Obama is the Democrats’ Great Communicator, our Ronald Reagan. It’s fitting that his highest priority will be reversing the tax and spending priorities Reagan enshrined as a new American compact almost 30 years ago, and reviving the notion of government as an engine of capitalist growth — not merely the safety net provider, but the catalyst for organizing our public resources around what makes the economy strong. We’ve been arguing at the margins during these last two years of pain: Government should regulate more, or less. Tax rates should be higher, or lower. But there’s a dangerous civic illiteracy in our country about what the larger role of government in a modern economy is, or should be, and I don’t think Obama will ultimately prevail if he doesn’t start to take it on.

Obama is the most remarkable Democratic communicator of my lifetime, I think, and even he’s not rising to the task, yet. He needs to lay out his priorities, clearly; he needs to simplify his pitch, yet he also needs to add some depth to his and our understanding of how we got here. This economic crisis is not just about bad mortgages and/or the housing bubble bursting, and it won’t be solved by reinflating that bubble, the Republicans’ latest dumb idea. These problems have been building since at least the 1970s. Here’s how Reich laid it out on Salon:

The bursting of the housing bubble caused the current crisis, but the underlying problem began much earlier — in the late 1970s, when median U.S. incomes began to stall. Because wages got hit then by the double-whammy of global competition and new technologies, the typical American family was able to maintain its living standard only if women went into the workforce in larger numbers, and later, only if everyone worked longer hours.

When even these coping mechanisms were exhausted, families went into debt — a strategy that was viable as long as home values continued to rise. But when the housing bubble burst, families were no longer able to easily refinance and take out home-equity loans. The result: Americans no longer have the money to keep consuming. When you consider that consumers make up 70 percent of the economy, the magnitude of the problem becomes apparent.

What happened to the money? According to researchers Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, since the late 1970s, a greater and greater share of national income has gone to people at the top of the earnings ladder. As late as 1976, the richest 1 percent of the country took home about 9 percent of the total national income. By 2006, they were pocketing more than 20 percent. But the rich don’t spend as much of their income as the middle class and the poor do — after all, being rich means that you already have most of what you need. That’s why the concentration of income at the top can lead to a big shortfall in overall demand and send the economy into a tailspin. (It’s not coincidental that 1928 was the last time that the top 1 percent took home more than 20 percent of the nation’s income.)

Now, honestly, I’m not sure how President Obama makes this point, roughly hourly, for the next four (and I hope eight) years. But this point has to be made, as often as possible, by anyone with an audience. We’ve had a deliberate shift of resources from middle- and working-class Americans and the poor, to the very rich, supported by our tax codes, twisted political values and the “winner-take-all” ethic that’s prevailed at the highest levels of business and government for the last 30 years. Now, unbelievably, Republicans are saying we need even more tax cuts. (What part of tax-cutter George W. Bush’s economic catastrophe, and his 22 percent approval rating, do they not understand?) They also back measures to reinflate the housing bubble that let Americans ignore their stagnating wages, as long as they worked more hours as a family and could also use their homes as an ATM. Their plans to reinflate the housing bubble seem as delusional, frankly, as their backing tax cuts, and even more irresponsible. Tax cuts won’t work, but reinflating the housing bubble might work — to encourage more consumption and less savings, and roll this problem a few more years down the road.

Democrats know the Republicans are wrong. Little children know they’re wrong. Cats and dogs know they’re wrong. But somehow this week, unbelievably, Obama and the Democrats seem to be losing the spin war. There are the worrying poll numbers. And there is the Washington Post report that Senate Democrats don’t have the votes to pass a stimulus bill yet, at least not with the 60 votes that would rule out a filibuster. In this economic crisis, with 2.6 million jobs lost last year and thousands more lost in every news cycle, what does it take to create the urgency and responsibility to get this done?

