Mitt Romney’s “Big Bird moment” in the first presidential debate of the 2012 election season is no small thing. Analysts have not yet, in my judgment, understood its full importance. Governor Romney both disrespected a great American symbol, Big Bird, and attacked a broadly respected and supported public institution, PBS. The China connection was especially provocative. Mitt’s argument against Big Bird and PBS, which leveraged popular anti-China sentiments, came off as elitist, cynical and opportunistic.

In 1983, well in advance of the warming of the Cold War, Sesame Street’s Big Bird introduced a generation of Americans to the culture of a rising China. Big Bird did this in a way that was intellectually generous, humanitarian, and even graceful at the same time. Though there are those that might regard Big Bird in China as simple children’s fare, few in America could have done the job that Big Bird did without having egregiously politicized it, even if unintentionally. In contemporary discussions of U.S. – China foreign policy, it is often forgotten that many in the current generation of American consumers, producers, business leaders, and politicians first encountered the then waking dragon of Chinese society through Sesame Street’s Big Bird.

Big Bird belongs to that rarefied sphere of public figures that are beyond criticism, politics, or reproach, as a normative matter, to be embraced and admired. In Big Bird’s case, this is not only because his cognitive development is that of a young child, and our culture constructs childhood to be a time of innate innocence, but also because he is something of a foundational cultural universal. Since the ’70s, several generations of American children have learned important life lessons from Big Bird—lessons about social norms, tolerance and diversity, culture and difference, everyday pragmatics, life events such as birth and death, and the gestalt core of human experience.

The Governor, elaborating on budget cuts that might be necessary at the federal level under his economic plan, offered Big Bird and PBS as examples of federal allocations that might have to end. “I’m sorry, Jim,” said Romney. “I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I’m not going to—I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.”

Beyond Romney’s unfortunate choice of symbols, his intention was to adopt a negative position with respect to one of American culture’s few deeply democratic institutions and products. As the New York Times’ Charles Blow argued in response to the Big Bird moment, PBS is the rare American social and economic equalizer, effectively offering knowledge to the ignorant and its power to the powerless in the interest of the greater public good. It is an essentially democratizing force with nonpartisan, practical intent. Its ethos is deeply compatible with American ideals and the American narrative, regardless of viewership. Romney’s argument that PBS was costly and superfluous has long been a losing one with the American public. Despite decades of attacks from the American political right, it remains an integral component of the American public life. This alone should have given Romney pause.

That he chose PBS, a comparatively insignificant budgetary item, from all the possible examples of superfluous federal programs thus reinforces a central campaign narrative that Romney has struggled to dispel—that he is an intrinsically socially and economically elite figure with anti-democratic tendencies, not someone deeply familiar with and affected by middle class concerns or in tune with its everyday practices and values. For many in Romney’s 47 percent, or in Occupy Wall Street’s 99 percent, PBS represents public, democratic access to what would otherwise be forms of exclusively elite culture.

But Romney didn’t merely target PBS. In a discussion on budgets, fiscal policy, taxation, and deficits, Romney made the bewildering choice to single out Big Bird by name and to juxtapose Big Bird with China, recalling one of the proud moments in Big Bird—not to mention PBS—history, at the same time drawing his own position and status into contrast with PBS’s approach.

Big Bird in China was in many ways the distinct opposite of Mitt’s statement. Big Bird embodied the best American aspirations for China’s future and narratively symbolized them. Big Bird, a character representing the idealized value core of the American public and the humanitarian unity and egalitarian impulses of a melting pot society, visited China and carried these values into the heart of Chinese territory and culture with him. Example and diplomatic offering were rolled into one. Romney’s parallel-but-opposite formulation elicits significant cognitive dissonance as a result and is on the decidedly unfavorable side of the comparison.

There was no particular reason to use Big Bird over any other examples, and there were very good reasons not to do so, given Big Bird’s stature and meaning for the American public as a whole. And yet Romney chose to politicize this figure, privatizing and attempting to take ownership of him. The Big Bird that had a moment ago belonged to everyday Americans was made suddenly to belong to Mitt Romney and the Republican Party, who expropriated the public and leveraged Big Bird for their own purposes. These purposes happened to be precisely to attempt to liquidate Big Bird for their own gain—a startling parallel to the Bain Capital narrative that has dogged the campaign now for some time.

