(from Oct. 2009)  Wow; how ironic!

Some if us been discussing the limits of capitalism, and what models or changes to our economic system might be more sustainable and beneficial to more of us than the 5% or so it seems presently designed to serve.

It can be argued that ours is a system of mixed economics, mainly capitalism with some great socialistic programs, and that since the New Deal, and at different points in the balance has slid  along the continuum between the two points.  It’s quite clear that since Reagan’s terms in office, we’ve been ratcheting toward laissez-faire capitalism again, and this administration seems on board with that, and has been content with fairly minimal FinReg enactment, and not much in the way of enforcing existing regulations.  The administration is far too sanguine about the economy as long as Wall Street’s doing well, and it can keep its fingers crossed that enough jobs will come back before the next election.  (Few credible economists believe they will.)  Many of us fear for what that means in our near future in terms of (faux) claims of deficit reduction necessitating cuts to social safety programs, education, federal pay freezes, jobs stimulus, and so much else.

That there is fear of the term socialism in this country goes without saying.  Good Lord, look how many on the right cry that Obama is a socialist, which couldn’t be much further from the truth, and they do so without understanding that their Medicare and Medicaid programs are socialism at work.

So we’ve kicked around the question of how Democrats can present policy and tax reform ideas that focus on fairness and economic justice for all without scaring the daylights out of persuadable voters, and whether or not to go ahead and embrace the socialist label while explaining how supply-side economics have proven disastrous to all those not five-percenters.

This morning I happened upon a piece at CommonDreams by Tom Gallagher, slack-jawed at a piece by Matt Bai at the NYT.  Bai is weighing in on the massacre in Arizona, inflammatory words and images, etc., but in the middle of his piece he says:

“In fact, much of the message among Republicans last year, as they sought to exploit the Tea Party phenomenon, centered — like the Tea Party moniker itself — on this imagery of armed revolution. Popular spokespeople like Ms. Palin routinely drop words like “tyranny” and “socialism” when describing the president and his allies, as if blind to the idea that Americans legitimately faced with either enemy would almost certainly take up arms.”

Really, Matt?  Americans would take up arms against socialism if they were legitimately faced with it?   Would you like to reconsider that after a few moments' thinking about how many perfectly fine nations, not to mention allies of ours have in power at different times socialist parties?  Gallagher writes:

“Now, despite the fact that it is considered this country’s “paper of record,” it may be a mistake to assume too great a level of worldly sophistication on the part of Times writers, so a quick review on this socialism thing may be in order. While the precise meaning of “socialism” is more a matter for debate than one of definition, we can say for sure that parties belonging to the Socialist International are currently in power in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Ecuador, Greece, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Uruguay and a number of other countries. Nations where they have recently been in power include France, Germany, the United Kingdom and all parts of Scandinavia.”

That an assumedly respected writer at the Times can react so fearfully to the term and write that sentence is worrisome, and I hope commenters will call him out for it. 

But in a larger context I hope that such foolishness can’t undermine what would be good policy in the next two years; for I have a theory:

If, as many of us have been led to expect, the President will announce his intentions toward fiscal austerity in his SOTU speech, and will follow with bipartisan fiscal haircuts that will further erode any economic recovery for the middle and poorer classes, many Americans will want to push back against them.  If Democratic members of Congress can feel the mood, and the wrong-headedness of the direction we will likely be further headed, it may be a perfect opportunity to speak forcefully against those moves.

The moves by Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act could conceivably open the debate for Medicare for all, or at least a strong public option.  Cuts to Social Security or raising the retirement age could honestly open the debate for an expansion of benefits.  The same for a true jobs stimulus, though admittedly it might need to be renamed, possibly as sustainable manufacturing and infrastructure program with green features.  Judith Stein makes a great case for the many reasons we need to return to a strong manufacturing base.  (Her piece deserves a diary of its own.)

Obama recently promised American businesspeople more trade deals to come, and Daley and Sperling will be selling the KORUS trade deal.  We need to prevent that, or make sure the deal is rewritten as a fair trade deal, including and especially fair to American labor.

Any or all of this would obviously require and end run around the President.  Only incredible grassroots movements can provide the incentive to our Representatives in Washington; and we’ll need to convince others not to be afraid of policy that is for people.  We need a New New Deal.

I hope you’ll all have some thoughts, and thanks to all who've contributed to this discussion at Dagblog.

(cross-posted at My.firedoglake.com)