I’d like everyone in charge of selling the stimulus to take a deep breath, and then, in an extended sound bite, articulate the long view (I know, I ask a lot). Along with Reich, Jeff Madrick goes into all the larger issues in greater detail in his excellent book “The Case for Big Government,” and winds up in the same place (even though, remarkably, the book was written before the current economic collapse and attendant debate over what the stimulus should do). I hope Obama and his team are reading Madrick and Reich. Because they’re really just talking common sense: Public spending priorities need to catch up to 21st-century economic life. The long and lamentable Republican revolution of 1980 through 2008 aimed, and partly succeeded, in sending us back to the 19th century — and we are all suffering for it. We will continue to suffer unless Democrats grab the political momentum voters gave them in November.

Of course, the 19th century wasn’t all bad, but in our current political environment, we’ve forgotten what was good: Eventually government (thanks to political, religious and labor agitation) came to see its role as providing K-12 education, building roads, canals, bridges and railroads (after private sector efforts faltered), and the slow budding of certain health and safety regulations. In the 20th century, that public mandate expanded into Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance and other safety net programs, thanks to the New Deal and the Great Society. Today, profound economic change likewise requires new government initiatives, but they are many years overdue, for a lot of depressing political and economic reasons. The years since the early 1970s have been hard for middle- and low-income workers. Real wages became stagnant — the average weekly earnings of non-supervisory workers actually fell between 1973 and 2005. The late ’60s and early ’70s also marked the exodus of manufacturing jobs in the central cities, which William Julius Wilson and others persuasively argue played a huge role in creating the so-called underclass in many once-vital African-American neighborhoods.

Madrick lays out a few new-economy political priorities; you may have more, add them in comments:

Why, when post-secondary education is essential in this economy, are most families on their own when it comes to paying for college? Secondary education is awesome, isn’t it? Can you imagine this country without it? But isn’t it time to think beyond that? Why isn’t K-16 or so an American entitlement?

A chart published a year ago by Moody’s Economy.com shows that the types of measures in the Democrats’ stimulus plan actually put money into the economy, fast. For example, according to Economy.com’s model, every dollar lost to the Treasury from increased infrastructure spending would add $1.59 to the gross domestic product in a year. Every dollar lost to a cut in the corporate tax rate would add 30 cents to the GDP in a year.

And why, when most women work, is there so little support for childcare, family leave and other family friendly social policies?

Also: Why, when the cost of health insurance is tacking thousands of dollars onto the cost of every American-made car, and threatening to capsize many small businesses, is there so little serious progress on healthcare and insurance reform in our public realm? Where are the capitalist visionaries of yesteryear, trying to shape public spending by driving it toward what businesses need to thrive?

Oh, and climate change: If that continues, we’re all screwed, college grads and high school dropouts, moms, dads, auto execs, small-business owners, capitalist pigs and visionaries alike. But we’ve gotten no real movement on climate change these last eight years (though I’m grateful to Obama for deferring to my GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at least a little bit on this one). Again: why?

The Democrats’ stimulus plan has funding to deal with all of those enormous unmet needs (although probably not enough). The bigger question is, why isn’t the country clamoring for support for such capitalism-bolstering programs, especially at this time of economic crisis and political optimism ushered in by the election of Obama, which was, paradoxically, motivated by enormous voter pessimism about that same crisis?

The answer is not merely that American workers and voters and unions and Democrats mysteriously stopped agitating for progressive change in the 1960s (although many did, and the weakness of unions is part of the story, but it’s as much an effect as a cause of these political and economic sea-changes). The fact is, there was a massive organized political campaign against the egalitarian and economy-growing reforms of the 1930s and the 1960s, one that ran from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to John McCain, a very well-run and well-funded and sadly effective backlash. And it’s one that nobody wants to talk about, in our convivial, bipartisan, cable-news-dominated, partisan-blog-loving, newspaper-shrinking, amnesia-promoting political and media-freakshow entertainment economy.

But we have to.

It’s clear from the stimulus debate that some conservatives never stopped fighting the New Deal, as empty as their arguments were then and now. Andrew Leonard is brilliant, in my opinion, but he’s only one guy, and he alone takes down multiple well-funded think tanks dedicated to anti-New Deal idiocy. The stupid, it burns, but the stupid is relentless.

