Mark Schmidt is wondering where the Social Security privatization liberals are and, indirectly, why Bush doesn't seem to care about cultivating them and achieving some measure of a bipartisan consensus on reforming Social Security.
Here is my answer:
Bush only cares about Republican votes in the House and picking off a few scared, potentially vulnerable Democrats from Red States up for re-election in 2006 on the Senate side. The Rove-Norquist-Delay Strategy is intimidation, not cooperation. It worked for taxes, the war, and for establishing the union-broken Department of Homeland Security. But I don't think it will work for Social Security. Who knows, maybe it's not even intended to. From the Republican point of view, maybe it's enough that they've gotten this far with the debate.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Dear Paul
I really enjoyed your column today, but there is one problem.
The label. Moderate. Fighting Moderates. Here is what you say about the elevation of Dr. Dean to the chairmanship of the DNC:
Those words tell us what the selection of Mr. Dean means. It doesn't represent a turn to the left: Mr. Dean is squarely in the center of his party on issues like health care and national defense.
Then you go on to tell us how Dean as governor of Vermont balanced budgets even when he didn't have to, so "it was always absurd to call Mr. Dean a left-winger". Instead Dean is a "fighting moderate".
I know you mean well, and much of what I am about to contend may be more a matter of semantics than substance, but the problem is, the style of the thing, and the words we use matter. Now, when we use words like "moderate" and "centrist" and "center", we are really being cowardly, in my view. And the more we talk like this, the more Republicans continue to proudly assert their "conservatism" and the whole debate becomes a "moderate" versus "conservative" thing, and the result is, the debate and the policies and the "center" keep getting pushed further and further to the right.
Here's an idea. We are liberals. Why not say that? The truth is, yes, I want today's politics and policies to make a turn to the left. You say that Dean's ascension does not represent a turn to the left. But shouldn't it?
"Well, 'liberal' has a bad name". And why is that? Because the conservatives have made it so. We need to correct and reverse that notion. Because the reality is, liberalism is good. Liberalism works. We have a whole century of social progress to look back on that says liberalism is good and that liberalism does work.
While attempts to claim the moderate label or the center of the political debate may be smart politics today, they are bad politics for tomorrow, and for the day after that.
The problem is not just today's bad policies. The bad policies of today stem from our decision yesterday to abandon the ideals of liberalism for a short cut to the electoral promised land (and that hasn't worked either, if you've noticed). The problem is the political frame and context, including symbols, in which the political discourse occurs. This is what must change. By claiming we are moderates we are sounding reasonable, but people don't respect it, or at least people that are motivated to go to the polls don't. And I don't remember the conservative movement, in picking up the pieces after 1932 or 1964 making efforts to become "more moderate". No, they went back to their ideology's roots, and attempted to swing the culture to their point of view, rather than attempting to move themselves to fit the changing environment. Yeah, they've used soft talk and code words when they've had to, but they didn't turn away from their basic idea of a conservative heaven or apologize for opinions that were unpopular to some people. And today, as a result, we are talking about tearing down the foundation of the New Deal. This is how far the debate has shifted.
Paul, you have a valuable platform. Please recognize that the problem is not just today's policy debate. It is today's political environment, including the words we use and how we identify ourselves. If we seem apologetic about our history and our values, others will sense that, and we will continue to lose ground.
Yeah, the media and the Republicans are loudly proclaiming that Dean is a "liberal". I actually think this is a good thing. We should leave the media and the Republicans with this impression. We shouldn't be spending valuable time trying to debunk this idea by yapping about balanced budgets and NRA ratings.
Liberal. It's OK. You can say it. And we'll all be the better for it later.
The label. Moderate. Fighting Moderates. Here is what you say about the elevation of Dr. Dean to the chairmanship of the DNC:
Those words tell us what the selection of Mr. Dean means. It doesn't represent a turn to the left: Mr. Dean is squarely in the center of his party on issues like health care and national defense.
Then you go on to tell us how Dean as governor of Vermont balanced budgets even when he didn't have to, so "it was always absurd to call Mr. Dean a left-winger". Instead Dean is a "fighting moderate".
I know you mean well, and much of what I am about to contend may be more a matter of semantics than substance, but the problem is, the style of the thing, and the words we use matter. Now, when we use words like "moderate" and "centrist" and "center", we are really being cowardly, in my view. And the more we talk like this, the more Republicans continue to proudly assert their "conservatism" and the whole debate becomes a "moderate" versus "conservative" thing, and the result is, the debate and the policies and the "center" keep getting pushed further and further to the right.
