At a Sixteenth Arrondissement party soon after I arrived in Paris in late 1984, I was cornered by a tipsy Frenchman who repeatedly exclaimed–in a tone more resigned than angry–“You’ve won! You’ve won.”  This was all he would say, elaborations and explanations apparently being unnecessary.

Once I began to look for them, signs of American triumph were everywhere: Carl Lewis’s Olympics a few months before, Reagan’s enthusiastic re-election a few weeks before, and a sense that personal computers coming from garages in Silicon Valley would displace the tiny Minitel terminals linked to a central network for which the French had instead opted (a prescient model, but ten years before the internet could have made real use of them). After several months in Paris, I realized this handwringing was a daily theme in the Parisian press: the United States had won the economic game.

The idea was everywhere: the news detailed France’s economic crisis and America’s ascendency; top journalists and other members of the intelligentsia analyzed how France had gotten into its sad state; academics wrote books setting the crisis in world-historical context; politicians spun grandiose plans for pulling France out of its malaise. But no one took the schemes of the politicians seriously: the crisis, everyone knew, was there to stay. Thus Le Monde‘s annual report on the economic state of the world in early 1985 had on its cover a tiny boat, its sail in disarray, about to drop from the crest of a wave, and a large ocean liner placidly moving along in the distance. The dinghy flew several European flags, the steamer those of Japan and the United States.

It was not just France: the entire “old world” was implicated. It was just that: old, weary, perhaps exhausted. Many French, if it fit their current political rhetoric, were fond of pointing out that France had done better than most European countries. The French were happy that they were not the Germans, the Swiss, or even the Swedes who had beaten them this time. It was America, which is after all America, and Japan, that fascinating but incomprehensible family corporation on the other side of the world. With conquerors like these, the French launched themselves into the crisis with enthusiasm.

Today, it is the Germans again, and the French are wringing their hands harder than in 1985.The new Gallois report recommends a neoliberal response to data showing that the Germans are gaining a competitive advantage. Even faster than in 1981, a socialist President is sounding less and less socialist, with talk of more flexible labor markets and cutting state spending.

Commentators, especially Americans, make a lot of the fact that 57 percent of France’s GDP goes through the government. The Economist (17 November 2012) editorializes about “a time-bomb at the heart of Europe” and calls for Hollande to reverse “the path his country has been on for the past 30 years.” Sixty years would be more accurate, or perhaps six hundred (since some of the trends may well have begun when the French finally managed to expel the meddlesome English).

Yet, on the other hand, it turns out that the French get a lot for their tax money. I recently had the good fortune to spend two months in Paris, reminding myself why it is so many people’s favorite city. The Metro arrives every two minutes, with announcements you can understand. An entirely new network of bike lanes is being installed. Grand trees line the boulevards, and sickly ones are replaced immediately. The city’s stock of handsome buildings, many of them hundreds of years old, is constantly and expensively renovated (even though part of a good renovation is to make them look as though they have always been just so). Trash is picked up, traffic flow, and bakeries are regulated to produce the world’s best breads and pastries, reasonably priced.

The French take enormous pride in Paris, I reasoned. They pour money into its care in ways that Americans do not care for its political capital, Washington D.C., or its cultural capital, New York. In fact, most Americans detest Washington and New York, and the elites who inhabit them. New York looks good these days because the city has learned to shake down the wealthy who live there. Washington looks like hell.

But I was wrong about French pride being channeled into Paris. When my wife and I took driving trips outside Paris, I was just as impressed. The roads were perfect; signage was clear and helpful. Medieval towns and baroque chateaux that would have been crumbling in most countries were in good repair.

For decades, Americans have labeled France as “socialist.” Most Americans never leave their own country, so they can spin any kind of grim fantasies about the big-spending countries of the Old World. Stereotypes survive brief touristic visits, too. I was unpleasantly seated next to an American couple at a Paris restaurant last winter, only to listen as they acknowledged various virtues to the city, only to dismiss them with the comment, “Well, they’re socialist.” I wasn’t sure what they meant (Sarkozy?), and I didn’t want to ruin my glass of Calvados to find out, but it seemed as though no amount of good living could compensate for some state of slavery implied by socialism. It was fine to come take advantage of all that infrastructure spending, but not to admit its source, taxes.

Even serious commentators have described France’s 35-hour work week as unsustainable, its pensions as too generous, its job protections as sclerotic, its proportion of government spending at 57 percent of GDP as disastrous. What has happened in three decades of worrying?

The French work less than we do and live better. All that government spending, especially on infrastructure, makes the French the most productive work force in the world, measured per hour worked. Working fewer hours undoubtedly makes those hours worked more intense, as well. Perhaps a glass of Calvados at the end of lunch doesn’t hurt.