Then there’s the whole legacy of the Great Society. A lot of the opposition to government spending suddenly, opportunistically became (overtly or covertly) racial in the 1960s and ’70s, as the social and political and economic change inspired by the civil rights movement intersected with new social programs, some of them awesome, a few of them wasteful, all of them only partly effective. The bottom line for Republicans became: The government is helping those other people with your tax dollars, they’re not helping you. And some Democrats agreed.

Now, many if not most of us need help from our own tax dollars, and the Democrats seem ill-equipped to make the arguments to make that happen, despite Obama’s overwhelming win in November. This really makes no political sense to me.

Here’s how I think Obama should sell the stimulus. Long version here, short version below.

First, he should make it unapologetically clear that we are putting money in the hands of people who will spend it, fast, when no one else is spending: Working-class and low-income people, the employed and the recently unemployed. Food stamps, extended unemployment insurance, help with health insurance, the earned income tax credit, payroll tax relief. (Stunningly, Ronald Reagan lowered taxes on the rich but raised payroll taxes, an unforgivably regressive wealth transfer.) All those measures get money in the hands of people who can’t afford to hoard it, and it goes back into the economy immediately. Democrats think such spending is justified by the principles of fairness and equity, but whatever your political beliefs, you should know that these priorities mean that money will be spent in the real world quickly, and that’s what the economy needs.

Almost as quickly, we are funding so-called shovel-ready infrastructure programs, which will get money into the economy ASAP, funding jobs while also doing the things American business and government needs to catch up with the rest of the world. We can’t afford more levies breaking in New Orleans or bridges collapsing in Minneapolis — or anywhere else.

We’re also putting money into not-quite shovel-ready but crucial programs, especially mass transit that links our suburbs and exurbs with our central cities, and creates opportunity for everyone, and programs that reduce climate change and move us to a future driven by green jobs and industry.

Finally, we are belatedly making down payments on our 21st-century economy that, sadly, nobody was wise enough to make in the last century. Head Start and education funding, college programs, healthcare reform, green job creation, energy efficiency and climate change spending: We can’t catch up with the rest of the world if we don’t spend on those things, belatedly, right now. It’s not a matter of if, it’s when, and I believe the time is now. That’s what you elected me to do. These programs will stimulate the kind of recovery that will make sure our children don’t face the same kind of crisis in another generation.

Obama can no doubt improve on my language. He can probably improve the taxonomy of spending. He may even have different priorities. The point is, he has to lay them out.

He made a start today. Here’s what he said when introducing limits on executive compensation for firms getting TARP money:

That’s why I feel such a sense of urgency about the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that is before Congress today. With it, we can save or create more than three million jobs, doing things that will strengthen our country for generations to come. It is not merely a prescription for short-term spending – it’s a strategy for long-term economic growth in areas like renewable energy, health care, and education.

Now, in the past few days I’ve heard criticisms of this plan that echo the very same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can ignore fundamental challenges like energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject that theory, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. So I urge members of Congress to act without delay. No plan is perfect, and we should work to make it stronger. But let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the essential. Let’s show people all over our country who are looking for leadership in this difficult time that we are equal to the task.

It’s better, but it’s not enough. He needs bigger and simpler themes: Put money in the hands of those who need it most — and will spend it fastest. Create jobs and rebuild infrastructure so we see no more levees fail, bridges collapse and school buildings crumble. Invest in new, future-facing job-creating projects like new transit and green industry. Finally, do what our brave ancestors did, and make government again the engine of economic development, by providing the support 21st century employers and workers require: from Head Start and early education programs through college funding; new health insurance programs; lifetime worker retraining, investments in broadband infrastructure and green technologies.

It could be inspiring; it’s certainly necessary. If Obama fights on big themes of rights and responsibilities and how we get through this crisis together, he wins. If he lets the debate remain on the level of “Why is there contraception funding in the bill? How is furniture for the Department of Homeland Security stimulative? We’ve just got to reinflate the housing bubble!” he loses, and we lose. It shouldn’t be this hard.

