To overcome polarization in American politics, there is no need to practice false equivalence.
We don’t have to pretend that “our side” is as bad as “their side” if we don’t believe it’s true.
However, we are obliged to judge everyone by the same standard.
That’s why the recent work of New York Times columnist and 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics winner Paul Krugman is so disappointing. He essentially directed his considerable analytical powers solely at Republicans and conservatives.
Krugman has been complaining for years about “zombie” ideas – ideas that circulate in politics and the media even though they have been repeatedly discredited by the evidence. These ideas refuse to die, which has disastrous political consequences.
In his last book titled Arguing with a zombieKrugman repeats his complaints about a number of zombie ideas, especially concerns about the national debt, the claim that tax cuts pay for themselves, and climate change denial. He calls the latter two “The Best Zombie” and “The Most Important Thing”.
In addition to criticizing the euro, Krugman admits that his targets are “bad things done by fundamentally bad people”, i.e. Krugman’s political opponents.
Are there no zombie ideas on the left?
Of course they exist. Some of these ideas are shared by a relatively compact group of people, mostly, but not exclusively, progressives – such as the idea that vaccines can cause autism.
Other positions are commonly held despite a lack of evidence to support them. Many progressives support banning or issuing warnings about genetically modified foods if there is no scientific evidence that they are harmful. Nearly everyone on the left supports circumscribed gun control measures that would likely not prevent any episode of gun violence we have seen in recent years.
To be effective, a New Zealand-style confiscation program would be needed, something no Democratic Party politician would dare admit.
But the biggest liberal idea about zombies is this Citizens United decision must be overturned in order to deprive politics of the influence of gigantic money. The 2016 Democratic platform pledged to “repeal the disastrous Citizens United decision” to end “excessive corporate influence in elections.”
The basic structure of campaign spending has actually been established Buckley v Valeo in 1976. This decision repealed campaign finance limits on independent spending by wealthy individuals, leading to the creation of PACs that could raise money from such individuals and spend unlimited amounts on campaign activities such as attack ads. It was such a group that “quickly defeated” John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.
Some thoughts on MLK’s neglected politics | Bruce Ledewitz
The enormous majority of money in American politics is spent by individuals. When critics of the influence of wealth in politics point to examples of excess, they almost always point to the activities of wealthy individuals such as the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson, not corporate spending.
Moreover, prior to the Citizens United ruling, the Supreme Court had already expanded the definition of “issue ads” that corporations can finance during election campaigns, as long as the ads target a specific issue and do not simply advocate the election or defeat of a specific candidate.
So, if the Citizens United document criticized Hillary Clinton as dishonest and untrustworthy but did not call for her defeat, it could be financed by business corporations without any change in the law.
It is not surprising that immense and widespread corporations generally refrain from getting too involved in election campaigns. Some of their customers wouldn’t like it.
Of course, sometimes it’s strenuous to figure out who’s actually spending the money. However, Citizens United upheld disclosure requirements for corporations, so the problem of corporate “dark money” in politics could be solved tomorrow with a elementary bill.
The push to overturn Citizens United coincides with a more general zombie concept on the left – that gigantic money controls who gets nominated and who gets elected in America.
The political events of recent years should have put an end to this narrative, but like all zombie ideas, it remains stubbornly alive despite all evidence to the contrary.
No, Donald Trump was not convicted and removed from office. But here’s why impeachment worked | Bruce Ledewitz
Former President Barack Obama was a phenomenal fundraiser. In 2008, two years before the Citizens United decision, Obama was the first major party presidential candidate to reject matching funds in a public general election, arguing that he needed to counter independent spending by the wealthy who tended to assist Republican candidates.
Eight years later, only one presidential candidate accepted public funding even in the primary.
In 2016, gigantic money did not favor then-candidate Donald Trump, who was consistently defeated by his opponents in both the primary and general elections.
This year, the gigantic money has proven even more conspicuously ineffective. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders I-Vt. he may have trouble getting votes, but he has no trouble raising money. On the other hand, former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg poured over $400 million, mostly of his own money, into his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, with little effect.
As with all zombie ideas, there is a reason for the constant reference to the power of money.
This claim justifies the left’s failure to elect truly progressive candidates and pursue truly progressive policies. Acknowledging that voters generally support the candidates and policies they favor would require stern rethinking on the left. Instead, it’s better and comforting to blame the gigantic money and keep the zombie ideas alive.
Bruce Ledewitz, co-author of the Capital-Star Opinion, teaches constitutional law at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh. His work appears biweekly on the Capital-Star magazine’s comments page. Listen to his podcast “Bends Toward Justice” Here.
