A Movie Recommendation
As the Academy Awards show evidently is going on right now, it seems appropriate to praise Pan's Labyrinth, which Annie and I finally caught this afternoon following a month or so of failed attempts to see it.
I'm having trouble articulating exactly what it was about this film that moved us so much. It's beautifully shot (I saw on the NYT site a few minutes ago that it won Best Cinematography) and visually amazing (ditto Best Art Direction and Makeup). The performances are remarkable, even more so for the filmmakers' decisions to cast a bunch of key roles against type, at least if Wiki is to be believed.
But I think it's the story, really. Or rather, two stories. One plot involves an anti-insurgency action in a remote corner of Spain, five years after the Francoite fascists won that country's civil war: an army captain has set up an outpost to capture or kill a group of Republican holdouts, summoning his pregnant wife and her daughter by a previous marriage to live with him for the duration of the campaign. As this story plays out, the captain's cruelty comes into sharp focus: he summarily executes two villagers, tortures a captured guerilla, and bullies his wife and her daughter. As his kind but meek wife weakens through the course of her pregnancy, the captain makes it increasingly clear that her value to him is nothing more than the bearer of his son-to-be.
The second story, which frames the movie at beginning and end and recurs throughout, involves the daughter. She is the reincarnation of a princess from the underworld who in ages long past went to the surface of the earth, forgot who she was, and died in confusion. Upon arriving at the captain's outpost, she discovers a labyrinth in the woods, and is subsequently visited by a faun who tells her of her true identity and sets her three tasks to prove that her "essence is intact."
Over the course of the movie, the girl is torn between the imperatives of her increasingly desperate "real life" and the mission she must complete to fulfill her destiny. Compared to virtually every other character in the story, though, she is blessed and fortunate: while the rest of them--fascist soldiers, resistance fighters, household staff, her own mother, perhaps even the captain--are caught up in forces beyond their control and reduced to acting out set roles in a larger drama, in the shadowy world of the faun she at least has some control over her own dispensation.
The movie works as narrative, as wish fulfillment, as drama and fantasy. It's probably the best film I've seen in three years, maybe longer. And it took me far away from a relatively dismal February Sunday without very much else to recommend it.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Are They Cracking?
In the classic Simpsons episode "Sideshow Bob Roberts," the Springfield Republican Party meets to choose a candidate to run against Diamond Joe Quimby, a Democrat, for the mayoralty. The group, which convenes in a scary-looking castle, includes Mr. Burns, Rainier Wolfcastle, Birchibald T. Barlow (a right-wing radio host modeled on Rush Limbaugh), the Blue-Haired Lawyer, and the Rich Texan, as well as Dracula.
Aside from the fact that the Springfield Republican cabal didn't, to my knowledge, include any rabidly intolerant religious fundamentalists, the gathering is reminiscent of the Council for National Policy, described in this article from today's New York Times as "a secretive club whose few hundred members include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls, including George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign."
The main thrust of the story is that the Council, and its members who constitute much of the leadership among "movement Republicans," are struggling to find a candidate to rally behind for next year's presidential election:
Yes, 2008 is shaping up to be a tough one for the collection of ideologues and psychopaths that's done so much to give us all the black spot on our history that's been these last six years. McCain and Giuliani are desperate to kiss their asses, but Dobson and Norquist simply won't drop their pants. They have long memories, for one thing: if Dobson had been as prominent in 2000 as he later became, McCain likely would have labeled him (correctly) as an "agent of intolerance," and Norquist has detested McCain at least since the Arizona senator started holding the hearings on Indian Affairs that eventually helped destroy Grover's pals Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed. As for Rudy, I guess they just can't stomach his deviations from orthodoxy on abortion (which I'm sure he'd renounce if he credibly could) and, perhaps even worse, his sympathy for gay rights (about which I have the feeling he's sincere, and stubborn enough to stay with--the one thing I admire about the man). They'd probably like to support Romney, but his own sins against the dogma are too recent for them to shrug off with a straight face.
How about the next tier? Every time I've seen or read something about Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who shares Bill Clinton's home town and working class roots, I've been impressed with his potential as a candidate who could talk the talk of the Dobsonite hate crowd, but do so in a way that isn't as viscerally ugly as when, say, Rick Santorum did it. And Sam Brownback, the Kansas senator who was Santorum's political soulmate, seems reliably right-wing enough. But both evidently have their drawbacks for the Council crew, as do the rest of the Republican hopefuls.
In what could prompt the greatest moment of schadenfreude I'll ever know, there seems to be a decent chance that the once-vaunted Republican machine is about to take a wrong turn into 1980s Democratland. An insistence upon ideological purity, as defined by a checklist of issue positions, is a great way to lose elections. The guy hasn't always hated gays? He once allowed a tax hike? He isn't fanatically pro-free trade? WE WILL NOT SUPPORT HIM!
There's an issue of potentially even greater significance here, though. Over the last forty years, the emerging and then dominant Republican coalition of free-market fundamentalists (the small group that provides the money) and social reactionaries (the large group that provides the votes and organizational structure) has persisted because of an unwillingness to acknowledge the core contradiction between those two groups that is in some sense positively admirable. The contradiction is that the same cultural forces the social reactionaries deplore--the trash TV and debased media--make enormous sums of money for the free-market fanatics, and that the negative externalities of their ever-growing profits--the need in almost all families for both parents to work, the erosion of once-assumed benefits like health care and retirement savings, the stagnant or relatively declining wages for most segments of the workforce--place unbearable additional strains on families. To my knowledge, the next time "Focus on the Family" addresses the tilted economic landscape in this country will be the first... but its members are living this problem, and they can't hide from it forever.
To this point, they've been able to obscure this question--to ignore the contradiction--by finding one scapegoat after another, whether it's Muslims or gays or Hollywood celebrities or feminist bloggers. Combined with more money and better political organization, the scapegoating was enough for them to win more elections than not from 1994 through 2004. Last year, though, it started to unravel (with, admittedly, a big assist from the tragic mismanagement of the war and the excessive corruption antics of Tom DeLay's Congress). And as time goes on, this probably will get tougher: successive generations just don't hate and fear gays the way older social reactionaries evidently do, and all sides in the endless war over abortion are feeling fatigue, as the South Dakota votes have shown.
In the end, I can't quite bring myself to believe that the Republicans will dash themselves to bits on the rocks of an ideological purity that the contradiction renders impossible. They just like winning too much. Norquist, a government-hating fanatic who might be the most purely evil political figure of the last forty years, ultimately will leverage whatever he can out of Giuliani or his old enemy McCain in exchange for support, and then the question will be whether the Democrats can push hard enough on the cracks to cause a full-on rupture that will split the money chunk of the party from the reactionaries.
In the classic Simpsons episode "Sideshow Bob Roberts," the Springfield Republican Party meets to choose a candidate to run against Diamond Joe Quimby, a Democrat, for the mayoralty. The group, which convenes in a scary-looking castle, includes Mr. Burns, Rainier Wolfcastle, Birchibald T. Barlow (a right-wing radio host modeled on Rush Limbaugh), the Blue-Haired Lawyer, and the Rich Texan, as well as Dracula.
Aside from the fact that the Springfield Republican cabal didn't, to my knowledge, include any rabidly intolerant religious fundamentalists, the gathering is reminiscent of the Council for National Policy, described in this article from today's New York Times as "a secretive club whose few hundred members include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls, including George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign."
The main thrust of the story is that the Council, and its members who constitute much of the leadership among "movement Republicans," are struggling to find a candidate to rally behind for next year's presidential election:
Many of the conservatives who attended the event, held at the beginning of the month at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., said they were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election.
Many conservatives have already declared their hostility to Senator John McCain of Arizona, despite his efforts to make amends for having once denounced Christian conservative leaders as “agents of intolerance,” and to former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, because of his liberal views on abortion and gay rights and his three marriages.
Many were also suspicious of former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts; the council has been distributing to its members a dossier prepared by a Massachusetts conservative group about liberal elements of his record on abortion, stem cell research and gay rights. (Mr. Romney has worked to convince conservatives that his views have changed.)
And some members of the council have raised doubts about lesser known candidates — Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Representative Duncan Hunter of California, who were invited to Amelia Island to address an elite audience of about 60 of its members, and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who spoke to the full council at its previous meeting, in October in Grand Rapids, Mich.
Although each of the three had supporters, many conservatives expressed concerns about whether any of the candidates could unify their movement or raise enough money to overtake the front-runners, several participants in the meetings said.
Yes, 2008 is shaping up to be a tough one for the collection of ideologues and psychopaths that's done so much to give us all the black spot on our history that's been these last six years. McCain and Giuliani are desperate to kiss their asses, but Dobson and Norquist simply won't drop their pants. They have long memories, for one thing: if Dobson had been as prominent in 2000 as he later became, McCain likely would have labeled him (correctly) as an "agent of intolerance," and Norquist has detested McCain at least since the Arizona senator started holding the hearings on Indian Affairs that eventually helped destroy Grover's pals Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed. As for Rudy, I guess they just can't stomach his deviations from orthodoxy on abortion (which I'm sure he'd renounce if he credibly could) and, perhaps even worse, his sympathy for gay rights (about which I have the feeling he's sincere, and stubborn enough to stay with--the one thing I admire about the man). They'd probably like to support Romney, but his own sins against the dogma are too recent for them to shrug off with a straight face.
How about the next tier? Every time I've seen or read something about Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who shares Bill Clinton's home town and working class roots, I've been impressed with his potential as a candidate who could talk the talk of the Dobsonite hate crowd, but do so in a way that isn't as viscerally ugly as when, say, Rick Santorum did it. And Sam Brownback, the Kansas senator who was Santorum's political soulmate, seems reliably right-wing enough. But both evidently have their drawbacks for the Council crew, as do the rest of the Republican hopefuls.
A spokesman for Mr. Brownback said he would not comment on the senator’s presentation to the council, citing its rules about strict confidentiality. Several others who attended his speech said he received heavy applause for his emphasis on restricting abortion and amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. But foes of illegal immigration objected to his support for a temporary guest worker program, and some faulted him for touching only briefly on the threat of Islamic terrorists, an increasingly central focus of the council and many social conservative groups since the Sept. 11 attacks.
...
In an interview, Mr. [Duncan] Hunter, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee and a supporter of Mr. Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq, said the need for a strong national defense was the centerpiece of his speech. That defense, he argued, should include cracking down on illegal immigration, building a wall along the Mexican border and renegotiating foreign trade deals to protect American manufacturing. “We are losing the arsenal of the democracy,” he said.
But several people at the council meeting said his stance on trade alienated the business wing of the Republican Party, compounding his substantial fund-raising challenges.
Mr. Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister who was the head of the Arkansas Baptist convention before becoming governor, has the advantage of strong personal ties to many council members. Many prominent evangelical Christians consider him a friend, and he has appeared several times as a guest on Dr. Dobson’s popular Christian radio program.
...
But many conservatives, including several participants in the Amelia Island meeting, said Mr. Huckabee faced resistance from the limited-government, antitax wing of their movement. Some antitax activists fault Mr. Huckabee for presiding over tax and spending increases. (He says the only tax increase resulted from a public referendum.)
In what could prompt the greatest moment of schadenfreude I'll ever know, there seems to be a decent chance that the once-vaunted Republican machine is about to take a wrong turn into 1980s Democratland. An insistence upon ideological purity, as defined by a checklist of issue positions, is a great way to lose elections. The guy hasn't always hated gays? He once allowed a tax hike? He isn't fanatically pro-free trade? WE WILL NOT SUPPORT HIM!
There's an issue of potentially even greater significance here, though. Over the last forty years, the emerging and then dominant Republican coalition of free-market fundamentalists (the small group that provides the money) and social reactionaries (the large group that provides the votes and organizational structure) has persisted because of an unwillingness to acknowledge the core contradiction between those two groups that is in some sense positively admirable. The contradiction is that the same cultural forces the social reactionaries deplore--the trash TV and debased media--make enormous sums of money for the free-market fanatics, and that the negative externalities of their ever-growing profits--the need in almost all families for both parents to work, the erosion of once-assumed benefits like health care and retirement savings, the stagnant or relatively declining wages for most segments of the workforce--place unbearable additional strains on families. To my knowledge, the next time "Focus on the Family" addresses the tilted economic landscape in this country will be the first... but its members are living this problem, and they can't hide from it forever.
To this point, they've been able to obscure this question--to ignore the contradiction--by finding one scapegoat after another, whether it's Muslims or gays or Hollywood celebrities or feminist bloggers. Combined with more money and better political organization, the scapegoating was enough for them to win more elections than not from 1994 through 2004. Last year, though, it started to unravel (with, admittedly, a big assist from the tragic mismanagement of the war and the excessive corruption antics of Tom DeLay's Congress). And as time goes on, this probably will get tougher: successive generations just don't hate and fear gays the way older social reactionaries evidently do, and all sides in the endless war over abortion are feeling fatigue, as the South Dakota votes have shown.
In the end, I can't quite bring myself to believe that the Republicans will dash themselves to bits on the rocks of an ideological purity that the contradiction renders impossible. They just like winning too much. Norquist, a government-hating fanatic who might be the most purely evil political figure of the last forty years, ultimately will leverage whatever he can out of Giuliani or his old enemy McCain in exchange for support, and then the question will be whether the Democrats can push hard enough on the cracks to cause a full-on rupture that will split the money chunk of the party from the reactionaries.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Following up on an Earlier Story...
NEW YORK—At a well-attended rally in front of his new Ground Zero headquarters Monday, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani officially announced his plan to run for president of 9/11.
"My fellow citizens of 9/11, today I will make you a promise," said Giuliani during his 18-minute announcement speech in front of a charred and torn American flag. "As president of 9/11, I will usher in a bold new 9/11 for all."
...
"Let us all remember how we felt on that day, with the world watching our every move, waiting on our every word," said Giuliani, flanked by several firefighters, ex-New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, and Judith Nathan, his third wife. "With a campaign built on traditional 9/11 values, and with the help of every citizen who believes in the 9/11 dream, I want to make 9/11 great again."
According to Washington–based political analyst Gregory Hammond, Giuliani's candidacy "should not be underestimated."
"Sure, he has no foreign or national policy experience, and both his personal life and political career are riddled with scandal," said Hammond. "But in the key area of having been on TV on 9/11, the other candidates simply cannot match him. And as we saw in 2004, that's what matters most to voters in this post-9/11 world."
...