Here’s how Madrick summed up the Reagan revolution. It’s depressing: “A life of family strain, inequality and insecurity has become accepted as inevitable. It is even thought to be a strength of America. This was Ronald Reagan’s Trojan horse, disguised as optimism.” But now it’s Morning in America, for the rest of us. Obama needs to take his sales pitch to a new level. People want to believe he can make a difference, but time’s a wasting.

Now, Henneberger is not a Republican. She’s a sorta-liberal, a veteran of the New York Times, Huffington Post, Slate and Politics Daily, who too often gives Republicans the benefit of the doubt, particularly when it comes to reproductive health issues. She emerged as a leading voice criticizing President Obama’s decision to require all employers, even religiously affiliated ones (though not churches) to provide contraception coverage in health insurance policies. You know my stand on that. But her questionable views on the politics of birth control got my attention a few weeks earlier, when she carried water for Rick Santorum and let him whine in an interview that Salon’s Irin Carmon had been unfair to him in her piece “Rick Santorum is coming for your birth control.”

Santorum told Henneberger: “The idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case.” Henneberger sided with him against Carmon. “If that’s the cleanest shot you’ve got, you might want to wait until a better one comes along,” she wrote.

OK, let’s stipulate: Rick Santorum isn’t personally coming for your birth control — in the sense of going into your nightstand and taking out your pills, your condoms or anything else you have there to prevent pregnancy (not even the aspirin that his moneyman Foster Friess would like you to put between your knees, ladies). But Santorum has not only made clear he believes contraception is morally wrong, he has called it “an important public policy issue” in his now infamous conversation with caffeinatedthoughts.com. That’s where he said, “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is, I think, the dangers of contraception in this country,” calling it “not okay,” and “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” Excuse me if I don’t trust that he’ll keep his benighted views to himself.

Santorum also confirmed to ABC’s Jake Tapper that he opposes the Supreme Court decision in Griswold vs. Connecticut that made state contraception-bans unconstitutional.  That’s pretty far out there: Even conservative Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito backed Griswold in their confirmation hearings. But Santorum told Henneberger that he only opposed Griswold because he believed “states have the right to pass even dumb laws,” and he elaborated: “It could have been a law against buying shoestrings; that it was contraception has nothing to do with it.” Um, sure.

Now that Santorum is catching hell for his extremist views on matters of women’s health, he’s turning up the volume on his insistence that he wouldn’t ban birth control. “My position is birth control can and should be available,” he said in Ohio last week.  And again, Henneberger is suggesting Democrats are overreaching by portraying the former Pennsylvania senator as an anti-contraception crusader. She quotes Santorum’s “longtime media consultant and friend” John Brabender complaining,  “No one is making birth control a topic. It’s not an agenda that anyone’s running on. But it’s a distortion that works to [the other side’s] benefit to imply we’re for limiting access to birth control.”

Henneberger agrees. “When I looked back at a tape of what Republicans have been saying on the topic, what’s striking is how reluctant they are to go there.” She says the “contraception lobby” is firing up outrage to raise money. And again, she defends Santorum and notes that he only wants to defund Planned Parenthood – he’s even voted in the past for Title X family planning funds. (Actually, here’s what he said to Fox: “I support Title X, I guess it is, and have voted for contraception and although I don’t think it works, I think it’s harmful to women, I think it’s harmful to our society.”)

Where to begin?

First of all, Santorum’s website says he will “Repeal Clinton-era Title X family planning regulations, and will direct HHS to restore the separation of Title X family planning from abortion practices and restore a ban on referrals for abortion.”  But federal law already prohibits Title X from funding abortion. So I’m not sure what he’s repealing. Santorum is also pushing to make sure Planned Parenthood can’t get Title X funding, which Henneberger implies is no big interference with contraception access. The fact is, 575 Planned Parenthood clinics get those federal family planning funds – in some states and counties, it’s the only agency providing Title X services. So defunding Planned Parenthood because a separate arm of the organization provides abortion services hits Title X, and hard. Santorum’s plan would also keep Title X money out of health centers or hospitals or agencies that perform abortions, even when they’re medically necessary. So, sorry, John Brabender, your candidate is “for limiting access to birth control.” Severely, as Mitt Romney might say.

