Island with their three kids, they both work, and they earn about $75,000 annually. They worry about terrorism, health care, property taxes, college tuition, outsourcing, elderly care and retirement. They believe in charity but also that "people who work hard and play by the rules will do fine in America.... They don't follow politics particularly closely and are not ideological, but they always vote.... In 2006, they crossed back to the Democratic side for the first time in years." Schumer says that the Baileys are in towns across the nation, with different names and backgrounds, but common interests and the feeling that the government too often focuses on the "very rich or very poor" while overlooking their needs.
Schumer says he wrote this book because he believes that in 2008 a long-term majority is there for the taking, and that only by creating a platform that appeals to the Baileys will the Democrats be successful in doing that. He offers a plan that he calls " The 50% Solution," which he says is "our kitchen table compact" with "all the Baileys in America." It includes some smart ideas such as tripling federal education spending and putting an end to an inequitable system that relies on property taxes to fund our public schools; committing $10 billion a year "to create a Manhattan Project for new energy"; guaranteeing all Americans access to early-detection screenings for high-risk cancers (though Schumer tellingly avoids proposing universal health care other than to write that it's "a Democratic worldview, but it doesn't tie to a specific policy that we are ready to implement"); and restoring Pell Grants and federal loans and adjusting them as average tuition costs increase in the future.
Schumer describes this moment as one when Democrats need to be "clearer, bolder, broader." But ironically, while many of the new Senate leaders Schumer helped to elect as Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee--like Sherrod Brown, Jim Webb, and Jon Tester--are all speaking in bold populist terms that capture a growing majority of Americans' frustration with the free trade/corporate agenda, Schumer has been promoting a go-slow approach that might tamp down the very boldness he claims to stand for in Positively American. Indeed, at a recent book discussion in Washington, DC, Schumer said that he believes presidential candidate John Edwards' populist stance on trade is "a mistake" politically and policy-wise.
As I read this book, I repeatedly thought of another fictitious, decidedly middle-class Bailey: the great American icon George Bailey, of Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life. I would imagine that Schumer's Baileys--like most Americans--love George Bailey. And why do we love him (aside from Jimmy Stewart's charm, charisma, good looks, etc.)? Because George Bailey fights and sacrifices for the welfare of ordinary Americans. He is dedicated to keeping the Potters of the world from buying influence and taking over people's lives, neighborhoods and communities.
In Positively American, Senator Schumer would do well to extend his circle of imaginary constituents to include one more Bailey.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
schumer's diagnosis and treatment sound like good old fashioned democratic formula for winning over baileys...and i imagine it looks a lot like a realistic road map for democratic long term success...i understand kvh's reservations, though...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2007 @ 5:58pm
Schumer's FDR vs. Ms vanden H's Eugene V. Debs time, it appears.
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2007 @ 6:49pm
Posted by MASK 02/12/2007 @ 6:49pm
you know, this is actually a very good blog entry by the divine ms. kvh...but there's just not much to say about it...and i'm not sure why...
abortion anyone? har har...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2007 @ 8:04pm
How does a Senator who recieves greater support from Wall Street than Main Street understand the meaning of Frank Capra's "George Bailey," who was a Main Streeter of the Old Fashioned Way?
Posted by oraibi1952 at 02/12/2007 @ 9:20pm
How does a Senator who recieves greater support from Wall Street than Main Street understand the meaning of Frank Capra's "George Bailey," who was a Main Streeter of the Old Fashioned Way?Posted by ORAIBI1952 02/12/2007 @ 9:20pm
ORAIBI-- I think that's kvh's point. He doesn't understand/consider that Bailey -- and he should.
Posted by italiano at 02/12/2007 @ 9:25pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/12/2007 @ 8:04pm
Ms vanden Heuvel is waiting on..."The One".
No, not Keanu in a black trench coat and existentialist sci-fi...."The One" is the Dem who will "lead to Party to a New Revolution". Take the US down the path to Euro-style "social democracy", end poverty, empower the UN as a "force for world good", crush the power of the corporations, cure the common cold, discover warp drive (Hey, there's a job for...oh, you know), and guide us to the Path of Enlightenment.
Meanwhile Dems still have to prove they are NOT aging hippies and pacifistic appeasers who are crypto-socialists and hyper-egalitarian nutjobs....
and Schumer knows it.
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2007 @ 10:19pm
Posted by MASK 02/12/2007 @ 10:19pm
as a cyclical socialist (also known as "schizo-capitalist") i share her dreams...for now...
just stay away from anarcho-syndicalism...bad dope that anarch-syndicalism...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2007 @ 11:37pm
Meanwhile Dems still have to prove they are NOT aging hippies and pacifistic appeasers who are crypto-socialists and hyper-egalitarian nutjobs....
and Schumer knows it. Posted by MASK 02/12/2007 @ 10:19pm
MASK-- BUT Schumer wants a long-term majority. Vanden Heuvel is right that people want answers on health care... want answers on job instability... want answers on retirement security.... Schumer has avoided the BIG questions in his book... aging hipsters aside!