Romney bit off more than he could chew when he took on Big Bird. The moment may help to solidify the notion that Romney remains (perhaps intentionally) the quintessential private equity CEO, despite his presidential aspirations—a “one percenter” disdainful of publics. One who knows and exploits the prices of things without having any particular interest in their value.

I’m puzzled. For as long as I can recall I have been assured that the Grand Old Party will do just about anything to advantage their wealthy friends and benefactors. Of course, no party desires no taxes – not even Republicans — and none – not even Democrats – want full confiscation. So the issue always comes down to the question of how one will square the circle. Should the top marginal rate be 35% or 40%? Aside from the flat tax advocates and a few outré progressives, few are now arguing for 25% or 50%.

Statecraft inevitably involves a distribution of responsibilities and benefits. And, as I have noted, it is traditionally the case that Democrats ask for more sacrifice from the wealthy and Republicans advocate for fewer benefits for the needy.

This being part of our political logic, how then do we explain a central feature of the Republican plans for Medicare and for Social Security, and how do we explain the hesitancy of most elected Democrats to embrace this plan?

One area in which there appears to be some measure of agreement between President Obama and Speaker of the House John Boehner is that means testing Medicare and perhaps even Social Security should be “on the table” – a Thanksgiving turkey, as it were. The argument is that the wealthy might receive fewer benefits or should have to ante up more in the way of co-payments. What’s up with that? In important ways, one should appreciate why Democrats would like that idea and why the Republicans should resist, but things have not quite transpired in that logical way.

Despite the element of soaking (or at least dampening) the rich, some Democrats have pushed back on the idea of means testing Social Security and Medicare. One could readily make the argument that it is unjust or undesirable for the federal government to send out checks to those same rich folks on whom Democrats wish to raise the marginal tax rates. Couldn’t receiving fewer benefits be a form of shared sacrifice so integral to Democratic talking points?

Historically there have been reasons why means testing some social benefits have been problematic (although not for others, such as food stamps). Social Security, and to some degree Medicare, has long been defined as an insurance program and not a welfare program, even though they were designed to help seniors who needed a safety net after retirement. Still, the rationale for their passage was that everyone would partake; the benefits applied to everyone and the program was politically palatable. The assumption – an assumption that in 2011 is somewhat implausible – is that if these insurance plans become welfare programs that are means tested, they will be more vulnerable to sharp cuts for the most needy, even leading to calls for dismantling that safety net entirely. That everyone receives these social benefits means that everyone is invested in their success. In a somewhat similar way, although with a different perspective, we find Republicans worried that we are nearly at the point at which half of all Americans do not pay income tax. In such a circumstance, what incentive is there for those who do not pay to keep rates low? (The answer seems to be wealthy interest groups that both parties rely upon.) By opposing means testing, Democrats are pandering to the very same upper middle class to which they accuse Republicans of pandering. Pandering is politically addictive.

When one thinks about it, the desire of Republicans to means test these programs flies in the face of our convenient and easy beliefs, and it is a breath of fresh air. Means testing would in effect mean that the well-to-do will be paying more for their retirement and their health care. Perhaps this is a reason that President Obama, although not many of his supporters, such as the AARP, is willing to consider this particular option. For those who wish to redistribute government support towards the bottom and for those who wish to redistribute sacrifice towards the top, means testing makes sense.

It is not the case that all of the Republican plans for Medicare and Social Security will necessarily have this (salutary) effect. Privatization benefits some wealthy people at the expense of those less able to find suitable coverage, and the changes in determining inflation-based growth rates have problems of their own.

Still, at this parlous time in which we must consider how to have the most fortunate among us pay a larger share of the cost of necessary programs, a reasonable means-tested Medicare and Social Security can help close the budget gap. So let us all hail the Republicans as they propose means testing. On this, they are the party of class warfare, as they might say if they considered the matter carefully. Let us be thankful that they haven’t. And let Democrats take this option to reach across the aisle to achieve the very ends for which the party has been calling. Let us agree by all means.

Barack Obama is a centrist, trying to move the center left, defending it against the right. Health care reform has been his great legislative “left moving” achievement. Though far from perfect, he established the principle of universal coverage.

In the past months, he has been primarily on defense, fighting back against the Republican attack on government. Obama is not a left-winger, to the dismay of many on the blogosphere. He is now defending a new center, which he helped establish, against right-wing attack.