With more than a year until the primaries—unless Giuliani's court-filed request to hold New York's primary on the second Tuesday in September is approved—Giuliani said it is too early to discuss potential running mates, though he refused to rule out the possibility of naming a twisted, half-melted aluminum beam, an FDNY ball cap, or even John McCain. Giuliani, however, called rumors that he had met with a large shard of glass from the wreckage of the Pentagon "patently untrue."
"Letting 9/11 fall into the hands of the Democrats in 2008 would be nothing short of a national tragedy," Giuliani said. "Ever since 9/11 was founded that fateful day on 9/11, 9/11 has stood for one thing: 9/11."
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
A Tale of Two Mayors
I've made no secret, here or anywhere else, of the fact that I'm a big fan of current NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and an equally big detractor of his predecessor Rudy Giuliani. And even considering that we're 20-plus months from the 2008 presidential election, I find it distinctly unnerving that Giuliani, with his unholy blend of narcissism and authoritarianism, is leading in many primary and general election polls.
Yes, it's more likely than not that he'll blow it in one of several ways. He might find it impossible to sufficiently pander to the Zombie Army voters who swoon for his perceived toughness but choke on the abortion-supporting, gay-tolerating, drag-dressing track record that was his price of entrance for high office in socially liberal New York City. (As a side note, the frequent descriptions of Giuliani as a moderate or even liberal Republican has to be Exhibit A for the silliness of these labels. There's more that goes into political character than one's stances on sex-related "issues" that sell copy and draw eyeballs but are crashingly irrelevant to most Americans.) His many unsavory personal ties, from marrying his cousin and publicly running around on his second wife to elevating the odious Bernie Kerik from personal driver to NYC police chief to Secretary of Homeland Security nominee and setting the even more odious Russell Harding loose within the city bureaucracy, could be his undoing. Or he might simply blow up at a questioner at a New Hampshire diner or Iowa fair, while a cellphone or digital camera silently captures the moment for YouTubing. It's also possible that he just isn't up for a tough political fight; after all, he hasn't had one since 1993, rolling over the politically inept Ruth Messinger in 1997 and bowing out early from the 2000 Senate campaign.
Somewhat like Hillary Clinton (but with perhaps a bit more justification owing solely to 9/11), Giuliani is trying to mount a cult of personality campaign around a personality that isn't really likable. He must hope that his aura of "leadership" will outweigh the many factual strikes against him, and that his stature as mayor of New York City during a period when perceived (and, to be fair, actual) quality of life improved here will obscure some of the specifics that mar his record.
Meanwhile, there's Bloomberg. He has no cult of personality; for the first two years of his mayoralty, it wasn't clear that he had a personality. But he's made city government work better here than it ever has, and probably better than it's worked anywhere. He's taken on the toughest issues and almost redeemed the Ross Perot ideal of "running government like a business"--if that means demanding performance and accountability, rather than seeking to maximize profits for investors (the Bush/Cheney version of this trope). Will he run for president? At the moment, I doubt it, though there will be a huge window for some third-party candidate to jump in during the six months of buyers' remorse between when the nominees are decided and the conventions are held. Could he win? I doubt that even more, because his money can't buy him a myth, and that's where our politics are right now.
Jacob Weisberg, writing in Slate, deftly compares the last two Republicans to run the Big Apple:
Pretty much. Giuliani is obviously much smarter than Bush, and he's made his way in life far more on his own merits than the Deciderer. But he shares Bush's vanity and essential uninterest in policy, and he might be even more arrogant. A Giuliani administration could take the core bad ideas of the Bush presidency--that all politics is personal, that the perception of toughness is more important than actual deeds, that nuance is defeatist and that power is best exercised by one inspired Leader rather than through a messy collective process--and match them with some degree of operational competence. A scary thought, that.
I've made no secret, here or anywhere else, of the fact that I'm a big fan of current NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and an equally big detractor of his predecessor Rudy Giuliani. And even considering that we're 20-plus months from the 2008 presidential election, I find it distinctly unnerving that Giuliani, with his unholy blend of narcissism and authoritarianism, is leading in many primary and general election polls.
Yes, it's more likely than not that he'll blow it in one of several ways. He might find it impossible to sufficiently pander to the Zombie Army voters who swoon for his perceived toughness but choke on the abortion-supporting, gay-tolerating, drag-dressing track record that was his price of entrance for high office in socially liberal New York City. (As a side note, the frequent descriptions of Giuliani as a moderate or even liberal Republican has to be Exhibit A for the silliness of these labels. There's more that goes into political character than one's stances on sex-related "issues" that sell copy and draw eyeballs but are crashingly irrelevant to most Americans.) His many unsavory personal ties, from marrying his cousin and publicly running around on his second wife to elevating the odious Bernie Kerik from personal driver to NYC police chief to Secretary of Homeland Security nominee and setting the even more odious Russell Harding loose within the city bureaucracy, could be his undoing. Or he might simply blow up at a questioner at a New Hampshire diner or Iowa fair, while a cellphone or digital camera silently captures the moment for YouTubing. It's also possible that he just isn't up for a tough political fight; after all, he hasn't had one since 1993, rolling over the politically inept Ruth Messinger in 1997 and bowing out early from the 2000 Senate campaign.
Somewhat like Hillary Clinton (but with perhaps a bit more justification owing solely to 9/11), Giuliani is trying to mount a cult of personality campaign around a personality that isn't really likable. He must hope that his aura of "leadership" will outweigh the many factual strikes against him, and that his stature as mayor of New York City during a period when perceived (and, to be fair, actual) quality of life improved here will obscure some of the specifics that mar his record.
Meanwhile, there's Bloomberg. He has no cult of personality; for the first two years of his mayoralty, it wasn't clear that he had a personality. But he's made city government work better here than it ever has, and probably better than it's worked anywhere. He's taken on the toughest issues and almost redeemed the Ross Perot ideal of "running government like a business"--if that means demanding performance and accountability, rather than seeking to maximize profits for investors (the Bush/Cheney version of this trope). Will he run for president? At the moment, I doubt it, though there will be a huge window for some third-party candidate to jump in during the six months of buyers' remorse between when the nominees are decided and the conventions are held. Could he win? I doubt that even more, because his money can't buy him a myth, and that's where our politics are right now.
Jacob Weisberg, writing in Slate, deftly compares the last two Republicans to run the Big Apple:
[T]he presidential bid Rudy announced last week is... based on the notion that he is an effective manager who tamed an out-of-control metropolis and ran it efficiently. The real picture is somewhat more complicated. Giuliani was a frustrated and not very popular mayor on Sept. 10, 2001. Today, most New Yorkers do see him as a hero, but also as a self-sabotaging, thin-skinned bully. To put it more bluntly, we know he's a bit of a dictator.
The leadership/management dichotomy runs through Giuliani's two terms. When he first took office in 1994, New York desperately needed the kind of head-knocking at which he excels. After a quarter-century of decline, the city had become ungovernable and increasingly unlivable. The bloated public sector soaked up more and more resources to deliver less and less; quality of life measured by a dozen different indicators continued to erode. Like Margaret Thatcher in Britain, Rudy arrived bearing a strong message of "enough!" With a relish for combat, he took on a long list of civic tormentors who had been comfortable for too long, including municipal labor leaders, racial demagogues, and uncompromising civil libertarians.
...
But over time, Giuliani's Putin (or Rasputin)-like tendencies became increasingly evident. Instead of taking on new challenges after his re-election in 1997, he dedicated his second term to punishing his enemies, including his wife at the time. He made his former driver, Bernard Kerik, chief of police and retreated even further into the comfort of his cronies. Fran Reiter, who served as a deputy mayor under Giuliani, describes him as depressed and directionless after being sworn in for the second time. "He can get mired in the petty stuff," she told me. "He doesn't suffer political opponents well, and there are times when he doesn't compromise well."
In his second term, Giuliani showed himself to be a classic micromanager, unable to delegate and unwilling to share the spotlight. He had already driven out William Bratton, his victorious chief of police, in a battle over credit. Bratton's fate was sealed when he, not Rudy, appeared on the cover of Time. Nor could Giuliani abide mockery. He went to court to try to stop New York magazine from advertising itself on the sides of buses as "POSSIBLY THE ONLY GOOD THING IN NEW YORK RUDY HASN'T TAKEN CREDIT FOR." After Sept. 11, he threatened, in Caudillo-like fashion, to ignore the legal term limit and run for re-election again if the candidates running to succeed him didn't all agree to let him stay in office for three extra months.
Rudy's weaknesses as a manager—and as a human being—have become more evident in the light of his successor, Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg has neither a whim of steel nor a pandering bone in his body. Arriving in 2002 at a City Hall that had no e-mail system or computerized payroll, he quietly cleaned up the mess—including a huge number of dubious, no-bid contracts—without faulting his predecessor. He and his police commissioner, Ray Kelly, have managed to continue to make further gains against crime, which few thought possible, without becoming obsessed with their press clippings. Above all, Bloomberg has taken on the big problems Giuliani never faced, without the constant attitude that he might declare martial law if you cross him again.
...
This comparison doesn't make the case for Bloomberg as president so much as it underscores what a scary place a Giuliani White House could be. President Rudy would give powerful speeches denouncing terrorism while assuming extraordinary wartime powers. He'd reject compromise with his antagonists and ignore the nuts and bolts of running a government. After a few years, he'd be on nonspeaking terms with much of his cabinet, never mind his fellow world leaders. By the time he got done, he might make us appreciate George W. Bush.
Pretty much. Giuliani is obviously much smarter than Bush, and he's made his way in life far more on his own merits than the Deciderer. But he shares Bush's vanity and essential uninterest in policy, and he might be even more arrogant. A Giuliani administration could take the core bad ideas of the Bush presidency--that all politics is personal, that the perception of toughness is more important than actual deeds, that nuance is defeatist and that power is best exercised by one inspired Leader rather than through a messy collective process--and match them with some degree of operational competence. A scary thought, that.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Hillary's Iraq Vote; or, A Brief for Political Courage
Just from an armchair perspective, it's fascinating to watch the Clinton campaign try to square the circle of their candidate's vote in favor of authorizing military force against Iraq in 2002. Five years later, the main theoretical question left about the war is whether it's the very worst foreign policy blunder in American history, or merely among the worst, and the most important practical question is how to minimize the consequences of the tragic mistake. Some of those who voted for the war then repented of it later, most prominently John Edwards among current Democratic presidential hopefuls. Senator Clinton, though, has refused to "apologize," or even clearly and loudly say "I made a mistake."
And she's now trying to present this stubbornness as an act of political courage:
There was a place and a moment, of course, for the Senator to show political courage. But it wasn't New Hampshire in February 2007; it was Washington, DC, in October 2002.
Twenty-three Senators--21 Democrats, a lone Republican (Chafee), and an independent (Jeffords) showed their courage that day. In a vote three weeks before a close election, with the mainstream media beating the war drums so loudly that even the best-grounded, most credible skeptical views couldn't get a hearing, they voted against going to war. Among them were four Democrats who were up for re-election the following month: three of them--Durbin, Levin, and Jack Reed--won easily, and the fourth, Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, was pulling away when he tragically died in a plane crash two weeks after voting against the war.
By contrast, you had Hillary Clinton, more than four years from having to face the voters again, but representing a state where the emotional echoes of September 11 were still deafening. She voted to give Bush authorization to use force, evidently hoping against all evidence that he would brandish this authorization for diplomatic leverage rather than to directly send Americans into harm's way. She wanted to set out a middle course--shocking, I know--between immediate, pre-emptive attack and indefinitely waiting for the diplomatic process to play out. (Read her speech and see for yourself.)
Senator Clinton's thought process, as she details it in the speech, actually shows both her strengths and weaknesses. She takes into account a number of relevant factors: Saddam Hussein's history of defying the UN, America's own degree of culpability for his crimes (arming him in the 1980s and shrugging off his massacres of the Kurds, then standing aside as he had thousands of rebelling Shi'ites and Kurds killed in 1991), her own views on the great power of the executive to use force, formed during her husband's tenure in the White House, and, by her own admission, the emotional resonance of representing New York 11 months after the devastating and traumatic attack:
What's missing is any consideration of the particulars of the case against Saddam, or even healthy skepticism that the collection of ideologues within the administration might have a thumb on the scale.
And the political calculation is pretty clearly there as well. I don't know if she'd already resolved to run for president in two or six or ten years' time, but it's hard to believe the thought hadn't crossed her mind--as well as the idea, probably justified at the time, that voting against use of force would ensure that she'd never host meetings in the the Oval Office.
I believe that the Clintons, and the wing of the Democratic Party that they lead, have a predisposition toward using force. It's politically rational--and it's deeply immoral.
Like many of the "New Democrats"--and no small number of Bush/Rove/DeLay-generation Republicans--neither Clinton ever served in the military and both came of age politically in a period when Democrats were successfully portrayed as “weak,” they are terrified of living into that stereotype. With no personal experience of war-–hell, probably few if any close friends who were ever in combat-–to balance against that political calculation, combat is theoretical to them. The primary concern is political; the primary means are symbolic.
It’s no coincidence that many of those who have been most skeptical about the Iraq debacle from the outset were individuals who themselves had served. For the Clintons, the Bushes and everyone else who constructs “patriotism” as the whole of symbolic parts-–a flag pin in a suit lapel-–what's most at stake, at the moment of decision, is the next news cycle and earning some credit for “political bravery” from out-of-touch DC-based fools like David Broder and David Brooks.
Not everyone bought the war hype. Here is one speech from a state senator, given just two weeks after Hillary Clinton and 76 others in the US Senate put the gun in George W. Bush's hand:
That state senator was Barack Obama. Sometimes political courage does pay off.
Just from an armchair perspective, it's fascinating to watch the Clinton campaign try to square the circle of their candidate's vote in favor of authorizing military force against Iraq in 2002. Five years later, the main theoretical question left about the war is whether it's the very worst foreign policy blunder in American history, or merely among the worst, and the most important practical question is how to minimize the consequences of the tragic mistake. Some of those who voted for the war then repented of it later, most prominently John Edwards among current Democratic presidential hopefuls. Senator Clinton, though, has refused to "apologize," or even clearly and loudly say "I made a mistake."
And she's now trying to present this stubbornness as an act of political courage:
Several advisers, friends and donors said in interviews that they had urged her to call her vote a mistake in order to appease antiwar Democrats, who play a critical role in the nominating process. Yet Mrs. Clinton herself, backed by another faction, never wanted to apologize — even if she viewed the war as a mistake — arguing that an apology would be a gimmick.
In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry’s when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry, she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force.
Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.
“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
There was a place and a moment, of course, for the Senator to show political courage. But it wasn't New Hampshire in February 2007; it was Washington, DC, in October 2002.