France has some serious problems, including youth unemployment and a large immigrant minority that is not welcomed. But these are not problems of a large government sector. In fact, who is more likely to solve them: a neoliberal, hands-off state, or a state with extensive social programs and public spending? The means of fixing these problems are there, just waiting for the will.

The French are good at economic crises.  Their national identity and pride do not rest directly on commercial prowess. They are the guardians of Western Culture, including both the Arts and, perhaps even more, the art of living well.  The French are proud of their painters and their musicians, but nothing matches their unshakable confidence in their cuisine and their oenology.  They are proud of Paris for its churches and palaces, but they believe it is the world’s greatest city because of its life and excitement.  France’s proudest achievements are in living well, and this skill is rarely, let’s face it, compatible with dealing well. Hence the French are partly proud of not being good businessmen–like Americans and Arabs–and partly resigned to this fault as a necessary accompaniment to Culture. And culture, in both upper and lower case C, is what distinguishes France from most other advanced industrial nations. But in the end, none of that is innate. It is there because of government policies, and the taxing and spending to back them up.

As a strong supporter of Barack Obama, I found the debate last night painful. Romney performed well. Obama didn’t.

I take solace in a dial group session by a respected  Geoff Garin, which found that sixty percent of the study group of undecided voters and weakly committed Democrats viewed Obama favorably for his performance, and that eighty percent of this crucial group after the debate saw the President as more likable and down to earth. And on key issues, Obama decisively prevailed on improving the economy and on Medicare, though the group did marginally shift to Romney on taxes. A small study suggested that a key target audience of the debate didn’t go along with the talking heads.

I also am somewhat relieved by Nate Silver, the statistics guru now publishing at The New York Times, who first made his name in sports, then in politics. He judged, using a football analogy, that Romney in his strong debate scored a field goal not a touchdown or the two touchdowns that Silver earlier declared Romney would have to score to win in November. He gained only a slight advantage.

Yet, as I watched the debate and then listened and read a great deal of commentary, not sleeping through most of the night, I worried that an Obama defeat seemed again to be a possibility, if not a probability. Just about all the commentators and instant polls judged that Romney won the debate, though the meaning of the victory was contested: from nothing has changed, to a reset, to the beginning of the end for Obama.

I want to believe, as also has been discussed, that the debate presents an opportunity for Obama (with the support of his powerful campaign staff), known for his impeccable timing and strategic prowess, to counterpunch in ads and speeches and in the coming debates. I certainly would like to believe that Barack Obama, as Muhammad Ali would put it, was playing “rope – a – dope,” and still “floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee.”

But beyond the winning and losing, and the sports analogies, I think that the debate itself was a success and a failure to the degree to which it actually provided an opportunity for the public to consider the pressing issues of the day and the alternative approaches Romney and Obama are proposing.

They mostly debated the question of the role of government in supporting economic growth and the creation of jobs, along with taxes and Medicare and Obamacare, but they didn’t debate many other key domestic issues: race, immigration, abortion, the courts, LGBT rights, the power of corporations and as I suspected yesterday, the profound problem of poverty in the United States, in a society that has been defined by not only freedom but also equality, as Tocqueville explored, but has become ever more and profoundly in-egalitarian. The moderator, Jim Lehrer, ignored all this and more. This is deeply troubling.

Nonetheless, the competing political philosophies of the two candidates and the two parties were in clear view, as a solid piece in this morning’s New York Times reports. In this regard, despite Romney’s much better performance, I am not sure that he was convincing. Indeed, the study of independents’ response suggests that he may not have been.

Romney and Obama both underscored last night, as they have been highlighting throughout the campaign, that this election posed a clear choice. Yet, note that Romney tried to fudge this when it came to his hyper–individualist, pro-corporate approach on Obamacare and Medicare, on tax justice and the means of promoting job growth, and on regulations. The fudging was a key to the success of his performance, but I am not at all sure that it was convincing.

While he made it clear that he opposed Obamacare for pragmatic and principled reasons, he pretended that he supported all that is good with Obamacare, without explaining how this would be possible. He promised he would lower tax rates, avoid any tax increases and cut deficits (also increase the military budget as Obama highlighted) simultaneously by closing unspecified loopholes and limiting unnamed tax deductions of the rich, but not the middle class. This fantasy which defies both common sense and expert opinion, he claimed, will unlock the power of the market and the job creators (aka the rich) to do their work to produce jobs (not just to enrich themselves). And most remarkably, he suggested that he would control the abuses of Wall Street, without supporting the major legislation that moves to do this, Dodd-Frank. Eliminating unnecessary, job destroying regulations is central to his economic plan, but last night he amazingly presented himself as a rational regulator. And he would do all this and be bi-partisan too.

