Julianne Malveaux Column

 

INTERPRETING POLITICS THROUGH AN ELECTION YEAR LENS

BY JULIANNE MALVEAUX


 

            Let me declare the obvious.  This is an election year.  That, perhaps, explains the sharp shift in tone from our “bipartisan” President who is now offering up his own dead body as defense on budget actions he describes as “tax increases.”  The fact is that war and recession have moved Democrats to say that the package passed in April 2001 should be placed back on the table. Democrats aren’t so much calling for tax increases as for tax reconsideration.  After all, the deep tax cuts of 2001 were instituted when everyone thought that the living was easy, the budget was bulging, and the surplus was high.  Now, we have found billions to bail out war-bruised industries.  We don’t increase taxes by taking back false promises.  Instead, we behave with some fiscal responsibility.

 

                But this is an election year.  Usually, the President’s party loses seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate as the people adjust their preferences in a mid-term election.  But this President’s popularity has soared as our nation has girded itself for war.  His party hopes that his popularity will reverse the trend that allows the opposing party to chip seats away from those in power.  In January, his party has a reason to hope.  Come November, when all 435 House of Representatives seat and a third of the Senate seats are up, there’s no telling what the polls will say.

 

                Bush would like to skew it his way.  Thus the incendiary rhetoric.  He is willing to offer his dead body to make it clear how strongly he is willing to stand against Democrats.  But Democrats don’t need his dead body, only the bipartisanship he has so frequently embraced.  Of course, we aren’t likely to get it in this election year.

 

            In this election year, we are seeing partisanship bubble up from the calm of bipartisan response to terrorism.  Republicans are gleeful about turf wars among Democrats, which explains the interest so many have in the purported conflict between Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton.  Newspapers and magazines have blurbed the Rev. versus Rev. clash, with New York Magazine most recently noting that this is an Oedipal conflict between two highly motivated and very similar black men.  Since when is white America so interested in the minutiae of black folks’ relationships?  The interest is in neither Jackson nor Sharpton, but in conflict between Democratic leaders.

 

                Similarly, the reality of our upcoming election seems to have shaped the health care debate.  While some (Republicans) would offer tax credits, which don’t spend if you are poor, others insist on tax rebates and federal assistance.  It is likely that Republicans would stay out of the health care debate altogether were it not an election year, a time when chits are being counted, and when it behooves people on both sides of the aisle to take a position on health care.

 

                Republicans are the masters of spin.  The repeal of their tax cuts becomes a tax increase.  Their suggestion of a tax credit becomes a health care plan.  Wolf tickets – like an exhortation about a dead body – become firmness.  The controversy between Dr. Cornel West and Harvard President Larry Summers becomes an opportunity to bash affirmative action and black studies.  All the conservative columnists – George Will, Michael Myers, Shelby Steele, Mary McGrory (some wouldn’t call her conservative, but she lines up with them on racial matters) got into the details of the Harvard brouhaha.  Would they be so ready to pounce were this not an election year? After all, in this election year, part of the spin is the many ways we make hyphenated constituencies irrelevant.  Black folks fighting for dignity?  Whining.  Latinos asking for fair share?  Tripping.  Women asking for their rights, something Laura Bush is pushing in Afghanistan.  In the United States, this is simply special pleading.  So pardon the conservatives who pounce on b lack Harvard scholars.  In this election year, their real goal is to undercut any influence held by the Jacksons and Sharptons of the world. 

 

                It’s all spin, but some of the spinning may careen out of control as people realize that the same issues have a different resonance this time around. It’s an election year.   People who get past spin may learn that the price we paid for an April tax cut was an October Social Security deficit.  They may learn that the price of cosseting corporations will shop up on their bottom line.  We may all learn that bipartisanship plays well in crisis, but partisan blather is the rhetoric of the day in an election year.


Back