Twenty-three Senators--21 Democrats, a lone Republican (Chafee), and an independent (Jeffords) showed their courage that day. In a vote three weeks before a close election, with the mainstream media beating the war drums so loudly that even the best-grounded, most credible skeptical views couldn't get a hearing, they voted against going to war. Among them were four Democrats who were up for re-election the following month: three of them--Durbin, Levin, and Jack Reed--won easily, and the fourth, Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, was pulling away when he tragically died in a plane crash two weeks after voting against the war.
By contrast, you had Hillary Clinton, more than four years from having to face the voters again, but representing a state where the emotional echoes of September 11 were still deafening. She voted to give Bush authorization to use force, evidently hoping against all evidence that he would brandish this authorization for diplomatic leverage rather than to directly send Americans into harm's way. She wanted to set out a middle course--shocking, I know--between immediate, pre-emptive attack and indefinitely waiting for the diplomatic process to play out. (Read her speech and see for yourself.)
Senator Clinton's thought process, as she details it in the speech, actually shows both her strengths and weaknesses. She takes into account a number of relevant factors: Saddam Hussein's history of defying the UN, America's own degree of culpability for his crimes (arming him in the 1980s and shrugging off his massacres of the Kurds, then standing aside as he had thousands of rebelling Shi'ites and Kurds killed in 1991), her own views on the great power of the executive to use force, formed during her husband's tenure in the White House, and, by her own admission, the emotional resonance of representing New York 11 months after the devastating and traumatic attack:
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
What's missing is any consideration of the particulars of the case against Saddam, or even healthy skepticism that the collection of ideologues within the administration might have a thumb on the scale.
And the political calculation is pretty clearly there as well. I don't know if she'd already resolved to run for president in two or six or ten years' time, but it's hard to believe the thought hadn't crossed her mind--as well as the idea, probably justified at the time, that voting against use of force would ensure that she'd never host meetings in the the Oval Office.
I believe that the Clintons, and the wing of the Democratic Party that they lead, have a predisposition toward using force. It's politically rational--and it's deeply immoral.
Like many of the "New Democrats"--and no small number of Bush/Rove/DeLay-generation Republicans--neither Clinton ever served in the military and both came of age politically in a period when Democrats were successfully portrayed as “weak,” they are terrified of living into that stereotype. With no personal experience of war-–hell, probably few if any close friends who were ever in combat-–to balance against that political calculation, combat is theoretical to them. The primary concern is political; the primary means are symbolic.
It’s no coincidence that many of those who have been most skeptical about the Iraq debacle from the outset were individuals who themselves had served. For the Clintons, the Bushes and everyone else who constructs “patriotism” as the whole of symbolic parts-–a flag pin in a suit lapel-–what's most at stake, at the moment of decision, is the next news cycle and earning some credit for “political bravery” from out-of-touch DC-based fools like David Broder and David Brooks.
Not everyone bought the war hype. Here is one speech from a state senator, given just two weeks after Hillary Clinton and 76 others in the US Senate put the gun in George W. Bush's hand:
I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
That state senator was Barack Obama. Sometimes political courage does pay off.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Obamarama
It seems like a long time ago now, but I watched Barack Obama's announcement speech yesterday and was pretty excited. Given my overall view of the 2008 race--that it will boil down to Hillary vs. Not-Hillary, and that it's vital for the Democrats, and for the country, that Not-Hillary prevail--I think Obama fits the bill better than any other candidate out there. I set all this out in a diary at Daily Kos yesterday, my first since I decided to go to war against asshead lefty commissar David Sirota a few months ago; you can read the whole thing here.
It seems like a long time ago now, but I watched Barack Obama's announcement speech yesterday and was pretty excited. Given my overall view of the 2008 race--that it will boil down to Hillary vs. Not-Hillary, and that it's vital for the Democrats, and for the country, that Not-Hillary prevail--I think Obama fits the bill better than any other candidate out there. I set all this out in a diary at Daily Kos yesterday, my first since I decided to go to war against asshead lefty commissar David Sirota a few months ago; you can read the whole thing here.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Making Sense of the Impossible
The Phillies fan online community lost a dear friend and great leader today. Dave "mvpsoft" Snyder, founder and proprietor of philliesphans.com, died in a one-car crash near his home in Michigan. He was 50 years old.
I wrote a tribute to Dave on The Good Phight. In part I did this because this was a man for whom I had real fondness and great respect, but also because writing is my way of trying to concretize and explain things, even--mostly--to myself. And it just isn't working.
The guy was 50 fucking years old. He had a great family with whom he was very close, a successful business, friends, a wide range of intellectual and community interests. And it all disappeared in the space of seconds.
This isn't a "why do bad things happen to good people" lament. Dave was a spiritual man, a Christian in the best sense of that term, similar in that way to my old friend Eric who sometimes comments here: their commitment is to living their values, and to a faith of the mind as well as the heart. Intellectually, I see no connection between this tragedy and my own ongoing questions about faith and spirituality and the nature of the divine; I guess I simply don't believe in a personal God. It seems presumptuous, frankly; I can accept that there's a spark of the divine within humans, but not that there's an essential human element in the divine.
But this is my hangup, not Dave Snyder's. If he had enough time between when the car went out of control and when he suffered his fatal injury to consider what was about to happen, I'd like to think he was okay with it. Dave did believe; I'm of the view that he accepted the judgment of his God and whatever disposition of his soul.
I have known, in "real life" or through virtual communities, way too many people who have died before their time. My dear childhood friend Jeremy, at age 25, in 1999; another friend, Murray, around the same age a year or two earlier; a co-worker, Susan, of whom I was very fond, age 36, in 2004; the brilliant satirical Phillies blogger "Tacony Lou" this past autumn, age 41. Jeff Lamana, the founder of philaphans.com, passed away from cancer earlier in 2006; he was my age. My brother is a cancer survivor, a gift for which, despite my unbelief in a personal God, I give thanks.
Another virtual Phillies friend sent me a message earlier tonight that every day is a gift. I would phrase it that nothing is guaranteed, and that every moment should be made to count, to mean something.
I will miss Dave. I'm glad that I knew him.
The Phillies fan online community lost a dear friend and great leader today. Dave "mvpsoft" Snyder, founder and proprietor of philliesphans.com, died in a one-car crash near his home in Michigan. He was 50 years old.
I wrote a tribute to Dave on The Good Phight. In part I did this because this was a man for whom I had real fondness and great respect, but also because writing is my way of trying to concretize and explain things, even--mostly--to myself. And it just isn't working.
The guy was 50 fucking years old. He had a great family with whom he was very close, a successful business, friends, a wide range of intellectual and community interests. And it all disappeared in the space of seconds.
This isn't a "why do bad things happen to good people" lament. Dave was a spiritual man, a Christian in the best sense of that term, similar in that way to my old friend Eric who sometimes comments here: their commitment is to living their values, and to a faith of the mind as well as the heart. Intellectually, I see no connection between this tragedy and my own ongoing questions about faith and spirituality and the nature of the divine; I guess I simply don't believe in a personal God. It seems presumptuous, frankly; I can accept that there's a spark of the divine within humans, but not that there's an essential human element in the divine.
But this is my hangup, not Dave Snyder's. If he had enough time between when the car went out of control and when he suffered his fatal injury to consider what was about to happen, I'd like to think he was okay with it. Dave did believe; I'm of the view that he accepted the judgment of his God and whatever disposition of his soul.
I have known, in "real life" or through virtual communities, way too many people who have died before their time. My dear childhood friend Jeremy, at age 25, in 1999; another friend, Murray, around the same age a year or two earlier; a co-worker, Susan, of whom I was very fond, age 36, in 2004; the brilliant satirical Phillies blogger "Tacony Lou" this past autumn, age 41. Jeff Lamana, the founder of philaphans.com, passed away from cancer earlier in 2006; he was my age. My brother is a cancer survivor, a gift for which, despite my unbelief in a personal God, I give thanks.
Another virtual Phillies friend sent me a message earlier tonight that every day is a gift. I would phrase it that nothing is guaranteed, and that every moment should be made to count, to mean something.
I will miss Dave. I'm glad that I knew him.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Our Fight, Like it or Not
I'm most of the way through The Assassins' Gate, George Packer's 2005 account of the Iraq war. Like Fiasco, the Thomas Ricks book mostly detailing the military experience in Iraq, Packer's book inspires equal parts bafflement and fury, and in its more detailed examination of the intellectual underpinnings of the decision to go to war, it calls to mind the old Daniel Patrick Moynihan line that "There are some mistakes only someone with a Ph.D. can make."
Whether you call them mistakes or failures of morality or imagination, the "defense intellectuals," neo-conservatives and liberal interventionists, who drove us into this war with what I consider mostly noble intentions, put in harm's way hundreds of thousands of Americans, and some much greater number of Iraqis. But both the organization of the military and the fragmentation of society have meant that the domestic impact of this conflict, and the ripple effects through society, have been much more concentrated than ever has been the case before. I went out for drinks last night with three colleagues, and we got to talking about Iraq; I asked if any of them personally knew anyone who had served. None of them did. I know one man, the brother of a good friend, who enlisted as a Marine grunt in late 2005 and spent nine months on patrols and other extremely hazardous duties; through good fortune, he rotated home last fall uninjured. His circumstances, though, were almost unique: a Stanford graduate, working at a DC think tank, who got frustrated with all the complaining about the war (which he personally opposed) and just decided to get involved. It was, to my mind, both incredibly admirable and almost incomprehensible.
Everybody professes support for the troops, and I tend to believe that they mean it. But talk, of course, is cheap; few of us have offered anything beyond words, and, shamefully, our government hasn't asked us to do so--unless you count Tom DeLay's profession that nothing is more important in wartime than tax cuts, or George W. Bush's sympathy for everyone who's had to sit through bummer TV images from the combat zone.
This guest op-ed in Friday's NYT, by the wife of an Iraq war vet, makes this point far more eloquently than I could, and suggests the proper response:
I couldn't agree more with this. The Bush administration and the Congress--Republican-run through the first four years of the war, in Democratic hands now--have compounded their disastrous management of the war, and near-total lack of interest in accountability and oversight, by shoddy treatment of those who have sacrificed the most, during and after their service, and by allowing those individuals and their families to bear all the costs. (We'll all pay later, I guess, considering that this conflict has been fought "off the books"; that's immoral too.) I guess it's consistent with the general Republican philosophy that each of us is essentially on our own, that collective action is at best unnecessary and at worst immoral, and that government has no real community role at all aside from providing basic security and, in most but not all cases, ensuring that private property is sacrosanct.
But we are a community. Whatever one thinks of their mission, those Americans in uniform aren't just fighting for their families, or for a paycheck, or for corporate profits. All those things might be true, but in some sense they're also defending our ideals and values. We all should help foot the bill--and if this slight fiscal imposition acts in future as something of a check against engaging in dumb-assed wars just because some simpleton president feels his balls are in question, or a vice-president sees an opportunity to redraw a map or service a former employer's balance sheet, or a bunch of crypto-Trotskyites with messianic delusions envision a chance to commit heroic revolution by proxy, so much the better.
I'm most of the way through The Assassins' Gate, George Packer's 2005 account of the Iraq war. Like Fiasco, the Thomas Ricks book mostly detailing the military experience in Iraq, Packer's book inspires equal parts bafflement and fury, and in its more detailed examination of the intellectual underpinnings of the decision to go to war, it calls to mind the old Daniel Patrick Moynihan line that "There are some mistakes only someone with a Ph.D. can make."
Whether you call them mistakes or failures of morality or imagination, the "defense intellectuals," neo-conservatives and liberal interventionists, who drove us into this war with what I consider mostly noble intentions, put in harm's way hundreds of thousands of Americans, and some much greater number of Iraqis. But both the organization of the military and the fragmentation of society have meant that the domestic impact of this conflict, and the ripple effects through society, have been much more concentrated than ever has been the case before. I went out for drinks last night with three colleagues, and we got to talking about Iraq; I asked if any of them personally knew anyone who had served. None of them did. I know one man, the brother of a good friend, who enlisted as a Marine grunt in late 2005 and spent nine months on patrols and other extremely hazardous duties; through good fortune, he rotated home last fall uninjured. His circumstances, though, were almost unique: a Stanford graduate, working at a DC think tank, who got frustrated with all the complaining about the war (which he personally opposed) and just decided to get involved. It was, to my mind, both incredibly admirable and almost incomprehensible.
Everybody professes support for the troops, and I tend to believe that they mean it. But talk, of course, is cheap; few of us have offered anything beyond words, and, shamefully, our government hasn't asked us to do so--unless you count Tom DeLay's profession that nothing is more important in wartime than tax cuts, or George W. Bush's sympathy for everyone who's had to sit through bummer TV images from the combat zone.
This guest op-ed in Friday's NYT, by the wife of an Iraq war vet, makes this point far more eloquently than I could, and suggests the proper response:
Though some claim that all Americans are making sacrifices for the war on terrorism, it’s just not true. The few who are sent to fight and those left behind who are an intimate part of their daily lives are the ones whose mental health, finances and relationships are taking the hit.
A universal draft would certainly help spread the sacrifice. But we all know that the privileged will find a way to avoid serving, as they did by paying $300 during the Civil War or claiming college deferments during Vietnam.
What we need is a war tax, dedicated to financing the support services needed by military families and combat veterans. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call it a long-term costs-of-war tax. Because the tax I’m proposing, like the needs it’s intended to meet, will not end when the war does.
Historically, war taxes are how America finances its military conflicts — taxes on income, beverages, tobacco, utilities and more. The federal government first imposed what became a 3 percent tax on long-distance telephone calls in 1898 to help pay for the Spanish-American War. Since then, it’s been repealed, most recently last summer, and reinstated several times.
...
If a phone tax were reinstated, or a tax on oil or clothing — something we use in proportion to our income — then all Americans would wind up shouldering at least a small portion of the burden of our nation’s wars. Military families would be exempt.
Unlike the old phone tax, however, this new tax must be dedicated to financing programs that support and heal combat veterans and their families during deployment and afterward — combat trauma counseling, respite child care, part-time jobs for spouses trying to make ends meet, marriage counseling. These programs have always suffered from meager budgets, and while the public’s interest will inevitably move on, the needs won’t go away as long as America has a military.