Posted by italiano at 02/12/2007 @ 11:44pm
just stay away from anarcho-syndicalism...bad dope that anarch-syndicalism...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/12/2007 @ 11:37pm
King Arthur: Then who is your lord?
Woman: We don't have a lord.
Dennis: I told you, we're an anarco-sydicalist commune. We take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week...
King Arthur: Yes...
Dennis: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
King Arthur: Yes I see...
Dennis: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs...
King Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: ...but by a two thirds majority in the case of... King Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2007 @ 07:06am
Schumer has avoided the BIG questions in his book... aging hipsters aside!
Posted by ITALIANO 02/12/2007 @ 11:44pm
That's 'cause he remembers recent (as in 15 years ago) history and "Hillary-care". Dems control the Whole Smash and they tried a BIG Program, national health care, and it bombed miserably.
"slow and steady wins the race"?
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2007 @ 07:08am
Actually, if all that we need were a 2/3's majority in a plebiscite in order to get things done, we would be out of Iraq, we would have had a substantial raise in the minimum wage, all this talk of Social Security reform would have gone no-where, and we would have universal health care.
Posted by jorcheim at 02/13/2007 @ 12:24pm
King Arthur: Shut up! Will you shut up?! [Grabs Dennis and shakes him]
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
King Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!
King Arthur: BLOODY PEASANT!!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2007 @ 2:17pm
That's 'cause he remembers recent (as in 15 years ago) history and "Hillary-care". Dems control the Whole Smash and they tried a BIG Program, national health care, and it bombed miserably.
Posted by MASK 02/13/2007 @ 07:08am
MASK, I'm sure you would agree that the political situation has changed since 15 years ago. The very people who ran those ads with the old couple - who was it, Harry and Louise?-- opposing the plan, are now calling for universal health care! as are so many business people who realize this system places them at a competitive disadvantage. don't join the naysayers, use your imagination and grassroots dialogue to promote good change!
Posted by italiano at 02/13/2007 @ 3:06pm
Posted by ITALIANO 02/13/2007 @ 3:06pm
Well, seems we're still only hearing "single payer" plans from the likes of Kucinich. Even Edwards I think is still "nibbling at the edges" and talking about "quasi-Hillary-care" plans to "cover the uninsured, but leave the insured alone".
As far as naysaying universal health care (UHC), I've done that in the past....because it will NEED naysaying, though as I've also said (in a way, you're right) we WILL eventually get it....
and it'll be a disaster.
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2007 @ 3:28pm
Posted by MASK 02/13/2007 @ 2:17pm
see?!
exactly...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2007 @ 11:37pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/13/2007 @ 8:25pm
Exacly...not a govt socialistic type to be found in the whole movie, except the evil rich wanting to control the lives of the little people in order to make it "better", as they don't know what they want anyway..(KVH?)...hmmmm
Posted by john maasch at 02/14/2007 @ 10:05am
it is amazing how many people will just throw around the tag "socialist" rather than engaging what is clearly the message of this piece -- that Schumer fails to tackle the larger issues of health care, job security, retirement security.... as for George Bailey, seems to me he was all about stepping up to help people out... keeping his values and priorities straight.... to make the leap: George Bailey wouldn't look at people who can't afford health care, people getting laid off because jobs are so much cheaper elsewhere, and people losing their pensions -- and just ignore the problems. That's the message, that's the George Bailey comment, I think.
Posted by italiano at 02/14/2007 @ 10:46am
George Bailey wouldn't look at people who can't afford health care, people getting laid off because jobs are so much cheaper elsewhere, and people losing their pensions -- and just ignore the problems.
Posted by ITALIANO 02/14/2007 @ 10:46am
ITALIANO, is there any "cinematic proof" of that statement? Obviously the CHARACTER of George Bailey is a kind and generous person (much to his own detriment in some cases...notably "the bank run" in '33 scene).
But the film isn't "The Grapes of Wrath" or even "The Fountainhead"!
I think if Ms vanden Heuvel re-made it, she'd make George a "Fannie Mae" loan officer for the Fed who was giving away interest-free loans. But in the film, "Bailey Bros. Building & Loan" was a FOR-profit institution. They didn't make much profit...but they were in the private sector, not some government-run "entitlement program".
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 1:26pm
RE: Learn from past or Repeat It
It is incredible that those who got us into Iraq now say that we need to focus on where to go next rather than looking back. This ignores the wisdom of philosopher George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Thus, we had better understand how we got there so as to avoid such in the future!
Perhaps what we actually gain from those who gave their ultimate sacrifice is that we will be more thoughtful in the future! Let us remember this so their sacrifices will not have been in vain and always honor these young men and women.
John R. Golden, C.D.P., National Defense Industrial Association chapter V.P.
Posted by jrgolden at 02/18/2007 @ 11:29am