RUSSERT: But this will be huge subsidies to bring it about. Would you be willing to roll back the Bush tax cut to pay for it?Okay: I say, as some readers will know, that the Democrats have to develop a new politics of the common good in which they move beyond the current interest-group liberalism and into a more universalist politics to which all are asked to contribute and from which all will benefit; a politics that will express a vision for society that is both a) compelling in a way Democrats haven't been for a long time, and b) a clear alternative to the other side.PELOSI: This isn't -- we are willing to put all of our, our initiatives on the table. We think they compete very well. One thing we'll roll back immediately are the Bush subsidies and royalty holidays, which are around $20 billion.
RUSSERT: But would you repeal the Bush tax cut?
PELOSI: Well, what I'm -- what we're talking about here on energy independence is something that will save the American people money.
RUSSERT: But it will take -- it all takes money, Congressman [sic]. The Brazilian government has subsidized their industry.
PELOSI: Yeah.
RUSSERT: Would you be willing to roll back the Bush tax cuts?
PELOSI: I'll tell you something, if we could bring the war in Iraq to a conclusion, we would save a lot of money and could declare energy independence and this is the, this is the OPEC countries' worst nightmare, that we would be energy independent. The technology is there, the commitment is there, Democrats have a goal. We have a plan. We have a timetable to accomplish it, and we intend to do so. And you know what? Do you know what we spend? Fifty billion dollars a year just protecting the sea lanes for the oil to come from the Middle East. That money can be spent to invest in this.
RUSSERT: But why are you so reluctant to say you'll roll back the Bush tax cuts? Most Democrats voted against them.
PELOSI: Well, I, myself, am against them. But the point is…
Since my original piece appeared, I've heard from quite a few people who've asked me to put more flesh on the bone. I've always planned on doing that over time. But yesterday's Pelosi-Russert exchange cuts right to the heart (which is to say, the potential real-world weakness, which I readily acknowledge) of my argument.
The choice into which Russert was forcing Pelosi -- a government-established set of priorities and subsidies to achieve energy independence versus tax cuts -- is a classic common-good versus individual-benefit argument.
I found it dismaying that Pelosi couldn't answer Russert's question with a simple yes. After all, as he pointed out, a huge majority of House Democrats voted against those tax cuts on May 26, 2001 (153 against, 28 for, 29 not voting). This majority included, as she acknowledged, Pelosi herself. We all know that the Democrats' priority is a government-led push for energy independence and not tax cuts. But the Democrats' House leader couldn't say in plain English that this is, indeed, the case.
There seem to me two possible reasons Pelosi didn't say so. The first is that she just didn't want to say it on Russert's gotcha! terms. For this, maybe she can't be blamed -- Ken Mehlman would certainly work to make sure that the headlines coming out of the show were “Democrats to Raise Taxes.”
The second reason goes beyond headlines. Clearly, we're not yet at a point where Democrats feel comfortable saying straightforwardly that they just might increase some taxes for the sake of some long-term priorities that they believe are more important. I suppose their pollsters and consultants still warn them against this. And yes, I remember Walter Mondale as well as the next guy -- he said, at his convention speech in 1984, that he would raise taxes, and supposedly that was his death knell.
I respect that the Democrats need to tread carefully here. But like generals fighting the last war, is there just a sporting chance that they're too in thrall to the idea that how things worked once is inevitably how things will always work?
What the country needs is a Democrat who will say something like the following:
“Look, if what you want is more and more tax cuts, then you better go ahead and vote Republican, because that's what Republicans will do. But look around you. We have needs as a people. All of us agree, for example, that we need to wean ourselves off foreign oil. We can do that as Americans. But we can't do it through tax cuts. You and your neighbors can't get together, pool your tax cuts, and create a fund to encourage businesses to invest more in bio-fuels. I'm afraid, my fellow Americans, that like it or not, only the federal government can do that. So you need to decide: If you just want tax cuts, and you wanna kick the problem of energy independence down the road to your children and grandchildren when it may be too late, then vote Republican. If you want to be serious about trying to do something about this problem, then you better vote for me, because I'll do something about, and the Republicans won't.”
That's a common-good argument. Am I missing something? It just doesn't sound that difficult to me. It will be controversial at first. The wingnuts will bray in the expected fashion, and the media will ape them and scream about Democrats raising taxes. But then, if my mythical Democrat just keeps saying it and doesn't apologize, at some point, a corner will be turned. A poll will find a surprising number of people actually agreeing with this Democrat on substance, and giving him/her some props for sticking to his/her guns.
It isn't 1984 anymore. Remember this: The guy who spent all of 2000 saying “it's your money” won the election from the Supreme Court, not from the voters. And remember this, too: That same guy is now distrusted by a reasonably comfortable majority of Americans. They're looking for something else. If the Democrats don't have the courage to give it to them, they deserve to lose.
Michael Tomasky is the Prospect's editor.