I couldn't agree more with this. The Bush administration and the Congress--Republican-run through the first four years of the war, in Democratic hands now--have compounded their disastrous management of the war, and near-total lack of interest in accountability and oversight, by shoddy treatment of those who have sacrificed the most, during and after their service, and by allowing those individuals and their families to bear all the costs. (We'll all pay later, I guess, considering that this conflict has been fought "off the books"; that's immoral too.) I guess it's consistent with the general Republican philosophy that each of us is essentially on our own, that collective action is at best unnecessary and at worst immoral, and that government has no real community role at all aside from providing basic security and, in most but not all cases, ensuring that private property is sacrosanct.
But we are a community. Whatever one thinks of their mission, those Americans in uniform aren't just fighting for their families, or for a paycheck, or for corporate profits. All those things might be true, but in some sense they're also defending our ideals and values. We all should help foot the bill--and if this slight fiscal imposition acts in future as something of a check against engaging in dumb-assed wars just because some simpleton president feels his balls are in question, or a vice-president sees an opportunity to redraw a map or service a former employer's balance sheet, or a bunch of crypto-Trotskyites with messianic delusions envision a chance to commit heroic revolution by proxy, so much the better.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Market Magic, Market Madness
What a dreary, miserable week this has been for political news. You've got the totally fallacious story the right wing is pushing about Nancy Pelosi's travel "demands"--so outrageous and offensive that the freakin' White House is siding with her; you've got the utterly absurd "controversy" about what John Edwards' bloggers wrote online before they became John Edwards' bloggers, with the ever-charming Bill "I can't stop talking about anal sex" Donohue presuming to make staffing decisions for Democratic presidential campaigns; and this comes after the embarrassing spectacle of Congress proving itself unable even to conduct a real debate about Iraq--even granting that doing this now is four years too late.
While these little sideshows play out, other priorities go unaddressed. As he generally does around this time every year, President Bush submitted a dishonest, bloated yet mean-spirited federal budget, heavy on defense spending (up 11 percent from last year), light on programs to enhance the upward economic mobility of low-income working families; fortunately, the new Democratic majority probably will block at least some, hopefully most of its nastier provisions. But the deficit and the costs of the war (including, prominently, replacing some of the equipment that's been junked in this debacle) will constrain new spending over the near future.
A second constraint in taking on the full range serious and worsening problems, however, is not budgetary but conceptual. This piece at tompaine.com names the problem as "market fundamentalism," describing it as "the exaggerated and quite irrational belief in the ability of markets to solve all problems... that has dominated our national political debate for a generation."
This might be the single most taboo subject in public discourse, but it's vitally important--and best to be debated openly. The one change I've noticed in my personal worldview as I progress (maybe that's not the word) ever deeper into my 30s is that I've become a confirmed believer in capitalism. It is pretty clearly the best wealth-generating model in history, and while it doesn't require personal liberty and free expression--as several Pacific Rim countries among others have sadly proven--free markets mutually reinforce with the rest of the freedoms we cherish. Capitalism isn't perfect; it's just far, far better than anything else that's been tried as an economic system for a large society.
It's been awhile since grad school, but I'm pretty sure that while markets maximize wealth, they don't--they can't, they aren't supposed to--optimize how it's distributed, or necessarily account for the externalities they produce. And that's assuming conditions of perfect competition, which never exist in the real world. The simplest form of this all-pervasive provlem is that the way we pay for our politics, somebody's thumb is always on the scale. It's this phenomenon that the article seeks to address head-on:
Last Sunday, the NYT ran a piece detailing the astonishing extent to which the Bush administration has privatized government services, a development that reflects this same mindset--as well as, of course, the constant Bush/Cheney emphasis on using government to reward and enrich friends and donors. No money was saved; if anything, quite the opposite. Outsourcing public functions becomes an end in itself; if it costs the taxpayer more for a contractor to perform the exact same function previously carried out by a government bureaucrat, the idea seems to be that this extra expense must be worth it, because any private employee inherently does a better job than any civil servant.
This would be funny were it not, in the context of rising deficits and falling service provision relative to need, so painful. Stripped of all the emotional associations, government is just one possible mechanism for accomplishing shared goals; at scale, it's probably the most efficient mechanism by which to do many of these things, particularly when it's beneficial to universalize (think of educational standards). Often, government is the only practical mechanism to carry out certain functions, as in national defense or some kinds of regulation. And--especially if you believe, or even want to believe, that it's still of, by and for all of us who vote and pay taxes--it has both a great deal of power to tangibly improve the conditions of life for millions, and the positive responsibility to moderate market outcomes.
Particularly toward the end of their mid-20th century heyday, American liberals were too quick to screw with markets. Now, though, the pendulum has swung too far the other way: we tolerate absurd inefficiencies in certain areas (health care) and some scary negative externalities (climate change) out of near-superstitious fear that interfering in some company's capacity for profit will cause something terrible to happen. In field after field, though, terrible things are happening now--and our undue deference to a distorted view of markets forces us to sit back and watch. Rather than market fundamentalism, we need market utilitarianism--the mindset that these systems are here to serve the community, not the other way around.
What a dreary, miserable week this has been for political news. You've got the totally fallacious story the right wing is pushing about Nancy Pelosi's travel "demands"--so outrageous and offensive that the freakin' White House is siding with her; you've got the utterly absurd "controversy" about what John Edwards' bloggers wrote online before they became John Edwards' bloggers, with the ever-charming Bill "I can't stop talking about anal sex" Donohue presuming to make staffing decisions for Democratic presidential campaigns; and this comes after the embarrassing spectacle of Congress proving itself unable even to conduct a real debate about Iraq--even granting that doing this now is four years too late.
While these little sideshows play out, other priorities go unaddressed. As he generally does around this time every year, President Bush submitted a dishonest, bloated yet mean-spirited federal budget, heavy on defense spending (up 11 percent from last year), light on programs to enhance the upward economic mobility of low-income working families; fortunately, the new Democratic majority probably will block at least some, hopefully most of its nastier provisions. But the deficit and the costs of the war (including, prominently, replacing some of the equipment that's been junked in this debacle) will constrain new spending over the near future.
A second constraint in taking on the full range serious and worsening problems, however, is not budgetary but conceptual. This piece at tompaine.com names the problem as "market fundamentalism," describing it as "the exaggerated and quite irrational belief in the ability of markets to solve all problems... that has dominated our national political debate for a generation."
This might be the single most taboo subject in public discourse, but it's vitally important--and best to be debated openly. The one change I've noticed in my personal worldview as I progress (maybe that's not the word) ever deeper into my 30s is that I've become a confirmed believer in capitalism. It is pretty clearly the best wealth-generating model in history, and while it doesn't require personal liberty and free expression--as several Pacific Rim countries among others have sadly proven--free markets mutually reinforce with the rest of the freedoms we cherish. Capitalism isn't perfect; it's just far, far better than anything else that's been tried as an economic system for a large society.
It's been awhile since grad school, but I'm pretty sure that while markets maximize wealth, they don't--they can't, they aren't supposed to--optimize how it's distributed, or necessarily account for the externalities they produce. And that's assuming conditions of perfect competition, which never exist in the real world. The simplest form of this all-pervasive provlem is that the way we pay for our politics, somebody's thumb is always on the scale. It's this phenomenon that the article seeks to address head-on:
What do catastrophic climate change, the widening gulf between the wealthy and the poor, America's obesity epidemic, and our society's lack of care for the young and the elderly have in common? Each has powerful special interests who insist that we need to let the market work its private magic and that government action would create more problems than it would solve.
These interest groups also block any effort to enlist the government by invoking the arguments of market fundamentalism: Privatize everything, rely on yourself and expect nothing from your government.
Market fundamentalism has become like the air we breathe; we hardly notice it. Every time George W. Bush argues for more tax cuts, he relies on the unquestioned assumption that we all embrace market fundamentalism. Like religious fundamentalism, it is based more on faith than on reason. Through constant repetition, however, the American public has been bullied into believing that private spending is rational and efficient, while public spending is always wasteful and unproductive.
Last Sunday, the NYT ran a piece detailing the astonishing extent to which the Bush administration has privatized government services, a development that reflects this same mindset--as well as, of course, the constant Bush/Cheney emphasis on using government to reward and enrich friends and donors. No money was saved; if anything, quite the opposite. Outsourcing public functions becomes an end in itself; if it costs the taxpayer more for a contractor to perform the exact same function previously carried out by a government bureaucrat, the idea seems to be that this extra expense must be worth it, because any private employee inherently does a better job than any civil servant.
This would be funny were it not, in the context of rising deficits and falling service provision relative to need, so painful. Stripped of all the emotional associations, government is just one possible mechanism for accomplishing shared goals; at scale, it's probably the most efficient mechanism by which to do many of these things, particularly when it's beneficial to universalize (think of educational standards). Often, government is the only practical mechanism to carry out certain functions, as in national defense or some kinds of regulation. And--especially if you believe, or even want to believe, that it's still of, by and for all of us who vote and pay taxes--it has both a great deal of power to tangibly improve the conditions of life for millions, and the positive responsibility to moderate market outcomes.
Particularly toward the end of their mid-20th century heyday, American liberals were too quick to screw with markets. Now, though, the pendulum has swung too far the other way: we tolerate absurd inefficiencies in certain areas (health care) and some scary negative externalities (climate change) out of near-superstitious fear that interfering in some company's capacity for profit will cause something terrible to happen. In field after field, though, terrible things are happening now--and our undue deference to a distorted view of markets forces us to sit back and watch. Rather than market fundamentalism, we need market utilitarianism--the mindset that these systems are here to serve the community, not the other way around.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Mr. Schilling Goes to Washington, Metaphorically
John Kerry's announcement late last week that he wouldn't mount a second presidential campaign next year ensured that the junior senator from Massachusetts instead would seek a fifth Senate term in 2008. In his first four Senate campaigns, Kerry fought a close race only once: 1996, when popular governor Bill Weld, a liberal Republican, polled evenly with him through most of the year before Kerry eventually won his third term with 52 percent to Weld's 45 (a third-party conservative took 3 percent). In 2002, running against token opposition, Kerry was re-elected with 80 percent.
Given Massachusetts' reputation as among the most liberal states in the union, one would figure Kerry's seat a safe one as Democrats set out to defend and expand their effective 51-49 majority next year. But if anything can shake up a race like that, it's the emergence of a charismatic, rich opponent with no name recognition problem and an emotional connection to the electorate. In Massachusetts, Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling could be that candidate--if he wanted it.
For now, I'll take Schilling at his word that he won't run for Senate in 2008. I don't think he has the legislative temperament--though I could see him wanting to be a governor someday--and I think he's sincere in his plans to work in charity and run his video game business, probably carving out time to kill Doug Glanville online. He'll do those things until he gets bored, at which point the competition and ego gratification of politics could well appeal to him.
I think what is interesting is that his top two choices for president next year are McCain and Obama. For one thing, those choices suggest that Schilling's politics aren't particularly ideological; like his baseball thinking, they seem driven at bottom by emotion.
Of course, what Obama and McCain have in common is a great story to tell. For Obama, it's his almost comically diverse background and unlikely emergence as a post-racial hero offering the potential of partisan reconciliation; McCain's POW ordeal remains compelling in a time when the media culture is loath to tell stories of sacrifice from our current quagmire of a war, and his gradual emergence into a leader who seemed like he could transcend the usual partisan crap and appeal to something more fundamental and benign in the national character appealed to voters across the spectrum. (This is what has made his non-stop pandering to "crazy base land" since 2004 all the more disheartening, not to say disgusting.)
Mike Huckabee was on the Tim Russert yakfest this morning, explaining his plans to run for president, and reminded the audience that "Americans love an underdog." This might be true as far as it goes, but I think it's not quite descriptive when it comes to voting choices. In picking the president, Americans want a leader who makes them proud to be Americans; at least on paper, and at this tired and somewhat dispirited moment in our national life, Obama and McCain come a lot closer to filling that bill than, say, the guy who lied even when he didn't need to and couldn't stop cheating on his wife, or the inarticulate, proudly arrogant boob who was born rich and screwed up everything he ever touched, with tragic results.
Curt Schilling probably identifies with McCain and Obama, given his own weird path in life: moved around as a kid, close to his dad, his dad passed away, bounced from one organization to the next with a Nuke Laloosh reputation, suddenly seemed to catch up with his talent, then did some legendary things over an eight year stretch (from 1997, when he set a modern NL strikeout record with the Phillies and, with Scott Rolen, saved them from the ignominy of losing 100 games, to 2004, when he stained a sock red and helped end the Red Sox curse). You just hope our next president's story has such an ending.
John Kerry's announcement late last week that he wouldn't mount a second presidential campaign next year ensured that the junior senator from Massachusetts instead would seek a fifth Senate term in 2008. In his first four Senate campaigns, Kerry fought a close race only once: 1996, when popular governor Bill Weld, a liberal Republican, polled evenly with him through most of the year before Kerry eventually won his third term with 52 percent to Weld's 45 (a third-party conservative took 3 percent). In 2002, running against token opposition, Kerry was re-elected with 80 percent.
Given Massachusetts' reputation as among the most liberal states in the union, one would figure Kerry's seat a safe one as Democrats set out to defend and expand their effective 51-49 majority next year. But if anything can shake up a race like that, it's the emergence of a charismatic, rich opponent with no name recognition problem and an emotional connection to the electorate. In Massachusetts, Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling could be that candidate--if he wanted it.
Curt Schilling seemed surprised yesterday by the sudden groundswell of local supporters hoping to draft him into national politics and a 2008 Senate run against John Kerry.
The Red Sox [team stats] pitching hero didn’t flatly rule out the idea, either, though he didn’t sound like he was about to hit the campaign trail anytime soon.
“I couldn’t rule it out because it’s not something I ever thought about in a serious capacity,” Schilling told the Herald.
“I envision that I will probably be pretty busy in 2008,” he said. “But I’m flattered as hell to even make this phone call.”
...
But Schilling may doesn’t feel he’s a good match for Capitol Hill.
“While I am a registered voter, I have too many problems with the political scene, and I don’t think I’d fit into it,” he said.
Schilling, who is planning to retire from baseball after this season, did give a glimpse of what he would do in a political office. His first task would be to “fire everybody and anybody who had anything to do with the Big Dig,” he said.
Schilling said in 2008 he’ll vote either for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whom he called a personal friend, or Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). “If they are both on the ticket it will be a tough choice,” he said.
For now, I'll take Schilling at his word that he won't run for Senate in 2008. I don't think he has the legislative temperament--though I could see him wanting to be a governor someday--and I think he's sincere in his plans to work in charity and run his video game business, probably carving out time to kill Doug Glanville online. He'll do those things until he gets bored, at which point the competition and ego gratification of politics could well appeal to him.