Here's an idea. We are liberals. Why not say that? The truth is, yes, I want today's politics and policies to make a turn to the left. You say that Dean's ascension does not represent a turn to the left. But shouldn't it?
"Well, 'liberal' has a bad name". And why is that? Because the conservatives have made it so. We need to correct and reverse that notion. Because the reality is, liberalism is good. Liberalism works. We have a whole century of social progress to look back on that says liberalism is good and that liberalism does work.
While attempts to claim the moderate label or the center of the political debate may be smart politics today, they are bad politics for tomorrow, and for the day after that.
The problem is not just today's bad policies. The bad policies of today stem from our decision yesterday to abandon the ideals of liberalism for a short cut to the electoral promised land (and that hasn't worked either, if you've noticed). The problem is the political frame and context, including symbols, in which the political discourse occurs. This is what must change. By claiming we are moderates we are sounding reasonable, but people don't respect it, or at least people that are motivated to go to the polls don't. And I don't remember the conservative movement, in picking up the pieces after 1932 or 1964 making efforts to become "more moderate". No, they went back to their ideology's roots, and attempted to swing the culture to their point of view, rather than attempting to move themselves to fit the changing environment. Yeah, they've used soft talk and code words when they've had to, but they didn't turn away from their basic idea of a conservative heaven or apologize for opinions that were unpopular to some people. And today, as a result, we are talking about tearing down the foundation of the New Deal. This is how far the debate has shifted.
Paul, you have a valuable platform. Please recognize that the problem is not just today's policy debate. It is today's political environment, including the words we use and how we identify ourselves. If we seem apologetic about our history and our values, others will sense that, and we will continue to lose ground.
Yeah, the media and the Republicans are loudly proclaiming that Dean is a "liberal". I actually think this is a good thing. We should leave the media and the Republicans with this impression. We shouldn't be spending valuable time trying to debunk this idea by yapping about balanced budgets and NRA ratings.
Liberal. It's OK. You can say it. And we'll all be the better for it later.
Monday, February 14, 2005
My Esteemed Colleagues...
The Leftcoaster has a stunning headline and argument entitled The Coming Days of Rage.
I've been thinking a lot along these lines for some time now although I'll admit I hadn't really clued into the economic dimension as is presented at this post before. But the economic angle does suggest that there may be changes of more importance besides the aggregate indicators (unemployment rates, inflation, economic growth, etc) most pundits rely on to predict economic security and political contentment with the current regime. In short, if the wrong Americans (i.e. well educated, white) are angry, it won't matter how well the professional economists say we are doing to cause a political crisis.
Then add on the religious element, America's military interventions, the threat--real or imagined--presented by terrorism by The Other that can strike anywhere at any time, the anti-dissension hysteria fanned by institutions like Fox and talk radio, and we have a recipe for craziness.
I've been thinking a lot along these lines for some time now although I'll admit I hadn't really clued into the economic dimension as is presented at this post before. But the economic angle does suggest that there may be changes of more importance besides the aggregate indicators (unemployment rates, inflation, economic growth, etc) most pundits rely on to predict economic security and political contentment with the current regime. In short, if the wrong Americans (i.e. well educated, white) are angry, it won't matter how well the professional economists say we are doing to cause a political crisis.
Then add on the religious element, America's military interventions, the threat--real or imagined--presented by terrorism by The Other that can strike anywhere at any time, the anti-dissension hysteria fanned by institutions like Fox and talk radio, and we have a recipe for craziness.
Good and Evil
So I happened upon a speech by Ward Churchill playing on C-Span over the weekend, that apparently was from earlier last week.
I agreed with most, if not nearly everything, he said. Americans tell pollsters they like someone who tells it straight up, who isn't afraid to say or do what isn't popular. Conservatives blanch at "political correctness" and say they admire people who speak the "truth" even if the person saying the truth isn't very nice about it. But what if the straight up truth isn't popular and doesn't come out very polite-like? Well, that's Ward Churchill. He thinks America's been exploitive and murderous and he doesn't much care whether you like that suggestion or him very much.
Alongside the good the country has done, America has also shed much blood in a variety of open as well as hidden causes, not to mention exploited the lives and natural resources of others for the sake of profit and power. And if there is a Higher Power that ultimately judges such things, then we can expect America to face the consequences of these actions, regardless of whether the American press knows of them or reports them if they do.
