A Republican urging Barack Obama to be more like Nick Clegg is not a combination often seen, but that is what Michael Gerson argues in his Washington Post column, in a trans-Atlantic continuation of the debate over what counts as economic fairness:
Addressing the actual causes of inequality should be common ground for the center-left and center-right – and politically appealing to American voters, who are generally more concerned about opportunity than income equality. A mobility agenda might include measures to discourage teen pregnancy; increase the rewards for work; encourage wealth-building and entrepreneurship; reform preschool programs; improve infant and child health; increase teacher quality; and increase high school graduation rates and college attendance among the poor. Children of low-income parents who gain a college degree triple their chance of earning $85,000 a year or more. If America had the same fraction of single-parent families as it had in 1970, the child poverty rate would be about 30 percent lower.
During the initial stage of Republican House control, the focus will be on steep budget cuts. But a successful Republican presidential candidate in 2012 will need to speak of opportunity, not just austerity, to a dispirited nation.
Obama has that chance right now – as well as a progressive model to follow. The leader of Britain’s Liberal Democrats, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, recently addressed the meaning of economic fairness. “Social mobility is what characterizes a fair society,” he said, “rather than a particular level of income equality. Inequalities become injustices when they are fixed; passed on, generation to generation. That’s when societies become closed, stratified and divided. For old progressives, reducing snapshot income inequality is the ultimate goal. For new progressives, reducing the barriers to mobility is.”
You can read the full op-ed piece here.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Getting things done - Colinton Place #dundeewestend
Have cyber criminals been swindling taxpayers?
Back to Butterley Tunnel on the Cromford Canal
Are we programmed to die?
Nonconformistradical
Alex Macfie
Daniel Walker
Steve Trevethan
Alex Hosking
31 Comments
It’s an interesting argument and one that could chime with American voters much more than it does over here. But whether or not republicans in Congress would play that game is another thing – both sides are scoring points over health care for 911 responders at the moment and its all seeming quite childish. Also their concern for the deficit is still much less than their desire for tax cuts, which will be a difficult issue in the primaries and could lump any republican candidate with an impossible pledge or two.
Why on earth are you quoting this? The Republican party is today an extreme party, and as far as social mobility is concerned, lets wait and see whether the Coalition delivers on that before listing it as an achievement.
Surely this shows that regretfully Nick Clegg has by disregarding the issue of income inequality become a right wing politician?
Praise from a right-wing, leading evangelical, Republican. Recruited by Karl Robe to work on G W Bush’s campaign, going on to be his speech writer from 2000. The same speech writer who helped the White House Iraq Group spin its message. Yeah, Clegg can wear it as a badge of honour, just like the one for being the new darling of the Tory party.
Republicans want Obama to tank even further.
Gosh.
Celebrating a member of the GOP praising Nick Clegg. I wouldn’t have believed it until I saw it.
Before the Coalition – you would have viewed this as utterly toxic. Now – you want the whole world to know.
You want to align with a party that have voted down compensation for 911 first responder emergency services veterans? And are cancelling heart transplant patients to save £5m out of a £1bn deficit in Arizona?
Words fail me.
Is this a joke? Why are we quoting some Republican fraggle?
Cuse: Actually no, I’ve (tried to be) consistent about judging people’s comments by what they say, not be what label they come with (and in this case I think the debate about what counts as fairness is an interesting and relevant one). Sure, it’s easy to be lazy and narrow minded and sure that no-one with different political labels from your own has anything of interest to say, but that wouldn’t exactly be a liberal outlook would it 😉
Geoffrey: How does something being from a Republican automatically make it not of interest? Has no Republican ever written anything you’ve found of interest, whether or not you agree with it? I suspect you’re more open-minded than that!
Mark – if you can’t see why being praised by Michael Gerson on the issue of economic fairness is not a good thing
then I suggest,, without wishing to be offensive, that you are either being terribly niaive or you are getting fairly desparate for sources to write anything positive about Nick Clegg.
If most of the support for Clegg’s views are coming from the right wing (Tories & Republicans) doesn’t that suggest something to you about those views?
Hi Mark. Thanks for taking the time to reply. It gives LDV a human face. It’s appreciated.