I think what is interesting is that his top two choices for president next year are McCain and Obama. For one thing, those choices suggest that Schilling's politics aren't particularly ideological; like his baseball thinking, they seem driven at bottom by emotion.
Of course, what Obama and McCain have in common is a great story to tell. For Obama, it's his almost comically diverse background and unlikely emergence as a post-racial hero offering the potential of partisan reconciliation; McCain's POW ordeal remains compelling in a time when the media culture is loath to tell stories of sacrifice from our current quagmire of a war, and his gradual emergence into a leader who seemed like he could transcend the usual partisan crap and appeal to something more fundamental and benign in the national character appealed to voters across the spectrum. (This is what has made his non-stop pandering to "crazy base land" since 2004 all the more disheartening, not to say disgusting.)
Mike Huckabee was on the Tim Russert yakfest this morning, explaining his plans to run for president, and reminded the audience that "Americans love an underdog." This might be true as far as it goes, but I think it's not quite descriptive when it comes to voting choices. In picking the president, Americans want a leader who makes them proud to be Americans; at least on paper, and at this tired and somewhat dispirited moment in our national life, Obama and McCain come a lot closer to filling that bill than, say, the guy who lied even when he didn't need to and couldn't stop cheating on his wife, or the inarticulate, proudly arrogant boob who was born rich and screwed up everything he ever touched, with tragic results.
Curt Schilling probably identifies with McCain and Obama, given his own weird path in life: moved around as a kid, close to his dad, his dad passed away, bounced from one organization to the next with a Nuke Laloosh reputation, suddenly seemed to catch up with his talent, then did some legendary things over an eight year stretch (from 1997, when he set a modern NL strikeout record with the Phillies and, with Scott Rolen, saved them from the ignominy of losing 100 games, to 2004, when he stained a sock red and helped end the Red Sox curse). You just hope our next president's story has such an ending.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Now or Never
In early 2004, many of us were bemused at how quickly the Democratic presidential nomination was settled. John Kerry, almost an afterthought through the first few weeks of January of that year, was the all-but-assured standard-bearer for his party less than two weeks after the Iowa caucuses. This had been the intention of the Democratic National Committee: determine the nominee early, allowing the party to save money and resources and emerge without bad blood or inevitable intra-party attacks that the Republicans could then use in the fall. But it also served to elevate a candidate who had not been as politically battle-tested as he should have been, and it reinforced the suspicion that money (Kerry had opted out of the public financing system and used his own sizable family resources to fund his campaign) and organization were largely decisive in settling the race.
As Democrats conducted their quadrennial reconsideration of the nominating process, they concluded--not wrongly, IMO--that part of the problem was giving Iowa and New Hampshire, the two early-voting states that don't reflect the national electorate in terms of demographics or priorities, so much weight in the process. So they agreed to move up Nevada, a western state with many Hispanic voters and a large union presence, and South Carolina, which has a large percentage of African-Americans among its Democratic electorate.
Then all hell broke loose. It now seems likely that California, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey will move their primaries to February 5, two weeks after Iowa, one week after New Hampshire. They will join, and totally overshadow, a half-dozen or so smaller states set to vote that day.
There's debate about what this will mean--whether it will make the first four states more important, by virtue of giving one candidate momentum heading into the quasi-national Feb. 5 primary, or less, given how many more votes and delegates will be at stake that day and how much more focus will be on those states, which include or border on a majority of the biggest media markets in the country. But what I think is undeniable is that the front-loading of the calendar gives a big advantage to the candidates with the name recognition and bank account to fight hard out of the gate for those Big Four. Right now, that's Hillary Clinton and John McCain. And their campaign managers can hardly stop themselves from blurting this out:
If you're one of the many, many Democrats who doesn't want Hillary, or one of the many, many Republicans who doesn't want McCain, this front-loading is bad news, and the process it will create seems directly counter to how the last two presidents seized their parties' nominations.
The Democrats' Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary in 1992 didn't mean that much because favorite sons were in play: Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin won his home state almost uncontested, and former Sen. Paul Tsongas (of neighboring Massachusetts) took New Hampshire. Clinton needed more time to break through; had 10 or 12 states gone to the polls immediately after his place/show finishes in the first two races, who knows if he would have gotten it. In 2000, meanwhile, John McCain stomped Bush in NH and almost immediately pulled even in South Carolina, where the next vote was set... but Bush had three weeks before that primary to bring his campaign strengths--unlimited money and unlimited willingness to smear McCain--to bear.
I think that of the two parties and presumptive front-runners, Hillary Clinton gets more of an advantage than does McCain--whom I increasingly believe will plummet into the ever-widening gap between his "Straight Talk" persona and his relentless far-right pandering (which today included a vote against the minimum wage). This should scare Democrats who particularly want to win the White House, given this note from Charlie Cook:
46 PERCENT. That's pretty close to half the country, a far larger chunk of the electorate to write off from the jump than any other Democrat, and twice as much as Barack Obama. And this isn't someone who can reintroduce herself, or pander her way to greater acceptance; people know who she is, and they know they think she is.
So anti-Hillary Democrats who figured they might have two shots to take down Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation--before the primaries began, and after the race narrowed to Hillary vs. Not-Hillary--have to reconsider their options. The race is being decided now; we might know who the nominee is by the end of 2007, with the first four primaries as confirmation, the Feb. 5 delegananza as coronation, and the remaining five months to the Democratic Convention set aside for a crushing case of buyer's remorse. If an alternative is to be found, it probably has to be now.
In early 2004, many of us were bemused at how quickly the Democratic presidential nomination was settled. John Kerry, almost an afterthought through the first few weeks of January of that year, was the all-but-assured standard-bearer for his party less than two weeks after the Iowa caucuses. This had been the intention of the Democratic National Committee: determine the nominee early, allowing the party to save money and resources and emerge without bad blood or inevitable intra-party attacks that the Republicans could then use in the fall. But it also served to elevate a candidate who had not been as politically battle-tested as he should have been, and it reinforced the suspicion that money (Kerry had opted out of the public financing system and used his own sizable family resources to fund his campaign) and organization were largely decisive in settling the race.
As Democrats conducted their quadrennial reconsideration of the nominating process, they concluded--not wrongly, IMO--that part of the problem was giving Iowa and New Hampshire, the two early-voting states that don't reflect the national electorate in terms of demographics or priorities, so much weight in the process. So they agreed to move up Nevada, a western state with many Hispanic voters and a large union presence, and South Carolina, which has a large percentage of African-Americans among its Democratic electorate.
Then all hell broke loose. It now seems likely that California, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey will move their primaries to February 5, two weeks after Iowa, one week after New Hampshire. They will join, and totally overshadow, a half-dozen or so smaller states set to vote that day.
There's debate about what this will mean--whether it will make the first four states more important, by virtue of giving one candidate momentum heading into the quasi-national Feb. 5 primary, or less, given how many more votes and delegates will be at stake that day and how much more focus will be on those states, which include or border on a majority of the biggest media markets in the country. But what I think is undeniable is that the front-loading of the calendar gives a big advantage to the candidates with the name recognition and bank account to fight hard out of the gate for those Big Four. Right now, that's Hillary Clinton and John McCain. And their campaign managers can hardly stop themselves from blurting this out:
Associates of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat, and Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, said that should either of them stumble early on, the respective party primaries in California and New Jersey — two states that would seem particularly hospitable to them — could offer an expensive but welcome firewall.
...
“I think this is huge,” said John Weaver, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain. “And the unintended consequences could be even bigger.”
...
“We don’t set the calendar, and we don’t control the calendar, but we are going to compete aggressively in all these states,” said Patti Solis Doyle, who is the manager of Mrs. Clinton’s exploratory presidential effort. “And I will also tell you we have the resources and the organization to compete in all those states.”
If you're one of the many, many Democrats who doesn't want Hillary, or one of the many, many Republicans who doesn't want McCain, this front-loading is bad news, and the process it will create seems directly counter to how the last two presidents seized their parties' nominations.
The Democrats' Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary in 1992 didn't mean that much because favorite sons were in play: Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin won his home state almost uncontested, and former Sen. Paul Tsongas (of neighboring Massachusetts) took New Hampshire. Clinton needed more time to break through; had 10 or 12 states gone to the polls immediately after his place/show finishes in the first two races, who knows if he would have gotten it. In 2000, meanwhile, John McCain stomped Bush in NH and almost immediately pulled even in South Carolina, where the next vote was set... but Bush had three weeks before that primary to bring his campaign strengths--unlimited money and unlimited willingness to smear McCain--to bear.
I think that of the two parties and presumptive front-runners, Hillary Clinton gets more of an advantage than does McCain--whom I increasingly believe will plummet into the ever-widening gap between his "Straight Talk" persona and his relentless far-right pandering (which today included a vote against the minimum wage). This should scare Democrats who particularly want to win the White House, given this note from Charlie Cook:
Among Democrats who knew enough to rate the candidates, 74 percent said they were enthusiastic or comfortable with Edwards and Obama, compared with 71 percent for Clinton and 39 percent for Biden.
When it comes to the candidate voters simply cannot support, Clinton tops the field with 46 percent, followed by Edwards with 32 percent, Giuliani at 26 percent, Biden and McCain at 25 percent each, Obama at 23 percent, Romney at 19 percent and Brownback at 17 percent.
46 PERCENT. That's pretty close to half the country, a far larger chunk of the electorate to write off from the jump than any other Democrat, and twice as much as Barack Obama. And this isn't someone who can reintroduce herself, or pander her way to greater acceptance; people know who she is, and they know they think she is.
So anti-Hillary Democrats who figured they might have two shots to take down Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation--before the primaries began, and after the race narrowed to Hillary vs. Not-Hillary--have to reconsider their options. The race is being decided now; we might know who the nominee is by the end of 2007, with the first four primaries as confirmation, the Feb. 5 delegananza as coronation, and the remaining five months to the Democratic Convention set aside for a crushing case of buyer's remorse. If an alternative is to be found, it probably has to be now.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Now, Matters Are Worse
It wasn't a surprise, but it was still a bummer to wake up this morning to the news that Hillary Clinton, Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation, has officially jumped in to the 2008 presidential race.
How her campaign unfolds will tell us a lot about where our political culture is after two terms of a president who never should have been allowed within 500 yards of the Oval Office. George W. Bush won in 2000 on the strengths of a famous name, an enormous bank account, undue and undeserved deference from the media, and perhaps most importantly a widespread sense that it didn't much matter who was president. Hillary Clinton has the first two, and while she won't get anything like the kid-glove treatment Bush got from the press, the experience of 15 years in the unblinking spotlight has made her perhaps better than anyone alive at talking without actually saying anything.
Will the mediots point this out? Will her opponents? On a certain level, the question becomes whether or not one can get away with saying nothing of substance so long as the megaphone is sufficiently powerful.
I won't reiterate at length my other objections to Hillary's campaign--that there's no clear purpose to it, that Democrats down the ballot (perhaps most importantly, those freshmen House members in purple or light-red territory) would be forced to run away from her, that even if she wins she won't be able to effectively govern. But it's worth pointing out that the advantages of money and organization are probably largest in the first stretch of the nomination race. With seven or eight candidates in the field, she can win pluralities in the high 20s and low 30s; as the field thins, those dropping out will be under pressure to endorse the likely winner, and eventually it could and probably will come down to Hillary versus Not-HIllary. At that point, a ton of institutional weight falls upon Not-Hillary: stop resisting the inevitable, stop doing the Republicans' oppo work for them, stop squandering resources we'll need for November. Unless she's been bloodied by then, Not-Hillary won't win that duel.
Then to a convention and nomination that, in its staged meaninglessness, will make the Democrats' last two gatherings look like the Algonquin Club; a hyper-motivated Republican base and millions more who might be disgusted by Bush's failures but would sooner eat their own livers than vote for That Woman; the endless re-fighting of the Clinton Wars; the eventual election of a president whom either half the country hates or whose victory could be seen as a vindication of the Bush disaster.
It's a potential nightmare, for the Democrats and much more importantly for the country. We are facing HUGE problems in the next ten years, from global warming, to demographic change and strain on entitlements. to unsteady competitive standing in the post-industrial economy, to the viral spread of religious extremism worldwide. The idea of that stuff getting crowded out of the debate by still more analysis of the Clinton marriage and scandals should horrify every American who cares about our collective future.
It wasn't a surprise, but it was still a bummer to wake up this morning to the news that Hillary Clinton, Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation, has officially jumped in to the 2008 presidential race.
How her campaign unfolds will tell us a lot about where our political culture is after two terms of a president who never should have been allowed within 500 yards of the Oval Office. George W. Bush won in 2000 on the strengths of a famous name, an enormous bank account, undue and undeserved deference from the media, and perhaps most importantly a widespread sense that it didn't much matter who was president. Hillary Clinton has the first two, and while she won't get anything like the kid-glove treatment Bush got from the press, the experience of 15 years in the unblinking spotlight has made her perhaps better than anyone alive at talking without actually saying anything.
Will the mediots point this out? Will her opponents? On a certain level, the question becomes whether or not one can get away with saying nothing of substance so long as the megaphone is sufficiently powerful.
I won't reiterate at length my other objections to Hillary's campaign--that there's no clear purpose to it, that Democrats down the ballot (perhaps most importantly, those freshmen House members in purple or light-red territory) would be forced to run away from her, that even if she wins she won't be able to effectively govern. But it's worth pointing out that the advantages of money and organization are probably largest in the first stretch of the nomination race. With seven or eight candidates in the field, she can win pluralities in the high 20s and low 30s; as the field thins, those dropping out will be under pressure to endorse the likely winner, and eventually it could and probably will come down to Hillary versus Not-HIllary. At that point, a ton of institutional weight falls upon Not-Hillary: stop resisting the inevitable, stop doing the Republicans' oppo work for them, stop squandering resources we'll need for November. Unless she's been bloodied by then, Not-Hillary won't win that duel.
Then to a convention and nomination that, in its staged meaninglessness, will make the Democrats' last two gatherings look like the Algonquin Club; a hyper-motivated Republican base and millions more who might be disgusted by Bush's failures but would sooner eat their own livers than vote for That Woman; the endless re-fighting of the Clinton Wars; the eventual election of a president whom either half the country hates or whose victory could be seen as a vindication of the Bush disaster.