But it is the course of things in the U.S. that the murkier sides of America's involvement overseas has received little or no attention, much less thoughtful analysis or debate. So understandably, most people have little sense of what Churchill and others are talking about and are for that reason, offended, and easily provoked by the right wing rabble that does or should understand the basis for Churchill's comments but would rather glamorize America's past and present for the purposes of achieving its own cultural and ideological objectives.
Furthermore, because of the harmful acts of America's military establishment and corporate empires overseas, I don't think it's a big stretch to suggest that the events of 9-11 were a payback of sorts, if not directly to the real or imagined grievances cited by Al Qaeda, then to that of a Higher Authority, who has informed us that He Will Repay. Abraham Lincoln himself mused that the elongated course of the Civil War may have served in part to repay the nation for the sin of slavery through the blood that was shed. In the same way, decades of persecuting political opponents of corporatism and militarism in Latin America, favoring profits over healing in Africa, and offhandedly supporting or opposing dictators in the Middle East based on material or ideological concerns rather than human rights will bear fruit.
That the innocent also suffered on 9-11 is no refutation of this fact. The innocent always suffere for the sins of others. It is the nature of evil. And furthermore, the notion of 9-11 as a divine rebuke was not lost on religious conservatives such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell in the days and weeks afterward, who while pointing to different national sins as the root of the trouble, also fingered God as at least allowing the events to take place.
Although religious conservatives like to claim the God of the Bible is on their side, the judgements of God on the nations recorded in Holy Scripture suggests something else is at work in the mind of the Almighty. Pride, violence, and the trampling of the poor play as critical role, if not more so, than sexual immorality in causing God to first warn, and then inflict punishment upon nations that will not repent. And above all else, America is a proud nation. Pride goeth before a fall, the scriptures tell us. Surely it would be folly for us to not recognize the eventual harmful effects of an exploitive and militant foreign policy?
Which leads me to another point. Conservatives frequently complain that issues should be discussed and decided on on the basis of their contribution to the struggle between Right and Wrong (rather than on some cost-benefit ratio determination--although conservatives themselves favor this efficiency approach on many business regulatory matters, but that's another post for another day). But in doing so, conservatives should recognize that in trying to move the arguing of public policy to this domain, that they also risk having the moral implications of policies turned back on themselves, particularly in matters related to social justice and when the issues involve our killing of others in foreign lands for dubious or self serving purposes.
And it also means that the terms and tones of the debates will not necessarily lend themselves to being able to fudge the differences, to claim that a strict black and white definition of a particular problem (such as the conflict between tax cuts for the rich and cuts in food stamps) doesn't apply in their pet case. They are opening a can of worms they may regret later.
And it also means that if the other side adopts the same confrontational rhetoric and tactics that they themselves practice, conservatives will find themselves enraged by and attempting to argue with a lot more Ward Churchills.
As for Ward Churchill, I hope he hangs in there and rides out the attempts to fire him. At the same time, I concede that his style is not one that encourages reasonable debate and isn't geared towards winning over opponents. But, as I've indicated, this is the fallout for conservatives from pushing a strict, no holds barred, right or wrong way of looking at the world, a debate they will not always win or be able to control.
I agreed with most, if not nearly everything, he said. Americans tell pollsters they like someone who tells it straight up, who isn't afraid to say or do what isn't popular. Conservatives blanch at "political correctness" and say they admire people who speak the "truth" even if the person saying the truth isn't very nice about it. But what if the straight up truth isn't popular and doesn't come out very polite-like? Well, that's Ward Churchill. He thinks America's been exploitive and murderous and he doesn't much care whether you like that suggestion or him very much.
Alongside the good the country has done, America has also shed much blood in a variety of open as well as hidden causes, not to mention exploited the lives and natural resources of others for the sake of profit and power. And if there is a Higher Power that ultimately judges such things, then we can expect America to face the consequences of these actions, regardless of whether the American press knows of them or reports them if they do.
But it is the course of things in the U.S. that the murkier sides of America's involvement overseas has received little or no attention, much less thoughtful analysis or debate. So understandably, most people have little sense of what Churchill and others are talking about and are for that reason, offended, and easily provoked by the right wing rabble that does or should understand the basis for Churchill's comments but would rather glamorize America's past and present for the purposes of achieving its own cultural and ideological objectives.
Furthermore, because of the harmful acts of America's military establishment and corporate empires overseas, I don't think it's a big stretch to suggest that the events of 9-11 were a payback of sorts, if not directly to the real or imagined grievances cited by Al Qaeda, then to that of a Higher Authority, who has informed us that He Will Repay. Abraham Lincoln himself mused that the elongated course of the Civil War may have served in part to repay the nation for the sin of slavery through the blood that was shed. In the same way, decades of persecuting political opponents of corporatism and militarism in Latin America, favoring profits over healing in Africa, and offhandedly supporting or opposing dictators in the Middle East based on material or ideological concerns rather than human rights will bear fruit.