The opening shot of the attack was the Tea Party protest against the bank bailout, the stimulus package, and “Obamacare.” In the recent elections, Obama and the Democrats suffered a defeat, a “shellacking” as he put it. But now as we are approaching the main event, the Republican attack has taken the form of Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget proposal.

William Milberg asserted here that with this proposal the President is just about assured re-election. I have talked to a number of friends and colleagues about this. Their response, put bluntly: “from his mouth, to God’s ears.” But just perhaps, God won’t have anything to do with it. Perhaps, it will be a matter of leadership and political direction, along with the political economic fundamentals Milberg highlighted. The quality of the leadership was revealed in Obama’s speech on the deficit yesterday.

In his speech, the President was forthright in his rhetoric and policy recommendations. He addressed the problems of the deficit, emphasizing that deficit reduction will require taxing as well as cuts in spending. He drew a sharp distinction between his and the Republican plans. The contrast was stark. The political thrust of the speech was clear.

Obama and the Democrats promise to defend Medicare and Medicaid, while the Republicans will dismantle them. The Ryan budget provides many tax advantages for the rich, while what they present means that “50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit.”

As the President declared:

“And worst of all, this is a vision that says even though Americans can’t afford to invest in education at current levels, or clean energy, even though we can’t afford to maintain our commitment on Medicare and Medicaid, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy.  Think about that.”

What was most compelling about the speech was the way he turned the budget debate into a debate about American character.

“The America I know is generous and compassionate.  It’s a land of opportunity and optimism.  Yes, we take responsibility for ourselves, but we also take responsibility for each other; for the country we want and the future that we share.  We’re a nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness.  We sent a generation to college on the GI Bill and we saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare.  We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.  That’s who we are.  This is the America that I know.  We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit our investment in our people and our country.”

The President continued his important project as “Storyteller in Chief,” in reinventing American political culture, telling a convincing story that presents an alternative to the Reagan mantra, that “government is not the solution to our problem, it is the problem.” Obama is joining the debate as he formulated it in the past election campaign. The immediate conflict is about the budget, taxing and spending. But it is a conflict about two visions of America.

The upcoming Presidential elections will involve many twists and turns. But it will be in the end a choice between these two visions. The election will be in Obama’s power zone. It will be a battle about the American center. To paraphrase and reverse a great American conservative politician, the late Barry Goldwater, extremism in the defense of liberty will be a vice.

The headlines this week were devoted to the high-stakes drama in D.C. that led to (literally) an 11th hour deal to avert a federal government shutdown and an $38 billion spending cut for 2011-2012. But the real news was that the 2012 Presidential election was effectively thrown to the Democratic incumbent (who also announced the launch of his campaign this week) when the leading fiscal policy visionary on the Republican side issued his long-term plan for the role of government over the next ten years. Congressman Ryan’s plan is so extreme in its proposed cutbacks on health insurance coverage and so regressive in its proposed reform of income and corporate taxes that it leaves most of the American political spectrum open to President Obama for the taking. He will no doubt begin the journey to this vast expanse of political turf with his speech on Wednesday.

Ryan’s plan has been much discussed in the press. It calls for a privatization of Medicare, with drastic reductions in funding. The key will be in how this funding reduction is distributed, and there is no indication that it would be done in a progressive way. This the major fault line of the plan, that it would put an even greater burden on the poor and middle class in accessing health care than is the case today. The plan calls for reducing the income tax on the richest individuals and corporations to the extremely low level of 25%. Finally, the projected effect of the plan on budget deficits hinges on wildly unrealistic assumptions that have already been questioned by the Congressional Budget Office.

We are in such a moment of political frenzy over the fiscal deficits that we often forget two basic economic fundamentals about deficits. The first is that deficits are not a function simply of spending levels but mainly of economic growth rates, since it is these that largely determine revenues. The second is that shrinking deficits generally reduce the economic growth rate and slow the creation of jobs.

There is no reasonable economic case for cutting the budget deficit in the short run because while the hemorrhaging of the labor market seems to be over, there are only small signs of an upturn in employment. The $38 billion cuts in this weeks budget deal will only hurt, although the cuts are not large enough to make a big difference (0.25% of GDP). Over the recent period of GDP growth the unemployment rate remains just below 9%. More important is that the decline in the unemployment rate is swamped by the increase in discouraged workers who are not counted among the unemployed.