Although he was slick in his presentation, I doubt that this was convincing to a public that has grown to be skeptical about his constancy and uncertain about who Romney really is, what he believes and what he will do. For Republican moderates, such as David Brooks and Mike Murphy, a former Republican campaign operative, , the polished technocrat on the stage last night was the real Romney. They were ecstatic on the Charlie Rose Show on PBS (support of which Romney promised to cut out, despite his professed love for Big Bird). Yet, given the performances Romney has been giving for the last two years, Romney, the severe conservative, I am not at all sure that the public will understand. No wonder un-decideds and weakly committed Democrats were apparently not as convinced as the initial commentaries were. And the instant polls were about who won, not who was convinced. A real argument did happen, but the judgment of the public is very much still out.

Maybe the night didn’t go as badly as I had first thought.

I continue to be struck by the constancy of Barack Obama. His tactics shift and weave, but his overall principles and project are firmly rooted. In the State of the Union address, he revealed his core convictions, explained his policies and their consequences, and linked his accomplishments with his promises.

Obama is a centrist, working to define common sense, working to move the center left, as I have earlier argued. In his speech last night, he focused on fairness and the viability of the American dream. He argued for the way the government can support economic development and the interests of the vast majority of the American public. Though he did not use the language of Occupy Wall Street, his focus on fairness was clearly supported by the fruits of the social movement’s labors. And the principled debate before the American people in the coming election was illuminated, as Obama argued for his side: a “smarter more effective government” versus limited government, the Republican ideal.

The speech was elegantly crafted and delivered, something that is now expected from Obama and therefore doesn’t impress and is not really news. But the fine form delivered a well rounded argument.

He opened and closed with a call for common purpose, exemplified by the military and its virtues, as he highlighted major milestones in foreign affairs: the end of the war in Iraq and the killing of Osama Bin Laden. A move that makes me uncomfortable, though I understand that it works well.

The opening:

“Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq.  Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought — and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world.  (Applause.)  For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.  (Applause.)  For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country.  (Applause.)  Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated.  The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces.  At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations.  They’re not consumed with personal ambition.  They don’t obsess over their differences.  They focus on the mission at hand.  They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example.  (Applause.)  Think about the America within our reach:  A country that leads the world in educating its people.  An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs.  A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world.  An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.”

The closing:

“One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden.  On it are each of their names.  Some may be Democrats.  Some may be Republicans.  But that doesn’t matter.  Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates — a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary — and Hillary Clinton — a woman who ran against me for president.

All that mattered that day was the mission.  No one thought about politics.  No one thought about themselves.  One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn’t deserve credit for the mission.  It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job — the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs.  More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other — because you can’t charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there’s somebody behind you, watching your back.

So it is with America.  Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes.  No one built this country on their own.  This nation is great because we built it together.  This nation is great because we worked as a team.  This nation is great because we get each other’s backs.  And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard.”

And in between, he identified the common good as he and his party define it:

“…the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive.  No challenge is more urgent.  No debate is more important.  We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.  (Applause.)  What’s at stake aren’t Democratic values or Republican values, but American values.  And we have to reclaim them.”

He spoke about many of specific accomplishments, a highpoint: saving the auto industry. He also spoke about specific proposals: the payroll tax extension, tax code reform, the promotion of American exports, a trade enforcement unit, along with a financial crimes unit. Education also was a major theme: job training, turning community colleges into “community career centers,” school reform, increase student aid for college, controlling the cost of higher education. Along the way he included passing references to advancements provided by healthcare reform, the importance of immigration reform, public funding of research, and the reform of Senate rules.

His resoluteness was on full and, in my judgment, convincing display.

“Let’s never forget:  Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same.  It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom.  No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts…

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want.  But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes?  Most Americans would call that common sense…

[A]nyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.  (Applause.)”

Clearly it was a partisan speech, meeting the Republicans head on, and implicitly specifically Mitt Romney on tax rates. But it is also a challenge to his critics on the left and his less than enthusiastic supporters. He still wants to go beyond partisanship. He supports not only control of the market but also the market itself. He is trying to constitute a new centrist position. One can question whether his more sharply drawn commitments are just an election year tactic. He did name fairness as the central problem of our time, his version of fighting for the 99%. This will satisfy some in OWS, but not others.

As I asserted in the opening of this post, and as I tried to reveal in my earlier posts on Obama working with Democrats, with Republicans and against Republicans, I think that we observe only changed tactics and not commitments. I also would suggest that his earlier accomplishments, specifically doing the possible if not the ideal in supporting a devastated economy and significantly reforming the American healthcare system, lend authority to his present promise. He clearly presented his side of the great debate that will be the election of 2012.

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.