That the innocent also suffered on 9-11 is no refutation of this fact. The innocent always suffere for the sins of others. It is the nature of evil. And furthermore, the notion of 9-11 as a divine rebuke was not lost on religious conservatives such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell in the days and weeks afterward, who while pointing to different national sins as the root of the trouble, also fingered God as at least allowing the events to take place.
Although religious conservatives like to claim the God of the Bible is on their side, the judgements of God on the nations recorded in Holy Scripture suggests something else is at work in the mind of the Almighty. Pride, violence, and the trampling of the poor play as critical role, if not more so, than sexual immorality in causing God to first warn, and then inflict punishment upon nations that will not repent. And above all else, America is a proud nation. Pride goeth before a fall, the scriptures tell us. Surely it would be folly for us to not recognize the eventual harmful effects of an exploitive and militant foreign policy?
Which leads me to another point. Conservatives frequently complain that issues should be discussed and decided on on the basis of their contribution to the struggle between Right and Wrong (rather than on some cost-benefit ratio determination--although conservatives themselves favor this efficiency approach on many business regulatory matters, but that's another post for another day). But in doing so, conservatives should recognize that in trying to move the arguing of public policy to this domain, that they also risk having the moral implications of policies turned back on themselves, particularly in matters related to social justice and when the issues involve our killing of others in foreign lands for dubious or self serving purposes.
And it also means that the terms and tones of the debates will not necessarily lend themselves to being able to fudge the differences, to claim that a strict black and white definition of a particular problem (such as the conflict between tax cuts for the rich and cuts in food stamps) doesn't apply in their pet case. They are opening a can of worms they may regret later.
And it also means that if the other side adopts the same confrontational rhetoric and tactics that they themselves practice, conservatives will find themselves enraged by and attempting to argue with a lot more Ward Churchills.
As for Ward Churchill, I hope he hangs in there and rides out the attempts to fire him. At the same time, I concede that his style is not one that encourages reasonable debate and isn't geared towards winning over opponents. But, as I've indicated, this is the fallout for conservatives from pushing a strict, no holds barred, right or wrong way of looking at the world, a debate they will not always win or be able to control.
Friday, February 11, 2005
18 Suckers
Sam Heldman says the class action "reform" bill is crazy. And 18 of our boys and girls in the U.S. Senate voted for it. 18.
[I checked some of the Senate member websites to see what rationale they were offering for why they supported or opposed this legislation. Tom Carper has a press release on his site, explaining why he voted for it, but most of the others have nothing.]
While Kos is encouraged by reports of a new unity among the Senate Democratic caucus, Seeing the Forest concludes we have work to do.
What I wanna know is, how many bills supported by Clinton and the Democratic majority during the 1993-1994 session, got 18 Republican votes in the Senate? I can't imagine 2, let alone 18, Republicans voting for anything Clinton supported. Republicans would have voted against a bill to have a likeness of Ronald Reagan carved into Mount Rushmore, if Clinton or the Democrats favored it.
Harry, Nancy, I know you're trying. And I know you object to having the DNC chair trying to control policy, but when you can't keep our own guys in line on something like this, you don't exactly do a lot for our confidences, you know what I mean?
In other news, President Bush has vowed to veto any changes to the Medicare prescription drug bill passed last year. With cost estimates for the bill--which prevents price negotiations with drug companies over the cost of drugs the federal government would cover for beneficiaries--now projected to rise to $724 billion over the next decade, some members of Congress are calling for changes in the government's bargaining position. But Bush is pledging to veto any such changes on the grounds that "I signed Medicare reform proudly, and any attempt to limit the choices of our seniors and to take away their prescription drug coverage under Medicare, will meet my veto".
Now obviously, Bush's remarks and veto threat have nothing to do with wanting or being able to fullfill the promises of the legislation to Medicare beneficiaries. Rather, he wants to make sure the profits of the pharmaceutical companies and the lifestyles of its executives are protected at all cost.
If only we had a real news media, and a real oppositional party...
[I checked some of the Senate member websites to see what rationale they were offering for why they supported or opposed this legislation. Tom Carper has a press release on his site, explaining why he voted for it, but most of the others have nothing.]
While Kos is encouraged by reports of a new unity among the Senate Democratic caucus, Seeing the Forest concludes we have work to do.