However – I side with Olly.
Wikipedia credits this man with “proposing the use of a “smoking gun/mushroom cloud” metaphor during a September 5, 2002 meeting of the White House Iraq Group, in an effort to sell the American public on the nuclear dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.”
This man comes with toxicity spraying out of every pore. He is culpable with Blair + Bush in creating a case for war.
If being Liberal means sharing views of people you don’t agree with – why does this site have an almost blanket ban on the multitude of copy being produced fairly criticising Clegg + the Coalition?
“The actual causes of inequality”.
How completely brilliant to be able to discuss this without a mention of the inequality of inherited wealth. The Great taboo!
USA Universal Inheritance and UK Universal Inheritance is what is needed.
Personally , I would not recommend anyone to be like Nick Clegg.
i would certainly not consider it a compliment.
Cuse: We don’t have such a blanket ban, and you may have noticed the many articles we’ve run critical of the party on tuition fees for example! – but if you’ve got some specific examples of what you think we’ve not been covering but should have by all means drop me an email – [email protected] (A comment with multiple URLs is liable to be trapped as spam, so email probably best.)
Republicans who hold medical support for 9/11 first responders to ransom so they can get a tax cut for the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans during a recession with unemployment approaching 10%.
Obviously not a joke depite appearing so since the orange book Thatcherites would love this idea in austerity Britain. Why else was David Laws talking up possible future middle class tax cuts for his friend Mr Osborne to implement ?
Obama is still far more popular then Bush and could fight and win an election.
Unlike Nick. 😉
Following my last post, of course when Nick Clegg says “Inequalities become injustices when they are fixed: passed on, generation to generation. That’s when societies become closed, stratified and divided.”, that is, or ought to be, a call for redistribution of the inheritance of wealth.
But then “For old progressives, reducing snapshot income inequality is the ultimate goal. For new progressives, reducing the barriers to mobility is.” is a step backwards towards taking as given the inequalities of inherited wealth and trying to find ways of countering them by education, health and so on.
Nick Clegg ought to look carefully at UK Universal Inheritance, so that he can say that all young adults should receive some capital, which those who go to university can use for university fees, while others can use it in other ways. He is, after all, allowed to develop future LibDem policy even while constrained by the Coalition over current Coalition policy. UK Universal Inheritance is, by the way, already current Liberal Party policy.
“Barack Obama should be more like Nick Clegg.”
Go on, it’s a Saturday competition, isn’t it?
“Gandhi should be more like Pol Pot”
“Mother Teresa should be more like Paris Hilton”
“Usain Bolt should be more like Eddie the Eagle”
“if you’ve got some specific examples of what you think we’ve not been covering but should have by all means drop me an email”
You missed the vote in the Lords today on tuition fees.
Oh, sorry – was I not meant to mention tuition fees?
I don’t think it is a bad thing in itself that a US Republican praises Nick Clegg, but reading the reasons for the praise is very worrying.
The praise has come because Nick has focussed on social mobility at the expense of equality, which is much more in tune with US political tradition than our own.
Unfortunately the result of this tradition is that there is not only much greater inequality of wealth in the US, but also much lower social mobility.
A very good lesson in why Nick is so wrong on the issue.
@labour commentors look up the term “ad hominem”.
As for the substance of the issue Michael Gerson seems to ignore the fact that income inequality is most likley the main cause of the constraints to social mobility, further more social mobility, as was said in ‘The Thick of It’ costs money and we don’t have any. Therfore the solution to social immobility is higher and more progressive taxation somthing which Michael Gerson opposes.
To be fair on Nick he only said that the low income inequality shouldn’t be the ultimate goal not that it wasn’t desireable indeed if someones taxes are cut via the tax threshold the fixed sum they save will be a higher proportion of their income the less they earn.
Either way their both wrong as the poor aren’t necessarily lazy and we can’t all be middle class, so I’d say that both goals are equally as important.
If a rightwing republican is suggesting Obama be more like Nick Clegg, that’s just a rightwinger using selective quotes from Nick’s speech to score political points.
