Subject: [big campaign] New Huff Post from Creamer -- How to End Political Polarization in Washington
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:43:28 EST
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

To Reduce  Political Polarization in Washington, We Must  Reduce the 
Economic Polarization of America 

We frequently hear pundits pontificating about the rising level of  
political polarization in Congress.  
Often the blame is ascribed to plummeting levels of civility among  
Members.  In fact, ten years ago the  House actually conducted several “civility 
retreats” aimed at fostering a more  civil atmosphere inside the body.  These 
events featured motivational speakers and smaller  “encounter-group-like” 
seminars – and were widely attended by Members and their  families.  Needless 
to say, this  approach didn’t do much for the “civility index” in 
Congress. 
And then there are the “centrists” who think that the partisan divide can  
best be bridged by proposals that seek to “moderate” the Democratic “change
”  agenda.  Of course, most of these  “moderates” want to water down 
Democratic proposals to change the status quo –-  proposals that would reduce the 
power of the Wall Street gang, the private  insurance industry, the energy 
companies and Chamber of Commerce.   This presents a serious problem to  
most Democrats because the interests of these special interests are generally  
diametrically opposed to the interests of the American people.  But it turns 
out they are also  counterproductive when it comes to ending political 
polarization as well.  Here’s  why: 
Several years ago, a group of political scientists that included  Nolan 
McCarty, Keith Poole and Howard  Rosenthal, conducted an important study on the 
causes of political  polarization.  Their results were  published in a 
fascinating book, Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and  Unequal Riches.  
Their study  found that there is a direct relationship between economic 
inequality and  polarization in American politics. _[i]_ 
(aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_edn1)  
The team measured political polarization in congressional votes over the  
last century, and found a direct correlation with the percentage of income  
received by the top 1% of the electorate. 
They also compared the Gini Index of Income Inequality with congressional  
vote polarization of the last half-century and found a comparable  
relationship. 
Why should this be?  It  doesn’t take a political genius to figure out that 
if people have more in common  they are more likely to support similar 
proposals and perspectives.  Political polarization in Congress does  not result 
from some new inability to “communicate” or “empathize.”  It results from 
the fact that the major  constituencies of the two parties have 
increasingly divergent economic  interests.   
To put is simply, Republicans increasingly represent the interests of the  
wealthiest elements of American society, and Democrats represent everyone  
else.  As the gap between the  incomes of these segments of the population 
grows, so does the gap between their  economic interests and the policy 
proposals they support.  
So in other words, if you want to do something about the political  
polarization of Congress, you have to deal with the underlying cause.  You have to 
reduce the growing level of  income inequality in America.  Unfortunately, 
when “Moderate” Democrats  attempt to defang Democratic proposals to rein in 
private insurance companies,  Wall Street banks, energy companies, and the 
Chamber of Commerce they have  exactly the opposite effect.  The  actions of 
these “Moderates” serve to perpetuate income inequality – and as a  direct 
consequence, the political polarization they are so quick to attack.  
We should remember that the level of income inequality is far from being  a 
static feature of American society. 
Paul Krugman points out that at the beginning of the Great Depression,  
income inequality, and inequality in the control of wealth, was very high.  
Then came the “the great compression”  between 1929 and 1947.  Real wages  for 
workers in manufacturing rose 67% while real income for the richest 1% of  
Americans fell 17%.  This period  marked the birth of the American middle 
class.  Two major forces drove these trends –  unionization of major 
manufacturing sectors, and the public policies of the New  Deal that were sparked by 
the Great Depression. 
The  growing spending power of everyday Americans spurred the postwar boom 
from 1947  to 1973.  Real wages rose 81% and  the income of the richest 1% 
rose 38%.  Growth was widely shared, but income inequality continued to  
drop. 
From 1973 to 1980, everyone lost ground.  Real wages fell 3% and income for 
the  richest 1% fell 4%.  The oil shocks,  and the dramatic slowdown in 
economic growth in developing nations, took their  toll on America’s and the 
world’s  economies.   
Then came what  economist Paul Krugman calls “the New Gilded Age.” 
Beginning in 1980, there were  big gains at the very top.  The tax  policies of the 
Reagan and Bush administrations magnified income  redistribution.    
In the last 20 years, there has been a massive re-polarization of incomes  
in America between the wealthiest 1% of  the population and everyone else. 
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities  reports that fully two-thirds of 
all income gains during the last economic  expansion (2002 to 2007) flowed 
to the top 1% of the population.  And that, in turn, is one of the chief  
reasons why the median income for ordinary Americans actually dropped by  
$2,197 per year since 2000.   
From 1990 to  2004, the income of the top 1% of the population has 
increased 57%.  The richest Americans – the top  one-tenth of 1% – have experienced 
income growth of 85%.  Yet the median income of the bottom 90%  has 
increased only 2% 
* Now the CEO of the average company in the Standard and Poor’s Index  
makes $10.9 million.  That means  that before lunch, on the first workday of the 
year, he (sometimes she)  has made more than the minimum wage workers in 
his company will make all  year. That translates to $5,240 per hour – or about 
344 times that pay of  the typical American worker.   
* Most people would consider a salary of $100,000 per year reasonably  good 
pay.  But the average CEO makes  that much in the first 20 hours of the 
work year. 
* And that’s nothing compared to some of the Kings of Wall Street. In  
2007, the top 50 hedge and private equity fund managers averaged $588 million  
in compensation each– more than 19,000 times as much as the average  U.S. 
worker.  And by the way, the hedge fund managers  paid a tax rate on their 
income of only 15% -- far lower than the rate paid by  their secretaries. 
So if all the  “moderates” who say they want to help end the polarization 
of Congress are  serious, they need to get to work supporting the Democratic 
agenda to end the  stranglehold of the wealthiest, most powerful economic 
interests, and support  measures to once again increase taxes on the 
wealthiest among us at least to the  levels they were back in the Clinton 
Administration.   In other words, if you want to end  the polarization of Congress, 
you have to end the economic polarization of  America. 
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and  strategist, and 
author of the recent book:  “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” 
available on _Amazon.com._ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Your-Mother-Straight-Progressives/dp/0979585295/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213241439&sr=8-
1)  

 
____________________________________

_[i]_ (aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_ednref1)  Nolan McCarty, Keith T. 
Poole and Howard Rosenthal,  Polarized America: The  Dance of Ideology and 
Unequal Riches (Cambridge, MA:  The MIT Press, 2006)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.