Senator Christopher J. Dodd
Democratic National Committee
430 South Capitol Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Dear Senator Dodd:
Your direct mail consultants are overpaid.
Having just received the latest version of the laughable "Priority Express" missive from your office, I am forced to return it to you. You see, I have developed a mild case of pneumonia, and even mild laughter seems to provoke a bout of coughing that can last several minutes. I think it was the paragraph on the front of the envelope ("The PRIORITY EXPRESS LETTER Package is to be used for flat document shipment only. Do not enclose liquids or combustible materials.") that really set me off.
Suffice it to say that I don't think these envelopes and the development of the clever computer typeface with which they are addressed are worth their undoubtedly substantial expense. When I first sat down to compose this letter, I considered offering my consulting services to you; I'd charge half of whatever these guys were getting to tell you to use plain envelopes. Then I thought some more and decided that the matter is too serious for jest.
In the same mail delivery that brought me your missive, I received an unsolicited catalog from "TV Shopper," offering me "bargain prices on these TV-advertised products." It somehow seems a shame that a political party has to sell itself the same way that others sell the "Wonder Mop."
As I ponder this unfortunate parallel, I am forced to the conclusion that you and the Democratic party are forced to these extremes because at this point, all you have to sell is an image. As I see it, the image is of a party defined solely in relation to Republicans: more compassionate, less extreme, and usually in favor of gun control.
This brings me to the contents of your PRIORITY EXPRESS LETTER. I assume that the "poll" nature of the enclosures is window dressing to the request for funds. If I am wrong about that, I suppose that the loss of a chance to have input into the Democratic Platform will be the price I pay for my cynicism. However, I don't think I'm wrong. What is truly disappointing about it is that these questions are so basic. It's one thing to poll one's supporters to find consensus on the best ways to do community economic development. This is a complicated issue where equally committed individuals can disagree on the best approach. It is a different thing entirely to poll one's own supporters (or even pretend to do so) on whether or not they believe in a woman's right to choose, or whether they support the death penalty, or if they believe the government has a role to play in protecting the environment.
Two individuals who disagree about these issues do not belong in the same party. Otherwise, what does the party stand for except an image? Can you possibly believe that these are negotiable issues?
It's not that I oppose compromise. In a big and messy democracy like ours, some flexibility is important to keep things moving. I pay taxes, even though I now understand that my taxes are going to be used to kill (excuse me, execute) some prisoners. But why must the compromise happen before the fight is engaged? The Clintons didn't even want to present single-payer health care to the nation. They compromised their basic principles before the fight began. Is it any wonder that they lost? The other side does not present carefully crafted proposals that will appeal to the most possible people. They present what they want, and let the compromise get worked out afterwards. Why can't our representatives do the same?
It must make some proud of their "pragmatism" and "realism" that they can find common ground for compromise with other people who disagree so completely with them. But are there no limits on what can be compromised? Is legislative "effectiveness" a high enough good to sacrifice basic principle? If there are lines drawn that mark subjects unfit for compromise, I cannot see them from here in Rhode Island.
And where in your list of "poll" subjects is the economy? What happened to "It's the economy, stupid?" Is it conceivable that everyone within the Beltway thinks that prosperity has returned and that things are dandy in the provinces? Could it be true that you imagine that eliminating the budget deficit is the best balm available to soothe our economic woes?
I have a scenario to describe: Our nation manages to eliminate the budget deficit sometime within the next decade. Some economist somewhere has predicted that this will lower interest rates by 2.7% (The spurious precision of economists never ceases to amaze.) The markets, in a euphoric riot, go nuts, providing the Federal Reserve the excuse to raise interest rates by exactly the same amount. The net effect? A devastated federal government, no real income support left for the poor, corporations fleeing our shores, increasing misery all around, and no better "climate" for investment than we have now. Can anyone say with confidence that this is not every bit as likely as the rosy scenes painted by the deficit hawks?
Besides, if the federal budget deficit was crowding out private investment, why is there so much capital available for mergers and acquisitions? At the rate economic consolidation is going now, and with the cost in dislocated workers, the last thing our economy needs is more capital to finance takeovers.
And why can't there be a voice in the Democratic Party brave enough to point out that if they were forced to keep their books with the same accounting rules as the Federal Government, nearly every company in the Fortune 500 would have a permanent current account deficit? Why can't the nation have a capital budget? Why do we have to fund investment out of the current account? IBM doesn't. General Motors doesn't. Lockheed doesn't. Coca-Cola doesn't. And neither does every single homeowner in the country who carries a mortgage. Is this such an arcane point that no Democrat understands it? Or wants to?
Everybody talks about not saddling our children with a heavy debt burden. Has anyone pointed out in public recently that this debt can be used to pay for things like railroads, schools, and clean air that they might actually want? Eliminating any debt that will last long enough to be a burden to our children will only happen by eliminating any benefits that might last long enough for them to enjoy.
I'll be happy to acknowledge that the national debt is larger than it ought to be, but reducing it doesn't need to be the centerpiece of our economic policy. We pay for more than just investment with our deficit. Interest payments on the debt are far too large, and constitute the single biggest wealth-redistribution program the government runs: from taxpayers to bondholders. I've heard it said that bonds are more widely spread than one at first imagines, because of the widespread ownership of pension plans and so forth. However, I doubt it is true that the ownership of bonds is as evenly spread over the income spectrum as the federal tax burden on individuals. With our current tax structure, interest payments on debt undertaken for current expenses are little more than a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. This should be stopped, but not by eliminating all investment.
This can't be news to the Democratic National Committee. But why doesn't anybody say so? Could you all be so cowed by the cry of "class warfare" that you don't stop to think that class warfare is exactly what welfare "reform" is all about?
I have found the last three years to be ones of tremendous hopes followed by crushing disappointments. I hope Clinton will hold out in the budget battle, but he caves. I hope the Senate will bottle up fake welfare reform, but the measure passes with only eleven Democrats dissenting. I hope that some people will try to preserve our forests, but "salvage logging" passes. I hope to hear a voice for labor, but the drums beat for "free trade" instead. I hope that someone will pay attention to the economy, but everyone is concerned about the budget deficit instead. I hope for some articulate voice of conscience to speak out, but I hear only poll results. If a leader doesn't lead, then what on earth is he for?
Ultimately, I suppose the problem is that I want more than anything to fight the good fight for universal justice, prosperity, opportunity, peace, and clean water (and health care, for heaven's sake), but every time I line up behind some leader from the Democratic Party -- and not just the President -- he or she lets me down. I do not claim that the parties are no different from one another; even a fool can tell them apart these days. But why can't I have a party of people who actually fight for what is right, instead of people who say all the right things, but fold when the going gets rough?
At every level of government these days, from local school boards to state governments to the Federal Government, it seems the only thing we hear is that we need to cut everything: babies and bathwater both. Except prisons, of course. At the same time, cost-cutting and layoffs have become a religion among our corporate managers. Where does it all end? We're all caught in a race to the bottom, and the Democratic Party can only offer us a softer landing. Why?
Yours,
Tom Sgouros
cc: Pres. W.J. Clinton
Sen. Claiborne Pell
Rep. Jack Reed
Rep. Patrick Kennedy