 |
  |
|
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||
Turning
Point OFF CENTER: THE REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION AND THE EROSION OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2005, hardbound, $25. "The "center" is the lodestar of American politics," write Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson in Off Center, their new book that should be remedial reading for many progressives and required reading for conservatives. They develop an antidote to progressive melancholy: The American public, they demonstrate with the best academic research available, is "generally moderate." This moderation, they write, is expressed in support for tax increases, Social Security, increases in the minimum wage, environmental protection, gay rights and a host of other positions on issues progressives call their own.
To be sure, Hacker and Pierson explain how the public makes "tradeoffs" in making judgments: moderation avoids extremes at the ends of ideological and policy making spectrums, and support for progressive policies must be explained with good reasons, with the "tradeoffs" carefully enumerated. Hacker and Pierson, both former Eugene residents (see note at bottom), display the science of politics, and they should be justly proud of a book that both explains and predicted the decline of support for the Bush administration. "The Bush administration's astonishingly aggressive push on Social Security — which places the president farther from the center than any other major policy foray of his presidency — may turn out to represent … a turning point." Their prediction was dead-on right. The Bush administration attempt to privatize Social Security, its top agenda item, has yielded to an organized movement that highlighted the horrific "tradeoffs" of the Bush reform proposals. Bush has recognized a "diminished appetite" for changing Social Security, which is a function of the center's expression of moderation. Indeed, the center is regaining some clout as the Bush administration's "off center" policies have earned potent opponents. Witness John McCain's successful efforts, at least at this date, to prohibit torture and inhumane treatment of U.S. prisoners of war. Hacker and Pierson's book is well written and intended for a concerned and educated audience. This is the book many conservatives and progressives can read to confirm intuitions that there is a pre-existing common ground. Americans can and often do agree, Hacker and Pierson reveal, on both the values that should inform policy making and on the particular polices that ought to be adopted. These values and policies are at the center of our political constellation. Under the current regime, these values and policies have been, at least temporarily, co-opted by an ideologically extreme agenda that has "emit[ed] a powerful gravitational pull to the right." With great clarity, Hacker and Pierson explain how the "New Power Brokers" and the republican base have moved, over time, from the center to the right. This explanation alone is worth the price of the book. An appeal to this center does not betray efforts to make a more humane society; indeed, Hacker and Pierson demonstrate that the "median voter has the trump card." This is the voter that honors traditional or even conservative values but will vote for tax increases if the tradeoffs are well explained. The recent election in Colorado, a state that has been off center for many years, is additional proof of the Hacker and Pierson thesis. The voters approved a tax measure, one endorsed by its conservative governor, that would allow the state keep $3.7 billion in tax funds. If it can happen in Colorado, it can happen anywhere. There are a number of recent books aspiring to chart the future for progressive thought and policy. This is the best of them. They remind us of an enduring center in American politics, one where John McCain, the voters of Colorado, and those on the left can find common ground. David A. Frank is a professor in the Robert D. Clark Honors College at UO. Paul Pierson graduated from South Eugene and is the son of Joan and Stan Pierson. Jacob Hacker attended elementary school here but moved to Portland. His father's architecture firm is involved in preliminary planning for a new City Hall in Eugene.
Cravings
and Distractions Last Sunday, Triomphe Midtown threw a big brunch party, or so it seemed when I walked in for the third National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo) meeting. Family groups sat at low tables while a group of young guys with multiple facial piercings and motorcycle helmets enjoyed themselves on higher stools. The novelists craved caffeine, chocolate and distraction. One brave writer who joined late discussed the advantages of "fiction based on memoir" — she doesn't have to spend time finding names for her characters. A fantasy writer stared at her. "I think about my characters' names all of the time," she said. "They have to be perfect." Other popular distractions emerged from the discussion forums on the website, nanowrimo.org. "I Hate Myself and Want to Die: A clubhouse for novelists in distress" is a favorite of Eugene writers. With threads like "Suck Haiku" and "Angry Letters to my Characters," this forum provides space for what one student called "real time-wasters." Not everything on the forums distracts from the NaNoWriMo goal of 50,000 words by the end of November. Take Word Wars. "I love Word Wars!" one writer said. A Word War occurs when a participant challenges another to write like crazy in timed bursts. "The person who has the most words wins" a young woman said. She and her mother, both veteran WriMos, often play. The loser does the winner's chores. At the café, we settled down for a two-minute Word War, scratching frantically in our notebooks. The general range was 40-50 words. Unfortunately for the winner, we hadn't agreed on a prize. When NaNoWriMo participants aren't warring, playing computer games or adopting other people's characters from threads on the forums, they're writing. By next Sunday's meeting (3 pm at the Beanery on 5th), each will aspire to 33, 340 words. Two would-be novelists give their advice: "Write like hell — and don't panic."
|
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