It's a potential nightmare, for the Democrats and much more importantly for the country. We are facing HUGE problems in the next ten years, from global warming, to demographic change and strain on entitlements. to unsteady competitive standing in the post-industrial economy, to the viral spread of religious extremism worldwide. The idea of that stuff getting crowded out of the debate by still more analysis of the Clinton marriage and scandals should horrify every American who cares about our collective future.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Fun With Jerks (including myself), Plus an Actual Point
It's not quite blogroll-worthy, but one of the sites on politics I've taken to reading regularly is Dick Polman's American Debate, linked off philly.com. For the most part, he plays it straight--despite constantly being attacked as yet another America-hating liberal in the comments section of the blog, I have yet to discern which if any pols are his personal favorites. He points out the hypocrisies of all public figures; over the last year, of course, Republican failings have been more prominently on display, so that's where he has aimed much of his fire, but Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats come in for occasional rough treatment too.
Anyway, perhaps because I'm no longer posting on Philliesphans.com and have pledged not to talk politics on BackSheGoes, I've taken to commenting on Polman's blog. The right-wing nuts there tend to post anonymously, and most of them just regurgitate the usual attacks on leading Democrats or, in his role as an MSM mouthpiece for the secular monsters who want to turn our kids into Muslimiac homos, Polman himself. Here's an example from today's post, about Hillary Clinton's triangulation (though he doesn't use the word) on Iraq:
It's drivel like this that reminds me why, despite reservations even then, I voted for Hillary in her first victorious Senate race back in 2000: precisely because her victory upset asshats like this guy. And frankly, much as I can't stand Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation, it's the only reason I could possibly support her again.
When I first started commenting on Polman's blog, I did so under "David," my actual name. It didn't link to anything--Annie has made it clear that she doesn't want me tangling with any more right-wing nuts online--but I eventually decided that it would be more fun to adopt a more detached persona in my comments while writing under a name that would be particularly likely to annoy your average reactionary Philadelphian. Having grown up among and around some of these people, and still seeing the ugly undercurrent of residual racism in my hometown's sports fans--seriously, how else could one argue that Jeff Garcia is a more effective quarterback than Donovan McNabb?--I think I know what bugs them.
So I started posting under the name "iverson."
More on that in a minute. Further down in the comments to this same post, someone makes a more pertinent point:
This guy or gal has it exactly right. I'm very worried that the Democratic presidential contenders, in their zeal to capture the antiwar sentiment that increasingly looks like the most powerful driver of the nominating process, will go overboard and try to outdo each other in at least implicitly renouncing the use of military force. The reasons for this likely would range from simple political calculation--if you're in a seven-candidate pool, and you figure that 30 percent of the electorate in a small-state primary or caucus will support any plausible contender (sorry, Kucinich) with the strongest antiwar position, that's a big incentive--to guilt, at least for those current and former Senators who voted in 2002 to give warmaking power to a simpleminded sociopath who had already decided to use it.
It would be almost as simpleminded to send a strong signal that the presidential nominee, and the party more broadly, would hesitate to use force under almost any circumstance. I don't foresee another 9/11-level attack, simply because I think it's almost impossible to plan and coordinate something that big when a country as capacious is ours is on the lookout for it, but something smaller--a truck bomb driven into a post office in a county seat, or just some maniac firing a machine gun into a crowd at a mall--is at least possible and perhaps likely. Suppose that happens in September 2008; suddenly the Democrat goes from a 12 point lead to a 10 point deficit as the ads follow, questioning whether Senator X has what it takes to protect America.
There's also the simple matter of statecraft. Military power can't solve every problem, obviously. But anybody with the first clue about how the world works understands that it's an important tool to be used--judiciously, for sure--in pursuit of essentially political ends. Every president of both parties between FDR and Clinton grasped this, and most of them used our enormous power more or less rationally; you can argue the morality of various interventions, but the bulk of them had some logic in a realpolitik sense.
(The one that didn't, of course, was Vietnam. I still have this strong sense that if the East Asia branch of the State Department hadn't been purged in the '50s as a result of the McCarthyite mania, we never would have screwed that up so badly. But that might be another topic for another time.)
Hillary, for all that I'm not a fan, gets this. The New Yorker article to which Polman refers in his post shows her with a pretty nuanced grip on foreign affairs; as occasional AIS commenter Dr. Catloaf recently said to me, the one who comes off as a naif in that piece is Edwards. As I'm broadly sympathetic to the equity-based economic agenda Edwards is pushing, this bugs me; if he emerges as Not-Hillary, I'll want to support him. But the fervor he's showing, perhaps not just on Iraq but as a worldview issue, strikes me as both bad policy and, in a general election context, very bad politics.
I posted a shorter version of these thoughts on Polman's blog here, using a nom de web I think I like even better than "iverson."
It's not quite blogroll-worthy, but one of the sites on politics I've taken to reading regularly is Dick Polman's American Debate, linked off philly.com. For the most part, he plays it straight--despite constantly being attacked as yet another America-hating liberal in the comments section of the blog, I have yet to discern which if any pols are his personal favorites. He points out the hypocrisies of all public figures; over the last year, of course, Republican failings have been more prominently on display, so that's where he has aimed much of his fire, but Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats come in for occasional rough treatment too.
Anyway, perhaps because I'm no longer posting on Philliesphans.com and have pledged not to talk politics on BackSheGoes, I've taken to commenting on Polman's blog. The right-wing nuts there tend to post anonymously, and most of them just regurgitate the usual attacks on leading Democrats or, in his role as an MSM mouthpiece for the secular monsters who want to turn our kids into Muslimiac homos, Polman himself. Here's an example from today's post, about Hillary Clinton's triangulation (though he doesn't use the word) on Iraq:
At 3:15 PM, Anonymous said...
Hillary is unfit to serve in any political office. She should have never been permitted to enter the Senate race in New York. She is a far-left socialist who cannot be trusted. She was involved in over a dozen scandals as the first lady stolen FBI files, Travelgate, Whitewater illegal land deal revealed, death of Vince Foster, vacation trips including a safari to Africa, stealing White House furniture and gifts, did not want military personnel to salute or be in uniform in the White House, attempted healthcare socialization plan and more.
The media has covered up these things and never questions her on these items. And by the way, why did her brothers spend time in jail??????
It's drivel like this that reminds me why, despite reservations even then, I voted for Hillary in her first victorious Senate race back in 2000: precisely because her victory upset asshats like this guy. And frankly, much as I can't stand Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation, it's the only reason I could possibly support her again.
When I first started commenting on Polman's blog, I did so under "David," my actual name. It didn't link to anything--Annie has made it clear that she doesn't want me tangling with any more right-wing nuts online--but I eventually decided that it would be more fun to adopt a more detached persona in my comments while writing under a name that would be particularly likely to annoy your average reactionary Philadelphian. Having grown up among and around some of these people, and still seeing the ugly undercurrent of residual racism in my hometown's sports fans--seriously, how else could one argue that Jeff Garcia is a more effective quarterback than Donovan McNabb?--I think I know what bugs them.
So I started posting under the name "iverson."
More on that in a minute. Further down in the comments to this same post, someone makes a more pertinent point:
At 12:25 AM, AST said...
The problem for the Democrats is that they are burdened with a large number of voters who are irrational about any use of force anywhere. The quagmire is their thinking about terrorism. They see Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the rest as just modern equivalents of the Viet Cong trying to take control of their own nation and drive us out.
Of course, the facts of the current terrorism and the aims of the Mujihadeen don't support that view. They will not be appeased.
Responsible political leaders should lead, not be driven by the likes of the Daily Kos and the MoveOn.org crowd. The role of a leader is two-fold: to understand the realities of the world and to persuade his followers to take a responsible course. Abandoning the Iraqis is not a responsible course, unless you think that instability and more fighting among the nations of the Middle East is good for our interests.
This guy or gal has it exactly right. I'm very worried that the Democratic presidential contenders, in their zeal to capture the antiwar sentiment that increasingly looks like the most powerful driver of the nominating process, will go overboard and try to outdo each other in at least implicitly renouncing the use of military force. The reasons for this likely would range from simple political calculation--if you're in a seven-candidate pool, and you figure that 30 percent of the electorate in a small-state primary or caucus will support any plausible contender (sorry, Kucinich) with the strongest antiwar position, that's a big incentive--to guilt, at least for those current and former Senators who voted in 2002 to give warmaking power to a simpleminded sociopath who had already decided to use it.
It would be almost as simpleminded to send a strong signal that the presidential nominee, and the party more broadly, would hesitate to use force under almost any circumstance. I don't foresee another 9/11-level attack, simply because I think it's almost impossible to plan and coordinate something that big when a country as capacious is ours is on the lookout for it, but something smaller--a truck bomb driven into a post office in a county seat, or just some maniac firing a machine gun into a crowd at a mall--is at least possible and perhaps likely. Suppose that happens in September 2008; suddenly the Democrat goes from a 12 point lead to a 10 point deficit as the ads follow, questioning whether Senator X has what it takes to protect America.
There's also the simple matter of statecraft. Military power can't solve every problem, obviously. But anybody with the first clue about how the world works understands that it's an important tool to be used--judiciously, for sure--in pursuit of essentially political ends. Every president of both parties between FDR and Clinton grasped this, and most of them used our enormous power more or less rationally; you can argue the morality of various interventions, but the bulk of them had some logic in a realpolitik sense.
(The one that didn't, of course, was Vietnam. I still have this strong sense that if the East Asia branch of the State Department hadn't been purged in the '50s as a result of the McCarthyite mania, we never would have screwed that up so badly. But that might be another topic for another time.)
Hillary, for all that I'm not a fan, gets this. The New Yorker article to which Polman refers in his post shows her with a pretty nuanced grip on foreign affairs; as occasional AIS commenter Dr. Catloaf recently said to me, the one who comes off as a naif in that piece is Edwards. As I'm broadly sympathetic to the equity-based economic agenda Edwards is pushing, this bugs me; if he emerges as Not-Hillary, I'll want to support him. But the fervor he's showing, perhaps not just on Iraq but as a worldview issue, strikes me as both bad policy and, in a general election context, very bad politics.
I posted a shorter version of these thoughts on Polman's blog here, using a nom de web I think I like even better than "iverson."
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Keep Digging
Just watched Bush on 60 Minutes. Astonishing. Almost five years into this thing, if you start from early 2002 when the internal push to war really got going, he still doesn't demonstrate the most basic understanding of how the factors in Iraq and throughout the middle east push on each other.
Asked if he felt like he owed the Iraqis an apology, he said no, and instead suggested that part of the domestic problem he's facing is that Americans don't believe Iraqis are sufficiently grateful for being liberated from the dictator. It was hard to miss the impression that he shares this view.
Admitting that the country is not stable, he still defended taking out Saddam as "removing a source of instability."
He basically shrugged off the Democrats' coming attempts to block the troop increase, as well as the public resistance to the strategy, noting that "sometimes I'm the commander-in-chief, sometimes the explainer-in-chief... that's why I'm doing this interview." What was missing, from the interview as evidently from the speech last week (which I didn't watch), was any actual, y'know, explanation as to how escalating the war in the way contemplated would help advance us toward the desired outcome of stability in Iraq, them standing up/us standing down, etc.
There were weasel words about thuggish killer Moqtada al-Sadr, whom Bush seemed to be trying to imply was "an enemy of the United States" without actually saying so. In a way, though, this is encouraging, as it might signal that he understands the nominal Iraqi PM is more beholden to Sadr than he is to the Americans. After all, we can just cut off support; the Shi'ite militants can cut off his head, balls, et al.
And there were some pro forma sentiments about how tough it is to talk with families of those killed in the line of duty, with Bush showing his core political stripes by noting that many have said to him, "Don't let my loved ones die in vain." Those who might have another view--"don't let any more families suffer the pain ours has to endure"--weren't mentioned. I'm not saying that Bush is uncaring or callous to those families; I'm sure he's moved when he's with them. But I also believe, based on everything I've seen and read, that he takes from that emotional experience only the sentiments that reinforce his existing views.
Those views remain frightfully uninformed. There's no sense, listening to this man, that he's contemplated the notion that the American presence might be doing more harm than good. There was no mention of the institutional strain on the armed forces, how badly positioned we'd be as a country to respond to crisis elsewhere, how we would conduct the larger war against Iran that it seems the administration at least wants to bluff willingness to take on, and of course no notion either of the problems that come with a country already in deficit fighting a war on credit, or that the distribution of sacrifice--a few hundred thousand families bearing it all, the rest of us mostly wishing the news were less depressing--is unfair or immoral.
The last two years of a president's second term are not a good time to attempt big things, and I think the country has a certain expectation of its lame duck chief executives. Clinton spent his last two years fending off impeachment, pushing a lot of small-bore measures, and coming fairly close but tragically short of resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Reagan, perhaps the last true lame duck by virtue of the Democrats' decision not to pursue impeachment over Iran-Contra, was by then pursuing a foreign policy of de-escalating the Cold War that had wide bipartisan support; domestically, he did next to nothing. Both Clinton and Reagan enjoyed high approval ratings in their final two years.
Bush is taking a different approach. Thoroughly repudiated in the 2006 midterms, relatively unpopular even among many Republicans who see him as an anchor as well as true conservatives who feel that he's transgressed against their principles, he's still pushing, pushing, pushing to somehow "win" an unwinnable war. Maybe it's the sad consequence of never having been forced to clean up his own messes throughout a stunningly privileged life. Maybe it goes back to the managerial weakness of not being willing to entertain a diversity of views and have all the advisers fight it out on the merits of their arguments. Maybe it's just supreme narcissism. But either way, he's bidding fair to leave the presidency as the most reviled two-termer ever, doing long-term damage to the country's international standing, economic health, military might, and internal comity. While almost everyone wishes he'd just lie down in his hole, Bush keeps digging.
Just watched Bush on 60 Minutes. Astonishing. Almost five years into this thing, if you start from early 2002 when the internal push to war really got going, he still doesn't demonstrate the most basic understanding of how the factors in Iraq and throughout the middle east push on each other.
Asked if he felt like he owed the Iraqis an apology, he said no, and instead suggested that part of the domestic problem he's facing is that Americans don't believe Iraqis are sufficiently grateful for being liberated from the dictator. It was hard to miss the impression that he shares this view.
Admitting that the country is not stable, he still defended taking out Saddam as "removing a source of instability."
He basically shrugged off the Democrats' coming attempts to block the troop increase, as well as the public resistance to the strategy, noting that "sometimes I'm the commander-in-chief, sometimes the explainer-in-chief... that's why I'm doing this interview." What was missing, from the interview as evidently from the speech last week (which I didn't watch), was any actual, y'know, explanation as to how escalating the war in the way contemplated would help advance us toward the desired outcome of stability in Iraq, them standing up/us standing down, etc.