Santorum also supports various state “personhood” amendments, which would ban many forms of birth control, including the pill, IUD, the ring and the so-called morning after pill, because they can interfere with a fertilized egg implanting in the uterus. It’s true that some personhood proponents say the measures won’t ban the pill, while other personhood backers happily insist they will. The laws are written so broadly that no one knows exactly what they’ll do. That’s why former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, no fan of the “contraception lobby,” opposed his state’s personhood legislation. But Santorum and the entire GOP field support it (Romney, typically, has been unclear about exactly which version he backs).

So honestly, I find it stunning that anyone is arguing that it’s Democrats who are “putting focus” on this issue and then profiting from it, politically or financially.  President Obama followed the advice of the Institute of Medicine and required insurers to include no-cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act, because it’s best for women’s health and it also saves money. It was Republicans who politicized the issue, even after the president compromised with Catholic groups and took religious agencies out of the middle of the exchange. House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell lined up behind bills to repeal that requirement – Santorum and every GOP presidential candidate support their efforts — even though federal law mandates that insurance plans include all sorts of medical treatment. Democrats didn’t make them single out contraception as a mandated benefit.

Democrats also didn’t tell GOP Rep. Darrell Issa to hold a hearing on the issue – and to leave women off the opening panel entirely. Yes, Emily’s List is raising money on Issa’s blunder, with an ad featuring Rep. Carolyn Maloney asking Issa sternly “Where are the women?” It’s a good ad, but Issa and crew provided the visuals willingly.

Likewise, Democrats didn’t concoct the trend of requiring women seeking legal abortion to be harassed by undergoing an ultrasound first. The news that Virginia’s version of that law would mandate a creepy transvaginal ultrasound shocked the nation – and Wednesday Gov. Bob McDonnell says he won’t sign a bill mandating that forced penetration. That’s progress – and women’s rights groups and Democrats achieved it, by publicizing the Virginia GOP’s overreach.

Are Democrats and women’s groups capitalizing on the political opportunity these backward Republicans are providing? Absolutely, as well they should. But we should be clear: To say, “It’s Democrats who are putting focus on contraception” is a distortion. On “Hardball” today, Henneberger, to her credit, backed away from the language about the “contraception lobby” that she used in her Post piece, and said about Democrats and women’s groups, “it’s no outrage to raise money.” You can watch our conversation here:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The man who calls contraception “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be” went from being a failed Pennsylvania senator, Mr. “Man on Dog,” to GOP presidential front-runner over the last month. Now he’s crusading against prenatal testing because he claims it encourages abortion (when in fact most prenatal testing helps women help babies who develop in utero health issues) and claiming President Obama’s policies will ultimately send Christians to the guillotine. (By the way, I apologize for harping on the way Protestants have persecuted Catholics in the U.S., because Santorum reminded me of some of the reason why, with his charge that mainline Protestant churches are a Satan-sponsored “shambles” that are “gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”) He and Mitt Romney, who’s trying to match him outrage for outrage, have been chasing women voters away from the GOP in droves over the last couple of months.

Into that polarizing political climate came the news that Virginia Republicans want to go where no politician of any stripe belongs: up the vaginal canal and into the uteruses of pregnant women who are seeking an abortion. The bill already passed the state Senate, and clearing the House of Delegates seemed a mere formality, especially given that Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas already have ultrasound requirements. A mere formality, that is, until people began paying attention.

Now, for two days straight, the Virginia House of Delegates has postponed its vote on the bill. More than a thousand protesters lined walkways to the state Capitol to silently protest the bill on Monday, and their powerful statement seemed to still resonate on Tuesday. The bill is expected to pass eventually, but with every day, the national backlash against the measure helps its opponents’ chances. On MSNBC’s “Politics Nation” Tuesday Virginia delegate Kaye Kory urged the media to keep paying attention. Gov. Bob McDonnell, who supports the bill, is often mentioned as a GOP vice presidential nominee, and his office has emitted a few warning signs of alarm over the last couple of days. As far right as Republicans have lurched, it can’t be helpful for McDonnell to find his Virginia GOP accused of supporting state-sanctioned rape for forcing unwilling women to submit to vaginal penetration in order to exercise their legal right to an abortion.