What is the economic case for deficit cutting in this environment? There are two lines of argument, both related to the stress that public borrowing puts on capital markets. The first is that fiscal deficits raise interest rates. There is no evidence to support this case. Both short-term and long-term rates remain at historic lows. The bond market is simply not showing signs of a lack of confidence in the U.S. Treasury as the budget cutters would lead us to believe. The second argument is that public spending “crowds out” private investment. Given the weakness of corporate spending over the last few years, this one at least is plausible. The problem is that the most significant determinant of investment spending by the private sector is expected future profitability usually tied to expected future rates of economic growth. Most studies by economists, thus, find that public spending serves to “crowd in” private spending because it spurs economic growth. There remains a case for improving the corporate sector’s access to credit, but this should be addressed through financial regulation, not fiscal restraint.

The Ryan plan would exacerbate the economic problems of our day–slow growth and high inequality. The good news is that the plan is a political disaster for the right. Either the Republicans will have to back away from the Ryan plan — which, given their aversion to tax increases, will translate into larger budget deficits – or, the Republicans will make the plan a centerpiece of their platform, in which case they are ceding most of the political spectrum to President Obama. Like all incumbents before him, Obama is not concerned with his base or those on the left of the political spectrum. He will govern not even from the center, but from right of center (see, for example the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission recommendations), since this allows him to capture a big part of the centrist vote and everything to its left.

While those on the left may not be able to count on President Obama to support a standard left-wing fiscal agenda of expanding entitlements and a progressive tax reform, they can expect that the administration will trumpet the results of the CBO analysis of the Ryan plan. Once the implications of the plan are clear to the American public, the extreme nature of this vision will be apparent.

Yesterday, I opened my report on budget problems at my local community center. I showed that our local concerns were very much connected to global problems. Now I turn to how people took responsibility for the problems, or more accurately did not directly confront them, revealing a seamy side of politics as usual in America. The key figure is Town Supervisor Paul Feiner.

The supervisor was passionate about only one issue: the fact that there were inaccuracies on the unsigned flier announcing the meeting about proposed budget cuts of the Theodore D. Young Community Center. In Feiner’s response to the A&P closings in the primarily African American surrounding community and when it came to the budget of the center, he was the cool bureaucrat. He denounced the anonymous author of the flier, revealing real anger. On the defensive, he declared that the rumor that the center would close was absolutely not true. I was relieved. But when it came to details about the center’s budget, he was evasive, without passion, using clichés to deflect responsibility, stoking the anger of the community.

Feiner and the Town Board’s basic position: because of revenue short falls, the town was faced with a choice, there had to be either significant tax increases or program cuts to balance the budget. In order to rationally meet the challenge, the board was asking all the relevant commissioners to outline possible ways to cut programs. I am sure there was a target provided, but from the public discussion I didn’t catch it. The impact of proposed cuts would be weighed against their impact on programs by the board in the fall. Feiner emphasized that no program was being targeted and that the goal was to deliver lean and efficient good governance. Strikingly, he used procedure to evade answering any question about specific programs.

The seniors were particularly concerned about their group trips. The swim teams emphasized how important swimming was to them. A former director of the center reminded the board and the public that years ago she said that the building of a multi-million dollar multipurpose center for seniors, now completed, would ultimately lead to cuts at Theodore D. Young Community Center, threatening its existence. She resigned on this issue. Now the chickens apparently have come home to roost. A couple of women sitting next to me, told me that they go to both places, but there was little going on at the newer center. A local minister emphasized that the center is not a recreational facility, as it was called by town officials, but a community center, providing vital services for a community with pressing needs.

Feiner’s answer to all questions: no cuts have yet been made. All cuts would be proposed by the administrators of the town programs. All proposals would be appraised in the fall. The town board would decide then what combination of cuts and taxes would be passed, so it is silly to protest now. When concerns were heatedly expressed, it seemed that the board heard but did not listen. No commitments were made. No special appreciation of the community center was expressed. No bottom line, no guiding principles concerning the method of appraisal were revealed.

While it was good to see public officials meeting with the public about pressing issues, it was jarring to note that there was little or no give and take. Gestures were exchanged, but the words of the officials and the public expressed two competing positions that didn’t affect each other. There was no interaction between those who raised the issue of tough fiscal choices that have to be made and those who expressed pressing needs that had to be respected and taken into account, particularly as they were manifestations of long festering problems in the community and in American society at large, i.e. racism. Individual prejudice was not apparent, but the circumstances surrounding the proposed budget cuts and the closing of the A&P, both locally and nationally, appeared as a case study of institutionalized racism. Business as usual, political and economic, have a disproportionate impact on the African American community in Westchester County, without evil intent.