There were weasel words about thuggish killer Moqtada al-Sadr, whom Bush seemed to be trying to imply was "an enemy of the United States" without actually saying so. In a way, though, this is encouraging, as it might signal that he understands the nominal Iraqi PM is more beholden to Sadr than he is to the Americans. After all, we can just cut off support; the Shi'ite militants can cut off his head, balls, et al.
And there were some pro forma sentiments about how tough it is to talk with families of those killed in the line of duty, with Bush showing his core political stripes by noting that many have said to him, "Don't let my loved ones die in vain." Those who might have another view--"don't let any more families suffer the pain ours has to endure"--weren't mentioned. I'm not saying that Bush is uncaring or callous to those families; I'm sure he's moved when he's with them. But I also believe, based on everything I've seen and read, that he takes from that emotional experience only the sentiments that reinforce his existing views.
Those views remain frightfully uninformed. There's no sense, listening to this man, that he's contemplated the notion that the American presence might be doing more harm than good. There was no mention of the institutional strain on the armed forces, how badly positioned we'd be as a country to respond to crisis elsewhere, how we would conduct the larger war against Iran that it seems the administration at least wants to bluff willingness to take on, and of course no notion either of the problems that come with a country already in deficit fighting a war on credit, or that the distribution of sacrifice--a few hundred thousand families bearing it all, the rest of us mostly wishing the news were less depressing--is unfair or immoral.
The last two years of a president's second term are not a good time to attempt big things, and I think the country has a certain expectation of its lame duck chief executives. Clinton spent his last two years fending off impeachment, pushing a lot of small-bore measures, and coming fairly close but tragically short of resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Reagan, perhaps the last true lame duck by virtue of the Democrats' decision not to pursue impeachment over Iran-Contra, was by then pursuing a foreign policy of de-escalating the Cold War that had wide bipartisan support; domestically, he did next to nothing. Both Clinton and Reagan enjoyed high approval ratings in their final two years.
Bush is taking a different approach. Thoroughly repudiated in the 2006 midterms, relatively unpopular even among many Republicans who see him as an anchor as well as true conservatives who feel that he's transgressed against their principles, he's still pushing, pushing, pushing to somehow "win" an unwinnable war. Maybe it's the sad consequence of never having been forced to clean up his own messes throughout a stunningly privileged life. Maybe it goes back to the managerial weakness of not being willing to entertain a diversity of views and have all the advisers fight it out on the merits of their arguments. Maybe it's just supreme narcissism. But either way, he's bidding fair to leave the presidency as the most reviled two-termer ever, doing long-term damage to the country's international standing, economic health, military might, and internal comity. While almost everyone wishes he'd just lie down in his hole, Bush keeps digging.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
...And Now, the News
On the New York Times homepage a bit after midnight this evening, I saw a headline of some interest. As I don't generally read the Times in print, I'm not sure where this story will appear in Monday's paper. On the homepage, it could be found two clicks below the virtual fold (where you'd need to scroll down), in two sections, "Washington" and "U.S.": third story of three in one, second of three in the other. On the homepage, there are about a dozen stories above the scroll-down, maybe another 40 more below. The story I'm referring to was, visually and in terms of immediate draw to the reader's eye, about in the middle of the pack among those 40 or so.
So there's little to make it stand out. But in explaining what's happened and what's happening in our country in this decade, it would seem to have more to say than "Ducks Top Wings to Snap 4-Game Slide" or "When the Choreographer is Out of the Picture." (The direct link to the Eagles game story is no longer on the nytimes.com homepage as I write this, but the article I'm talking about probably outweighs that too.)
Its title is "Bush Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Finds":
In one sense, the de-emphasis on this story is appropriate and justified: it isn't "news" in the sense that it provides any knowledge that the attentive citizen didn't previously possess. If you've been paying attention at all since 2001, you probably understand that Bush/Republican tax policy, on a real-dollar basis, has disproportionately rewarded the wealthiest folks in the land. The interpretation and value/meaning of this fact can be disputed ("that's the entrepreneurial class, re-investing their money in the economy; they earned it and they get to should keep it," etc) but not the fact itself. The outcome of the Ducks-Wings donnybrook, decided on an artifical pond frozen by man and bordered by advertisements seeking the semidiscretionary dollars of a live and television audience that either lacks an NFL team (Anaheim/LA) or just saw theirs finish 3-13 and blow the first pick in the draft (Detroit), really does have more news value.
But the Bush tax story--the mere publication of which, by the way, will be enough to trigger Pavlovian howls of "liberal media" from the dogs so disposed to howl that refrain; "hey, Comrade Sulzberger, where's the quote from the AEI or Heritage expert explaining why this policy is just and proper?"--does have significance in terms of setting the framework and creating a context not only for understanding the past (the original enactments of the cuts themselves), but for real news stories soon to come.
When Congress gets going in earnest over the next few weeks and months, proposals will be on the board to do any number of expensive things, from raising the minimum wage to increasing student loan aid to fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax and reauthorizing No Child Left Behind to provide more federal support to schools. Pushing back against these proposals will be Republicans in Congress, the White House, and the media, all talking about how much they'll cost, waving the bloody balance sheet of tax-and-spend, charging newly powerful Democrats like this guy with having dollar-sign eyes and no regard for the shy and retiring nature of the global capitalist. Doing all these things, they'll say, means raising taxes and killing the prosperity of the last few years.
The New York Times will write stories covering these political fights, as of course they should. But if the paper were to contextualize every quoted salutary reference to "the Republican tax cuts" (for that will be the frame; Frank Luntz insists) by adding a phrase like "which benefitted millionaire families a few dozen times more than middle class families," you'd have... well, you'd have a liberal Fox News, presenting just one spin on the facts to push the reader/viewer toward a specific conclusion.
The point--or one point, anyway--is that the Republican argument here (though certainly not just here) depends upon a limited public understanding of what's informing the dispute. In a sense, it would be bias to include more detail about the real value of the Bush tax cuts--as well as the arguably important fact that the areas of the federal budget that have been cut or seen the slowest growth during this decade tend to favor the non-rich, while those that have continued to grow favor the wealthy--in every story about tax and budget fights to come.
In another sense, though, it's bias not to provide this context. "Preserving tax cuts versus increasing spending" has a different feel to it than "preserving tax cuts for the wealthiest versus increasing spending for everyone else."
On the New York Times homepage a bit after midnight this evening, I saw a headline of some interest. As I don't generally read the Times in print, I'm not sure where this story will appear in Monday's paper. On the homepage, it could be found two clicks below the virtual fold (where you'd need to scroll down), in two sections, "Washington" and "U.S.": third story of three in one, second of three in the other. On the homepage, there are about a dozen stories above the scroll-down, maybe another 40 more below. The story I'm referring to was, visually and in terms of immediate draw to the reader's eye, about in the middle of the pack among those 40 or so.
So there's little to make it stand out. But in explaining what's happened and what's happening in our country in this decade, it would seem to have more to say than "Ducks Top Wings to Snap 4-Game Slide" or "When the Choreographer is Out of the Picture." (The direct link to the Eagles game story is no longer on the nytimes.com homepage as I write this, but the article I'm talking about probably outweighs that too.)
Its title is "Bush Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Finds":
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.
....
Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.
Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.
...
The study estimates that the effective federal income tax rate, which excludes payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, declined modestly for people in the middle- and lower-income categories.
Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.
Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.
...
Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress want to permanently extend that tax cut and almost all of the others that Congress passed in his first term. The cost of doing that would be more than $1 trillion over the next decade, a cost that would hit the Treasury at the same time that the spending on old-age benefits for retiring baby boomers begins to soar.
In one sense, the de-emphasis on this story is appropriate and justified: it isn't "news" in the sense that it provides any knowledge that the attentive citizen didn't previously possess. If you've been paying attention at all since 2001, you probably understand that Bush/Republican tax policy, on a real-dollar basis, has disproportionately rewarded the wealthiest folks in the land. The interpretation and value/meaning of this fact can be disputed ("that's the entrepreneurial class, re-investing their money in the economy; they earned it and they get to should keep it," etc) but not the fact itself. The outcome of the Ducks-Wings donnybrook, decided on an artifical pond frozen by man and bordered by advertisements seeking the semidiscretionary dollars of a live and television audience that either lacks an NFL team (Anaheim/LA) or just saw theirs finish 3-13 and blow the first pick in the draft (Detroit), really does have more news value.
But the Bush tax story--the mere publication of which, by the way, will be enough to trigger Pavlovian howls of "liberal media" from the dogs so disposed to howl that refrain; "hey, Comrade Sulzberger, where's the quote from the AEI or Heritage expert explaining why this policy is just and proper?"--does have significance in terms of setting the framework and creating a context not only for understanding the past (the original enactments of the cuts themselves), but for real news stories soon to come.
When Congress gets going in earnest over the next few weeks and months, proposals will be on the board to do any number of expensive things, from raising the minimum wage to increasing student loan aid to fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax and reauthorizing No Child Left Behind to provide more federal support to schools. Pushing back against these proposals will be Republicans in Congress, the White House, and the media, all talking about how much they'll cost, waving the bloody balance sheet of tax-and-spend, charging newly powerful Democrats like this guy with having dollar-sign eyes and no regard for the shy and retiring nature of the global capitalist. Doing all these things, they'll say, means raising taxes and killing the prosperity of the last few years.
The New York Times will write stories covering these political fights, as of course they should. But if the paper were to contextualize every quoted salutary reference to "the Republican tax cuts" (for that will be the frame; Frank Luntz insists) by adding a phrase like "which benefitted millionaire families a few dozen times more than middle class families," you'd have... well, you'd have a liberal Fox News, presenting just one spin on the facts to push the reader/viewer toward a specific conclusion.
The point--or one point, anyway--is that the Republican argument here (though certainly not just here) depends upon a limited public understanding of what's informing the dispute. In a sense, it would be bias to include more detail about the real value of the Bush tax cuts--as well as the arguably important fact that the areas of the federal budget that have been cut or seen the slowest growth during this decade tend to favor the non-rich, while those that have continued to grow favor the wealthy--in every story about tax and budget fights to come.
In another sense, though, it's bias not to provide this context. "Preserving tax cuts versus increasing spending" has a different feel to it than "preserving tax cuts for the wealthiest versus increasing spending for everyone else."
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Minor Housekeeping
Just wanted to commend a couple new links on the blogroll here: the top politics/policy link is now Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. This site, launched last summer by some wonky liberals, didn't really interest me at first but seems to have hit its stride in a big way. The current issue (I think it's a quarterly) has an excellent piece about the (somewhat silly) urban policy debate between advocates for investment in "the creative class" and the jobs-and-services crowd; a strong critique of the "corporate social responsibility" model that capitalist-sympathizing progressives (like, um, me) have long seized upon as a best-of-both-worlds solution; and this article on the dangers of advocacy-oriented history.
Also new on the left side is BackSheGoes.com, a Phillies community site where I'm a moderator. Thus far, it's been blessedly free of political arguments; as I can do that here or at any number of other places online, I've come to the conclusion that baseball, basically a joyous subject (even with the heavy dose of masochism that comes with Philadelphia phandom), should stay as free as feasible from the cares and clashes of the serious world.
Just wanted to commend a couple new links on the blogroll here: the top politics/policy link is now Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. This site, launched last summer by some wonky liberals, didn't really interest me at first but seems to have hit its stride in a big way. The current issue (I think it's a quarterly) has an excellent piece about the (somewhat silly) urban policy debate between advocates for investment in "the creative class" and the jobs-and-services crowd; a strong critique of the "corporate social responsibility" model that capitalist-sympathizing progressives (like, um, me) have long seized upon as a best-of-both-worlds solution; and this article on the dangers of advocacy-oriented history.
Also new on the left side is BackSheGoes.com, a Phillies community site where I'm a moderator. Thus far, it's been blessedly free of political arguments; as I can do that here or at any number of other places online, I've come to the conclusion that baseball, basically a joyous subject (even with the heavy dose of masochism that comes with Philadelphia phandom), should stay as free as feasible from the cares and clashes of the serious world.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Soul Without Faith
As I meant to write about a few days back, the LA Times recently published what I thought was an excellent guest essay about atheism and the misconceptions connected to it. It got me thinking, for the first time in awhile, about what I believe in the area of faith and spirituality. For a long time now, I've described myself as a Deist or a "biased agnostic": I'm not sure if there is a God or divine entity, but I hope there is. It seems that a fairly large group of people react to the word "agnostic" with disdain, feeling that it's something of a cop-out: you either believe in God, and presumably express that belief through one of the major monotheistic faiths that have millions of followers in America, or you don't.
The author of the Times piece, evidently, does not--but, like me, he absolutely rejects the notion that morality or spirituality cannot exist outside of an organized religious framework:
Emphasis mine. I used to describe organized religion, particularly the Judeo-Christian tradition, as "the training wheels of morality." That phrase strikes me now as too smug and arrogant, as well as too dismissive of the positive benefits of religious socialization--e.g. the very admirable charity/community work that many large churches, synagogues, mosques et al sponsor and support. But the core notion, that one shouldn't need the Ten Commandments or the New Testament or any religious text to guide one's behavior in the world, still holds true for me. Empirical experience bears out that this is the best way to behave: the Golden Rule and the behavioral admonitions of the Commandments minimize conflict and generally lead to more peaceful communities and more satisfied and satisfying lives.
Otherwise, the question of faith in a divinity is ultimately a private one. I simply don't know: my sense is that there is something beyond the immediately tangible, some kind of "world beyond the world"--that, as one spiritual leader once put it, "luminous beings are we--not this crude matter." But it's a storybook conceit: I have no proof that this feeling of mine isn't anything more than the result of countless personal, familial, and cultural inputs and experiences (like watching Star Wars so many times as a kid).
Set against this--and I believe this is why a significant number of liberals have an active animus against organized religion--is all the damage we've seen wreaked in its name, from the Spanish Inquisition to this morning's unreported violence in the Iraq civil war. But this isn't fair either--it holds both God and the virtuous faithful to account for crimes they had nothing to do with, unless you believe that the uglier exhortations of the holy texts were direct quotes.
Faiths should be seen and read in the real world as any other institutions that seek to exert temporal influence: governments, armies, political parties, advocacy organizations. And moral systems should stand or fall on their own merits, based on their real-world performance and consequences. Eventually humankind should be able to reap the benefits of religion's moral guidance without having to bear the consequences of the fundamental divisions it inspires.
As I meant to write about a few days back, the LA Times recently published what I thought was an excellent guest essay about atheism and the misconceptions connected to it. It got me thinking, for the first time in awhile, about what I believe in the area of faith and spirituality. For a long time now, I've described myself as a Deist or a "biased agnostic": I'm not sure if there is a God or divine entity, but I hope there is. It seems that a fairly large group of people react to the word "agnostic" with disdain, feeling that it's something of a cop-out: you either believe in God, and presumably express that belief through one of the major monotheistic faiths that have millions of followers in America, or you don't.