Of course, the Virginia GOP still has its fervent defenders. CNN commentator Dana Loesch outdid herself (and that takes a lot) by suggesting that women had implicitly consented to such a procedure when they consented to vaginal penetration during sex. Wait. Let me make sure I’m not misinterpreting her. Here’s what she said: “Progressives are trying to say, that it’s rape and so on and so forth … They had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy.” If that sounds like crazy talk – and it is — a Virginia Republican who supports the procedure said much the same thing, telling a Democratic colleague that women had already consented to being “vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant,” according to Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick. I hope Virginia Republican women will ask their male partners whether they believe consenting to sex represents consenting to state-sponsored vaginal penetration as well. I know, it might be a mood-killer, but it’s a good thing to find out.

As Steve Kornacki observed this morning, Santorum may be compromising his own political future almost as much as he’s compromising women’s rights with his increasingly crackpot declarations. He’s also helping Virginians who oppose their state GOP’s extremism to get attention to their cause, while the Virginia GOP helps national Democrats sound alarms about Santorum’s lunacy.  It’s a win-win for proponents of women’s freedom. I keep pinching myself to make sure it’s not a political trick.

I talked about the GOP’s war on women’s rights with Virginia delegate Kaye Kory on MSNBC’s “Politics Nation”:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

“Something tells me, that if the upcoming election could be decided on social issues, the Republicans could win that in a landslide, because we are on the right side of the culture war,” he said. “The problem is, we’re scared to death of it. The Republican establishment wants no part of it.”

Smart Republicans are indeed afraid of the culture wars – because they know they’re on the losing side. Sadly, there aren’t very many smart Republicans anymore; or at least there aren’t very many who will stand up to extremists in their base and say enough is enough on their jihad against birth control.

A majority of women voters, 51 percent, now approve of the job Obama is doing, according to the weekly Gallup tracking poll, up from a low of 41 percent last August (only 43 percent of men approve.) A Democracy Corps poll taken from Feb. 8-13 found Obama now leads Mitt Romney 65-30 among unmarried women, an 18-point swing since November. (Yes, Democracy Corps is run by Democrats, but they regularly deliver bad news for their party when their polls require it.) Women may also be behind some more bad news for Republicans: A majority of seniors, thought to be the party’s base, now view the GOP negatively, according to Democracy Corps. Most seniors happen to be women.

It’s not only women who disapprove of Republican extremism on contraception, though: a New York Times poll this week found that two-thirds of all voters support requiring health care plans to cover the whole cost of birth control – including almost three-quarters of women. By the way, Catholics support the measure 67-25. The only group that has a problem with it is evangelical Christians, the core of the GOP base.

Please remember that all three of those polls were taken before Thursday, when Rick Santorum’s money man Foster Freiss made his idiotic joke about aspirin serving as birth control (if it’s held tightly between the knees, a joke straight out of a ’50s locker room) and Darrell Issa assembled only men on a panel to talk about what women can do with their bodies.

That’s why Rush Limbaugh can’t even keep up the pretext that contraception is a winning issue for his party throughout an entire broadcast. During the very same show in which he told Republicans they’d win if the election was decided on culture-war issues, he also accused Democrats of starting the birth-control debate to hurt Santorum. But how can it hurt him if a culture war is good for Republicans? None of his callers asked him that question. Here’s more of what he said:

The whole point of bringing up contraception and trying to make it look like the Republicans want to ban birth control is simply something to excite the Democrat base, which has been depressed as it can be because their president has done a rotten job.  The economy is in the tank.