The public meeting concerning the budget cuts at the community center was a microcosm of a major crisis in our times. There was conflict here of a standard sort on the question of what goes into good governance, what are the responsibilities of government and how a community’s concerns should be discussed and addressed. The public officials appeared to give the impression that they were responding to the community, but when questioned no one took responsibility. There was a specific tragic dimension to this all. It is happening because there is now an irrational macroeconomic policy being pursued, cutting government budgets and programs in hard times when these programs are most needed for sound economic and social policy reasons, revealed in my home town. And there was the enduring racial dimension. Business as usual has a racist accent at the Theodore D. Young Community Center, and beyond.

Recently, I went to a meeting concerning the budget of the Theodore D. Young Community Center. It revealed the tragedy of the cult of fiscal austerity during a prolonged economic downturn and high unemployment.

The Center is a special place for me. I swim there three or four times a week. I chat with my friends, most of whom I came to know during Barack Obama’s campaign to be President. The staff of the center and the community they serve are primarily African American, although there is a diverse cliental. I was the white guy who first canvassed the place for Obama, when most people at the center were still skeptical. For me, it’s a happy place, where I satisfy my exercise addiction, and where I can see the America that I imagine is emergent, multi-racial, multi-cultural, where people of different classes pursue happiness together, from the kids who go to after school programs and summer day camp to the senior citizens playing bingo, to teens roller skating and playing basketball, to the members of the Asian culture club, to the swimmers such as myself. It’s my American dream come true. Of course, as with all dreams, American and otherwise, there are disrupting realities that often force us to wake up. Such was the case with the budget meeting. I present my reflections on the meeting in two posts. First, this afternoon, I reflect on the context as I approached the meeting and as it opened. Tomorrow, I will report on the discussion about the community center, and its implications. I went to the meeting concerned. I left dismayed.

I read a flier announcing the event urging attendance. It warned of program cuts, highlighting many of the most popular, including the pool. Rumors were flying that the center was slated to be closed, which weren’t true. But in the age of government deficits and fiscal austerity, cuts sadly and irrationally seem inevitable.

I say irrationally because I know that this is not the time for spending cuts, despite the cutting frenzy in Washington D.C. and across the nation. It is broadly understood by a wide array of economists that public spending should not decrease in the aftermath of a severe financial crisis and deep recession, with persistently high unemployment. Conservatives might advocate tax cuts and increasing the money supply, while liberals prefer public spending, as remedies for recessions, but cutting spending during a recession or at a time of prolonged high rates of unemployment makes no sense. It only makes economic recovery more difficult. Further, as a sociologist, I know that this is the time when spending cuts are most likely to negatively affect the most vulnerable. This was the broad social and political economic background of the question and answer session at the Community center.

All the interested parties were present, staff and users of the center. We all worried that a beloved community center was going to be weakened, if not destroyed.

Concerned shopper in front of the A & P slated to close © Joe Laresse | The Journal News

As if to underscore the broader economic realities and injustices, the meeting started with a discussion about the closing of local A&P and Pathmark stores near the Center. Of the thirty two stores in the north east it is closing under bankruptcy protection, the branches that serve the primarily African American community of Fairview are being closed. The Town Supervisor, Paul Feiner, started the discussion by speaking to the issue. He promised shuttle buses for those without cars to a nearby A&P, a much smaller store, in an affluent, primarily white, part of town.

This clearly was not Feiner’s, or the Town Board’s, fault. Yet, I was struck by the narrowness of their response. This is actually a major scandal. African American communities have historically not had easy access to quality food stores. A problem solved by the market in good times, a good clean efficient supermarket near public housing and in a primarily African American community, was being unsolved by the market in hard times. I would like to know for the public record why the two stores that serve a significant African American community in Westchester are the ones being closed. I would like my town supervisor to press the issue: to call a news conference, to publicly ask our Congresswoman, Nita Lowey, and Senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, to get involved, to wonder how this might be related to the Michelle Obama’s campaign for improved nutrition, especially for the disadvantaged. Feiner was pursuing the proper policy, helping the community adapt to a very unfortunate development, but he wasn’t being a leader.

This was especially evident when we turned to the primary issue on the agenda, the community center’s budget, which I will turn to tomorrow morning.