The author of the Times piece, evidently, does not--but, like me, he absolutely rejects the notion that morality or spirituality cannot exist outside of an organized religious framework:
7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.
There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.
...
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.
If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.
We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.
Emphasis mine. I used to describe organized religion, particularly the Judeo-Christian tradition, as "the training wheels of morality." That phrase strikes me now as too smug and arrogant, as well as too dismissive of the positive benefits of religious socialization--e.g. the very admirable charity/community work that many large churches, synagogues, mosques et al sponsor and support. But the core notion, that one shouldn't need the Ten Commandments or the New Testament or any religious text to guide one's behavior in the world, still holds true for me. Empirical experience bears out that this is the best way to behave: the Golden Rule and the behavioral admonitions of the Commandments minimize conflict and generally lead to more peaceful communities and more satisfied and satisfying lives.
Otherwise, the question of faith in a divinity is ultimately a private one. I simply don't know: my sense is that there is something beyond the immediately tangible, some kind of "world beyond the world"--that, as one spiritual leader once put it, "luminous beings are we--not this crude matter." But it's a storybook conceit: I have no proof that this feeling of mine isn't anything more than the result of countless personal, familial, and cultural inputs and experiences (like watching Star Wars so many times as a kid).
Set against this--and I believe this is why a significant number of liberals have an active animus against organized religion--is all the damage we've seen wreaked in its name, from the Spanish Inquisition to this morning's unreported violence in the Iraq civil war. But this isn't fair either--it holds both God and the virtuous faithful to account for crimes they had nothing to do with, unless you believe that the uglier exhortations of the holy texts were direct quotes.
Faiths should be seen and read in the real world as any other institutions that seek to exert temporal influence: governments, armies, political parties, advocacy organizations. And moral systems should stand or fall on their own merits, based on their real-world performance and consequences. Eventually humankind should be able to reap the benefits of religion's moral guidance without having to bear the consequences of the fundamental divisions it inspires.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Of Polls and Purpose
If I really wanted to bring myself down from happy contemplation of the Eagles' huge win yesterday, I might spend a few minutes trying to calculate how much money already has been spent on utterly meaningless 2008 presidential primary polling, how much more will be spent before the end of 2007--the earliest point at which I could imagine those polls will have any predictive or determinative value--and all the better purposes to which that money could be put. A look at the "Election Central Polltracker" section of Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo today informs us that as of two days ago, John McCain would narrowly edge Hillary Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry and runs even with John Edwards... for the November 2008 general race... in New Hampshire. Barack Obama beats all the leading Republicans, all the Democrats beat Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani is stronger against every Democrat but Obama.
Really: who the frak cares, and could this be any less meaningful? It's fully possible that *no* combination polled for actually will head the tickets on Election Day 22 1/2 months hence, and by then we'll know so much more about the candidates that current opinion probably will bear no resemblence to voters' sentiments at that point. Primary polls for the winter 2008 contest in the state are only slightly more useful, and they show Giuliani, McCain, Clinton and Obama in the best position. McCain, obviously, is known in the state and knows how to win in New Hampshire; Rudy's myriad personal problems likely aren't as well known. Obama is a Rorschach candidate on whom everyone is projecting their hopes; I like him too, but it's just impossible really to know what his candidacy will be like.
Still, Obama has one advantage over Hillary Clinton that I don't think will go away, an edge he shares with John Edwards, and arguably with McCain and some of the lesser known candidates on the Republican side. His campaign is more likely to have a clear purpose and rationale, and my read of the last 50 years of presidential politics is that candidates who make the race for an easily understandable reason do better in both the primary and general elections. JFK's "pass the torch" generational appeal in 1960; Jimmy Carter's reform and integrity rationale in 1976; Reagan's nostalgic conservatism four years later; Bill Clinton's notion of reclaiming government for the middle class in 1992; Bush's "we hate turr'ists 'n homos" re-election win in 2004. Occasionally, tactics and money are enough to win races without clear themes, as in 1988 and 2000. But most of the time it's either a referendum on the performance of the incumbent (1984, 1996), or a contest of whose vision is stronger and clearer.
(As an aside, I should point out that the rationale theory doesn't totally hold up: when the rationale is explicitly ideological, as it is with these two guys, it's very tough to make a sale. Probably to our benefit, we are not an ideological country.)
The emerging theme of Obama '08 is reconciliation and an end to the vicious political wars of the last 20 years--begun by Lee Atwater with the victory of the first President Bush in 1988, stoked to fever pitch first by the 1992 Bill Clinton campaign and then by the ascendance of Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, and brought to its most extreme point by Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman in 2004, when their brutal and brilliant tactics dragged a failed incumbent to re-election victory over a feckless opponent. With the same playbook deployed to losing effect in 2006, and the problems of the nation too pressing to ignore much longer, the chance for a cease-fire is real, and Obama could be the man to make the peace. He's devout, aware and salutarily critical of some of the dumber tenets demanded by true-believer Democrats, and has a biography that embodies some of the contradictions that must be reconciled: black and white, big city (Chicago, where he made his name) and rural (Kansas, where he was born). As a fresh face, he could be much more palatable for lifelong Republicans than veterans of the long political war--particularly Hillary Clinton, who's almost a symbol of the zero-sum politics of her time. But more on her in a bit.
Edwards too has an emerging rationale: social and economic justice. His plan to announce a second presidential run from the Ninth Ward of New Orleans, where the disaster of Hurricane Katrina has never really ended, seems designed in part to seize the moral high ground from Obama and every other Democrat: I'm sure he'll be criticized in cable news circles for being a "downer," and dismissed for his naivete in calling for the country to live its values. But to run that sort of campaign with any hope of victory, you need to have an innately likable personality--and Edwards probably qualifies there. Add in his clear opposition to the war, strong ties with unions, and evidently much-improved campaign chops, and he could be a force.
Al Gore, if he chose to run, would have two compelling rationales: unmaking the tragic mistake of 2000--a mistake for which he shares some responsibility--and dramatic action on climate change. Wes Clark could offer the idea of how America acts in the world, based on his military career and success in the Balkans. But I don't know if that will be enough, even though Clark's the guy I plan to support right now.
John McCain has a unique problem: the rationale he offered in 2000--reform and moderation at home, purpose and power abroad--is unpalatable to the Republican primary electorate and to some extent has been discredited by the actions of the Bush administration. If he'd left the Republican Party in 2005 to prepare for an independent presidential run, he might have been unbeatable. Now he has to toe the line as a Bush pseudo-conservative through the primaries, then hope he can shed his costume and re-emerge as Radical Centrist McCain for the general election. I don't think it's going to happen. The other leading Republicans have their own problems: Rudy Giuliani is trying to run on a cult of personality and the emotional resonance of his 9/11 performance, but he might be approaching the sell-by date for that, and his personality won't wear well in small-town Iowa and New Hampshire. Mitt Romney is running a campaign that strikes me as oddly similar to that of John Kerry two years ago: emphasizing what he's not rather than what he is. And he's already starting to crash on the same rocks that sank Kerry in 2004: the perception that he's an opportunist and flip-flopper.
That leaves Hillary Clinton. I don't know many hardcore Hillary supporters; I'm not sure there are that many outside the professional Democratic establishment, where it's presumably difficult to parse true belief from careerism. But I'd love to ask them why they think Hillary should run, and why she will run, if she does. Is it Clinton Restorationism? Newsflash: this ain't no hereditary monarchy. Breaking gender barriers? Maybe, but that's just not very compelling, I think. Any policy goal? The next big idea Mrs. Clinton offers will be her first as a Senator.
No, I think that like fellow New York pol Giuliani, this is a cult of personality campaign. The problem is that the personality isn't very compelling: if a group of relatively well-informed Americans of diverse political viewpoints were asked to describe Hillary Clinton, I think the most common words coming back might include "scripted," "cold," and "calculating." (And yeah, those are the words I'd use: I'm well aware that I might be overgeneralizing from my own opinion. But then, it is my blog.)
She's evidently good in small-group settings, her money will help, and she has the best political mind in the country (Bill, of course) to help her. But that lack of an answer to the simple question "why" is big--and combined with the strengths of her opponents and a media that will be relentless in picking her apart, I just don't believe it will be enough.
If I really wanted to bring myself down from happy contemplation of the Eagles' huge win yesterday, I might spend a few minutes trying to calculate how much money already has been spent on utterly meaningless 2008 presidential primary polling, how much more will be spent before the end of 2007--the earliest point at which I could imagine those polls will have any predictive or determinative value--and all the better purposes to which that money could be put. A look at the "Election Central Polltracker" section of Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo today informs us that as of two days ago, John McCain would narrowly edge Hillary Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry and runs even with John Edwards... for the November 2008 general race... in New Hampshire. Barack Obama beats all the leading Republicans, all the Democrats beat Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani is stronger against every Democrat but Obama.
Really: who the frak cares, and could this be any less meaningful? It's fully possible that *no* combination polled for actually will head the tickets on Election Day 22 1/2 months hence, and by then we'll know so much more about the candidates that current opinion probably will bear no resemblence to voters' sentiments at that point. Primary polls for the winter 2008 contest in the state are only slightly more useful, and they show Giuliani, McCain, Clinton and Obama in the best position. McCain, obviously, is known in the state and knows how to win in New Hampshire; Rudy's myriad personal problems likely aren't as well known. Obama is a Rorschach candidate on whom everyone is projecting their hopes; I like him too, but it's just impossible really to know what his candidacy will be like.
Still, Obama has one advantage over Hillary Clinton that I don't think will go away, an edge he shares with John Edwards, and arguably with McCain and some of the lesser known candidates on the Republican side. His campaign is more likely to have a clear purpose and rationale, and my read of the last 50 years of presidential politics is that candidates who make the race for an easily understandable reason do better in both the primary and general elections. JFK's "pass the torch" generational appeal in 1960; Jimmy Carter's reform and integrity rationale in 1976; Reagan's nostalgic conservatism four years later; Bill Clinton's notion of reclaiming government for the middle class in 1992; Bush's "we hate turr'ists 'n homos" re-election win in 2004. Occasionally, tactics and money are enough to win races without clear themes, as in 1988 and 2000. But most of the time it's either a referendum on the performance of the incumbent (1984, 1996), or a contest of whose vision is stronger and clearer.
(As an aside, I should point out that the rationale theory doesn't totally hold up: when the rationale is explicitly ideological, as it is with these two guys, it's very tough to make a sale. Probably to our benefit, we are not an ideological country.)
The emerging theme of Obama '08 is reconciliation and an end to the vicious political wars of the last 20 years--begun by Lee Atwater with the victory of the first President Bush in 1988, stoked to fever pitch first by the 1992 Bill Clinton campaign and then by the ascendance of Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, and brought to its most extreme point by Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman in 2004, when their brutal and brilliant tactics dragged a failed incumbent to re-election victory over a feckless opponent. With the same playbook deployed to losing effect in 2006, and the problems of the nation too pressing to ignore much longer, the chance for a cease-fire is real, and Obama could be the man to make the peace. He's devout, aware and salutarily critical of some of the dumber tenets demanded by true-believer Democrats, and has a biography that embodies some of the contradictions that must be reconciled: black and white, big city (Chicago, where he made his name) and rural (Kansas, where he was born). As a fresh face, he could be much more palatable for lifelong Republicans than veterans of the long political war--particularly Hillary Clinton, who's almost a symbol of the zero-sum politics of her time. But more on her in a bit.
Edwards too has an emerging rationale: social and economic justice. His plan to announce a second presidential run from the Ninth Ward of New Orleans, where the disaster of Hurricane Katrina has never really ended, seems designed in part to seize the moral high ground from Obama and every other Democrat: I'm sure he'll be criticized in cable news circles for being a "downer," and dismissed for his naivete in calling for the country to live its values. But to run that sort of campaign with any hope of victory, you need to have an innately likable personality--and Edwards probably qualifies there. Add in his clear opposition to the war, strong ties with unions, and evidently much-improved campaign chops, and he could be a force.
Al Gore, if he chose to run, would have two compelling rationales: unmaking the tragic mistake of 2000--a mistake for which he shares some responsibility--and dramatic action on climate change. Wes Clark could offer the idea of how America acts in the world, based on his military career and success in the Balkans. But I don't know if that will be enough, even though Clark's the guy I plan to support right now.
John McCain has a unique problem: the rationale he offered in 2000--reform and moderation at home, purpose and power abroad--is unpalatable to the Republican primary electorate and to some extent has been discredited by the actions of the Bush administration. If he'd left the Republican Party in 2005 to prepare for an independent presidential run, he might have been unbeatable. Now he has to toe the line as a Bush pseudo-conservative through the primaries, then hope he can shed his costume and re-emerge as Radical Centrist McCain for the general election. I don't think it's going to happen. The other leading Republicans have their own problems: Rudy Giuliani is trying to run on a cult of personality and the emotional resonance of his 9/11 performance, but he might be approaching the sell-by date for that, and his personality won't wear well in small-town Iowa and New Hampshire. Mitt Romney is running a campaign that strikes me as oddly similar to that of John Kerry two years ago: emphasizing what he's not rather than what he is. And he's already starting to crash on the same rocks that sank Kerry in 2004: the perception that he's an opportunist and flip-flopper.
That leaves Hillary Clinton. I don't know many hardcore Hillary supporters; I'm not sure there are that many outside the professional Democratic establishment, where it's presumably difficult to parse true belief from careerism. But I'd love to ask them why they think Hillary should run, and why she will run, if she does. Is it Clinton Restorationism? Newsflash: this ain't no hereditary monarchy. Breaking gender barriers? Maybe, but that's just not very compelling, I think. Any policy goal? The next big idea Mrs. Clinton offers will be her first as a Senator.
No, I think that like fellow New York pol Giuliani, this is a cult of personality campaign. The problem is that the personality isn't very compelling: if a group of relatively well-informed Americans of diverse political viewpoints were asked to describe Hillary Clinton, I think the most common words coming back might include "scripted," "cold," and "calculating." (And yeah, those are the words I'd use: I'm well aware that I might be overgeneralizing from my own opinion. But then, it is my blog.)
She's evidently good in small-group settings, her money will help, and she has the best political mind in the country (Bill, of course) to help her. But that lack of an answer to the simple question "why" is big--and combined with the strengths of her opponents and a media that will be relentless in picking her apart, I just don't believe it will be enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)