Of course, Limbaugh is wrong about that too. The economy isn’t great, but it’s improving and voters are giving the president better marks for that, too. Also: the base isn’t depressed. The Democracy Corps poll found that Republican Party extremism combined with the improving economy is revving up the Democratic base again, pulling what they call the “Rising American Electorate” of young people, unmarried women and non-white voters back behind Obama and his party. Meanwhile, it’s the GOP base that appears depressed, with turnout either flat or down in every primary and caucus except South Carolina.

Even Michael Steele didn’t try to spin the bad news for his party on “Hardball” today. I did catch him trying to blame Obama for craftily making the contraception debate about…contraception. How dare he?

Here’s my “Hardball” conversation with Steele. I had the easy side this time.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The other factor in my dismissing Santorum is that I’ve assumed Romney’s money would demolish Santorum the way it did Gingrich. And it may yet. But if Wednesday marked the opening of Romney’s scorched-earth campaign against Santorum, it didn’t scorch anything.

Romney’s anti-Santorum ads are weak tea, compared with his ads against Gingrich.  I even went to Rickfacts.com to find the outrages behind the ads. There aren’t any. Maybe Tea Party voters can get exercised over Santorum’s support for earmarks, raising the debt ceiling and other government spending, but I sort of doubt it. The worst thing Romney’s got on him is that he voted to restore the voting rights of certain felons, along with Hillary Clinton, in 2003. That makes me like Santorum a little bit, which I’m sure is a sign it will appall the Tea Party. Still, Clinton isn’t as polarizing as Nancy Pelosi, who relishes her role in bringing Gingrich down with that cozy, couch-sitting climate change ad. Romney’s new barrage makes me wonder if maybe, there isn’t that much material to use trashing Santorum. Or at least not much that Romney can use.

The Obama campaign would have endless material, should Santorum survive the Romney contest. But the former Massachusetts governor can’t attack Santorum’s extremism, because on most social issues he’s gone out and joined him over on the far right. Now, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough says Romney folks are quietly behind several new media revelations about Santorum’s contraception extremism. But Romney can’t blast him in ads when he’s trying to join his side in the culture wars.

On “Hardball” today, former Mike Huckabee campaign manager Chip Saltsman advised Romney to be himself, to run on his record – as a family man, a business man, a governor, and the head of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. But I don’t think it’s that easy. Romney and Santorum both have big, lovely-looking families. That’s a draw. He tried to run on his record as a “job creator” and business maven at Bain Capital, but it turns out he was also a job destroyer and his Bain role is part of what makes him the face of the top 1 percent. Attention to Romney’s business record was actually disastrous for him.

Of course, his record as the Republican governor of a blue state, who paved the way in providing universal health insurance and accommodated Massachusetts liberalism on reproductive health, might really help him in a match with Obama, if he gets there. But he’s abandoned most of the positions that might attract independents and speak to his ability to get beyond the partisan gridlock everyone supposedly hates – a pitch that worked for a first-term senator from Illinois in 2008. Besides, that wouldn’t be much help during the primaries, anyway.

Worst of all, his Michigan roots were supposed to make that state’s primary a cakewalk. But unbelievably – or not – Santorum’s now ahead there, too. Romney bet wrong when he declared in a 2008 New York Times op-ed that the president should let the auto industries go bankrupt, and he’s paying for it now (despite ridiculous attempts to spin what Obama did as somehow derived from his advice.) And in a sentimental ad about his Detroit roots, it turns out Romney is riding in a Chrysler manufactured in Canada. The guy can’t fake authenticity no matter how hard he tries.

So all the former front-runner’s really got is his money to smear his opponents (I’m sorry I used the term “smear Santorum” on television tonight. It won’t happen again.) But his first barrage at Santorum won’t do much damage. In fact, Santorum released a surprisingly funny (normally funny and Santorum don’t mix) ad attacking “Rombo” for his well-funded mudslinging. It’s all in the video, below. I still think Romney is the candidate to beat, given his war chest and Santorum’s spare campaign, but he’s going to ride some tough road in his Canadian-manufactured Chrysler in the weeks to come.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What do I know? “Coming Apart” is No. 9 on the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list, and it’s been reviewed, with varying degrees of respect, almost everywhere that matters. The good news is, even on the right, some critics reject Murray’s fatalism. I practically never agree with the New York Times’ Ross Douthat, but in his review of “Coming Apart,” he acknowledges that finding “ways to make it easier for parents to manage work-life balance when their kids are young” might help working-class families stay together, and maybe even more important, that “high incarceration rates” are to blame for the shortage of men in low-income communities. Douthat and I found some common ground there, thanks to Charles Murray.

