How to Save the Economy and Wrap Up 2010 Elections, in One Easy Step

As Digby has repeatedly shown, people blame Obama for the financial crisis, even though he didn't cause it or approve the initial Wall Street bailout. This is accurate and fair for two overwhelming reasons: Tim Geithner and Larry Summers.

Hiring those two Wall Street shills to oversee the U.S. economy was hiring arsonists to put out a house fire. We and many others have been calling for the president to fire Geithner and Summers since the rumors first broke more than a year ago that he was considering hiring them.

With one stroke, President Obama can put his economic plan on the right track and win the approval of millions of Americans who blame him for the recession.

A huge statement tonight – Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon and one of the chairs of the Populist Caucus in the House, just called for the firing of Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, saying that Barack Obama’s economic team is failing him. He said that there’s a “growing sense” in the caucus that a new economic team committed to jobs and American workers is needed to replace the one primarily concerned with Wall Street.

This is the first Democrat, to my knowledge, who has called for Geithner and Summers to step aside. He said that “boos” accompany Geithner and Summers’ names in the Populist Caucus meetings. Earlier this month, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) openly wondered why Geithner still has a job, but DeFazio took it a step further.

The money quote:

“We may have to sacrifice two more jobs to get millions more for Americans.”

This comes in the context of deliberations in the House over a new jobs bill.

DeFazio has offered that it should be paid for through a financial transactions tax on oil futures and derivative transactions; other proposals include stock transactions. Such a tax faces an uphill climb in a Congress too willing to back corporate interests, particularly from the financial industry.

David Sirota explains that the leadership on economic populism is up for grabs, and if progressive want to keep it away from repugs, they're going to have to fight for it with actual economic populism.

It's easy to write-off batshit crazy narcissists like Dick Armey and Sarah Palin as what they are: Batshit crazy narcissists. But as Wellstone Action's Jeff Blodgett reminds us in this blog post, Armey/Palin-ism does represent something real and potentially powerful, even if it is insane.

Blodgett is a former aide and campaign manager for Paul Wellstone, so he knows a little bit about progressive movement building and the double-edged sword that is populism. Here's what he sees:

ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVES ARE IN ASCENDANCE -- growing in influence and setting strategy for the right. The social religious wing, dominant in the Bush administration, has become less effective and relevant. Their message is angry, populist, and economic: FreedomWorks' slogan is: Lower Taxes, Less Government, More Freedom. Government takeover is their bogeyman. In 2010, they will focus on exploiting the economic pain in the country, railing against spending and taxes, and blaming all government and certain incumbents.

CONSERVATIVES ARE BORROWING FROM THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT. The NYT article quotes FreedomWorks staff saying that they are making close study of Saul Alinsky and other community organizers. Like progressives, the other side is increasing conservative candidate development (NY-23 and in GOP primaries all over the country), and improving their grassroots advocacy skills (like the impression made at August town halls).

THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT CONTINUES TO BE BETTER FUNDED. FreedomWorks, just one of many groups, easily raised $7 million from donors in 2008, including single gifts of $1 million and $750,000. The Leadership Institute, the premier training center for the right, sustains an $8 million dollar annual budget--at least twice the budget of any of comparable groups (like Wellstone Action) on the progressive side. Americans for Prosperity, another key conservative economic group has 73 staff people nationally and in 20 states.

In the short term, of course, this frothing movement may temporarily self-destruct by virtue of being publicly represented by incoherent and politically unpalatable freaks like Armey and Palin. But in the long term, it's scary stuff, because it represents one expression of authentic anger in the country at large.

As I wrote in my book, The Uprising, populism is value neutral - there's conservative populism and there's progressive populism; there's productive populism and there's destructive populism. And so a battle is on right now between the Right and Left to offer an enraged America a populist way to channel its justifiable anger.

Progressives can win this fight - but we face some disadvantages, not the least of which is that a cautious and sometimes corrupt Democratic Party has become the Washington Establishment via its overwhelming wins in 2006 and 2008. That means it becomes harder to harness anti-establishment fervor in a backlash election climate.

It doesn't, however, mean we cannot defeat the Armey/Palin phenomenon. On almost every issue, the right is way out of step with America. In that sense, our charge is simply delivering on the progressive promises we've been making, while their charge is the much more difficult task of convincing/misleading America into supporting positions the country doesn't already support.

That's why those who berate progressive pressure against Obama and Democrats are so wrong in their outlook. If we don't mount that pressure and Democrats therefore do not deliver, we will help build the Armey/Palin movement into something even more dangerous.

But President Obama and Congressional Democrats can't even pretend to the economic populism which is the only thing that will save them from electoral disaster next year until they take at least the first tiny step away from the Wall Street Americans love to loathe:

Fire Geithner and Summers. Do it now.