He isn’t seriously suggesting that the US president adopt the policies that Nick believes. Almost all mainstream politicians in the UK are way to the left of almost all US politicians. Imagine if Obama actually adopted the policies that Nick believes in: cutting income tax for the poor, and raising corporation tax for the rich. Keeping funding for the NHS whilst other departments are being cut. Increasing funding of state education. Cutting defence spending. If only Obama did do that!
My interpretation of what Nick Clegg said is that he does believe in retaining a good safety net for the poor. But he thinks the emphasis under Labour was wrong. They focussed on benefits increases. He wants to focus resources on reducing the benefit trap.
I think Nick is right that we need to focus on reducing the benefit trap. There’s that old saying, often used in international development: “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.” This philosophy is increasingly followed in development: that development should be about enabling people to look after themselves, and not increasing dependence.
While I oppose some of the benefit cuts, I agree with Nick that it’s key that we reduce dependency. Not so much to reduce the long-term welfare bill, but because welfare dependency is soul-destroying, and the dignity of work brings huge benefits far beyond a pay packet.
Sorry, my bad. I meant raising capital gains for the rich.
If only there were an edit button…
David Allen – I’m stuck at home today with flu and the kids. Thanks for your post which cheered me up loads!
I’m not sure why Mark is getting stick here. It seems to me he is merely reporting the comments rather than ‘celebrating’ them.
David Allen
I know it’s outrageously off topic but Mother Theresa wouldn’t be my first pick as a wonderful human being.
Obama like Clegg – I totally agree that would be far better, instead of Bbama telling cameron what to do we would have cameron telling Obama what to do – sounds great 😉
“@labour commentors look up the term “ad hominem”.”
Now that is funny!
Mark, make no mistake I find the US Republicans very interesting indeed.
But I am horrified that Nick Clegg has drifted so far to the right that his opinions are starting to have influence in their circles.
The US Republicans believe in “Compassionate Conservatism” which you can find in the “Red” states in the US south like Alabama and Mississippi. Fundamentally what they want is to maintain or widen the disparity between rich and poor as we saw with the Bush tax cuts. The “Compassion” comes in with the myth of the “American Dream”. The idea that anyone can be successful regardless of where they come from or what education they have had.
But the myth is a deception. Social mobility in the US is low. Many aspire but few achieve their dreams. No matter, US Republicans proclaim the American Dream as one of their achievements.
The Clegg position; income disparity doesn’t matter, but social mobility does fits in well with this world view.
It seems like an age when Nick Clegg commissioned a report into social mobility headed up by Martin Narey;
https://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-lib-dem-social-mobility-commission-shatters-the-idea-that-britain-in-2009-is-a-free-and-fair-society-10117.html
I don’t imagine any US Republican will be quoting that with any affection.
This approach fundamentally contradicts the findings of the Spirit Level, of which you (Mark) gave a positive review recently. If by the time of the next general election the gap between the rich and poor increases, that will be a bitter legacy of the Coalition government. And lets not forget that even if the Coalition succeeds in improving social mobility, this does not in itself tackle either the gap between rich and poor or the level of poverty in the UK.
2.5 million unemployed and growing fast. Disabled people trapped in care homes due to withdrawal of mobility dla. An expensive experiment in changing the nhs. Hospitals allowed to give private care priority. Yes, more like usa every day. Perhaps Obama is listening to clegg.
It really says something when the Liberal Democrats’ official organ is proudly sporting the words of a US Republican “urging Barack Obama to be more like Nick Clegg”.
For the record, the remains of the LibDems are boastfully quoting Michael Gerson, former senior policy advisor to President George W Bush between 2000 and 2006 – that is, someone sitting right at the core of the lethal (literally) neo-con Chain of Command during both the Iraq mess and the build-up to the biggest financial crash since 1929.
Claude: actually, I think it says rather more about you 🙂 Look at the first sentence of the post – it’s plain and factual, not even expressing agreement one way or the other, let alone pride. Of course, if you think that the only reason why something is worthy of interest is if you proudly agree with it, then you could read that into the first sentence – but thinking the only things of interest are those you proudly agree with is a rather narrow outlook, don’t you think?
Look at the title. And the total lack of inverted commas. You can’t feign surprise at the fact that some readers interpret that as the opinion of LibDem Voice as opposed to just a plain statement!