David Frum, a conservative with whom I agree more frequently, wrote a magisterial five-part takedown of Murray’s book here. Frum writes about something I’ve been harping on lately: the way government worked to create the American middle class after the twin shocks of the Great Depression and World War II. He notes that the so-called greatest generation was also “the statist generation,” and ties the troubles of the white working class to the decline of industries as well as policies that once provided it with security and economic mobility. Contrary to Murray’s depiction of a golden, harmonious age of unfettered capitalism, Frum shows that it wasn’t unfettered capitalism that created the mythical middle class; it was quite fettered capitalism.

I winced at one line in Frum’s review, though, and that’s when he noted that he still admires “Losing Ground.” I’m not sure how Frum can be so right about “Coming Apart” and so wrong about “Losing Ground.” Murray’s 1984 work held that poverty programs were to blame for worsening poverty, since they supposedly rewarded indolence and punished two-parent families, and he paid special attention to rising rates of welfare recipiency and single parenthood in low-income black communities. Since then, we sponsored a massive social experiment based on Murray’s claims: We ended welfare as we knew it, requiring that recipients either work or engage in serious job training and capping eligibility at two years consecutively and five years lifetime.  While it may have (briefly) looked as though welfare reform encouraged industry in the underclass, more poor people got jobs in the 1990s largely because there were more jobs for the getting: 22 million were created in the eight years of the Clinton administration. Those trends have since reversed, and all the while rates of single motherhood continued to climb. Murray was as wrong about black families in 1984 as he is about white families today.

“On Point” host Tom Ashbrook did a great job parrying Murray’s claims, but we didn’t spend much time discussing Murray’s genetic fatalism. This book continues where “The Bell Curve” left off: It warns that the nation is splitting into a highly educated, highly privileged elite (the residents of his composite “Belmont”) and an increasingly large lower class (the denizens of fictional “Fishtown”). At bottom, though, Murray believes that the widening gulf is due to modern society finding better ways to identify and reward the highly intelligent among us. And since IQ is “intractable” – Murray no longer uses the words “genetic” or “innate” – the various ways we decide to structure society and create opportunity won’t make much of a difference. As I come from a people – Irish Catholics – whose median IQ has climbed along with the opportunities provided to us, I know that Murray is wrong. IQ is not destiny.

I’ve written at length about my problems with the book, and with Murray’s attributing the success of America’s uber-class to their industriousness and religiosity along with their superior intelligence. I don’t need to rehash it. But in preparing for the debate I found an interesting exchange in an online chat hosted by the Wall Street Journal that displays Murray’s thinking on these issues even more clearly than his carefully phrased and (slightly) nuanced book does. One reader asked whether predatory banking conditions in low-income communities might play a role in their unraveling, and Murray quite simply said no.

We’re talking about IQ more than culture. It helps to be living in a neighborhood where smart actions about money are common, but the main breakdown is IQ. Lots of smart people in Fishtown do the right thing, but (politically incorrect warning) there are more smart people in Belmont than in Fishtown.

If you’re looking for a quick synopsis of “Coming Apart,” you’ve got it right there.

Murray closed our debate by telling Ashbrook that he’s pessimistic about reversing these trends. I said I’m optimistic. I joked on Twitter today that my (almost finished) book is a rejoinder to Murray’s pessimism. Maybe I’ll call it “Coming Together: How the White Working Class Woke Up and Realized the Right Now Thinks They’re Dumb and Lazy, Too.” Given the role of race and racism in dividing the Democratic Party, I believe the naked class bias of the GOP might help white working-class voters see that by voting Republican, they’re dismantling the opportunity society that once made success more widely possible.