What I wanna know is, how many bills supported by Clinton and the Democratic majority during the 1993-1994 session, got 18 Republican votes in the Senate? I can't imagine 2, let alone 18, Republicans voting for anything Clinton supported. Republicans would have voted against a bill to have a likeness of Ronald Reagan carved into Mount Rushmore, if Clinton or the Democrats favored it.
Harry, Nancy, I know you're trying. And I know you object to having the DNC chair trying to control policy, but when you can't keep our own guys in line on something like this, you don't exactly do a lot for our confidences, you know what I mean?
In other news, President Bush has vowed to veto any changes to the Medicare prescription drug bill passed last year. With cost estimates for the bill--which prevents price negotiations with drug companies over the cost of drugs the federal government would cover for beneficiaries--now projected to rise to $724 billion over the next decade, some members of Congress are calling for changes in the government's bargaining position. But Bush is pledging to veto any such changes on the grounds that "I signed Medicare reform proudly, and any attempt to limit the choices of our seniors and to take away their prescription drug coverage under Medicare, will meet my veto".
Now obviously, Bush's remarks and veto threat have nothing to do with wanting or being able to fullfill the promises of the legislation to Medicare beneficiaries. Rather, he wants to make sure the profits of the pharmaceutical companies and the lifestyles of its executives are protected at all cost.
If only we had a real news media, and a real oppositional party...
Thursday, February 10, 2005
How I Connect Two Seemingly Unrelated Events...
So I went to the Capital City Brewery last night to hear Howard Dean after RSVP-ing to the Democracy For America website, along with about 1200 other people. I don't know how many people were actually there, but both levels of the place were filled to standing room only, and later on I realized there was a substantial crowd standing outside as well, to which Dean afterward went out to provide a second speech. Yeah, I know, this is DC, land of policy wonks, government workers, and political staff, not the revered "heartland" of conservative Republican lore where things like this transpire, but I digress...now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
Other than the substance and passion typical for Dean, and the surprise accompaniment of fellow Vermonter, Senator Jim Jeffords, who joined him on stage, two things stood out for me. One, I have a hard time imagining someone like Tim Roemer, or Donnie Fowler, or, heaven forbid, Martin Frost, generating this kind of turnout or enthusiasm. In fact, I have a hard time imagining any Democrat besides the Clintons getting this kind of reaction.
Two, while I don't want to overstate the importance of Saturday's upcoming DNC election and Dean's likely victory in it, for its ability to dramatically change the political landscape (a point Dean underscored last night), it is clear that at a minimum, a different wind is blowing in Democratic politics. Whatever else happens, business as usual in the Democratic Party is over. The blogosphere and emerging grassroots progressive movement typified by Dean has changed how the party responds to its constituency, current events, and selects its leadership. While the change in party head may take time to produce tangible benefits, the change in process and selection this time indicates a new, more ground-up era, where we have a voice in shaping the party's and country's destiny.
The other seemingly unrelated event concerns the de-talonization of "Talon News" and its Bushie devotie and propogandist, "Jeff Gannon" masquerading as a "journalist" with press credentials and White House briefing room access. Although the Howard Kurtz piece in today's Post credits Kos, Atrios, and World O' Crap with the "outing", David Brock and Media Matters for America got the ball rolling.
And here's a memo to the wingnuts (and Reynolds, this means you) who are now crying foul: If you want to be the Administration's waterboy, at least use your own damn real name. And if you now think it's A-OK for journalists and their employers to be biased, than shut y're trap about "media bias". If you don't care that this guy was a partisan shill, than your whole bogus haranging of The Liberal Media is a sham.
Anyway, so what's the connection? The connection is that despite November's losses, there are signs of life that a new progressive movement is beginning to gel and have focus. The Democratic Party and the conservative establishment have been put on notice. We're paying attention.
Other than the substance and passion typical for Dean, and the surprise accompaniment of fellow Vermonter, Senator Jim Jeffords, who joined him on stage, two things stood out for me. One, I have a hard time imagining someone like Tim Roemer, or Donnie Fowler, or, heaven forbid, Martin Frost, generating this kind of turnout or enthusiasm. In fact, I have a hard time imagining any Democrat besides the Clintons getting this kind of reaction.
Two, while I don't want to overstate the importance of Saturday's upcoming DNC election and Dean's likely victory in it, for its ability to dramatically change the political landscape (a point Dean underscored last night), it is clear that at a minimum, a different wind is blowing in Democratic politics. Whatever else happens, business as usual in the Democratic Party is over. The blogosphere and emerging grassroots progressive movement typified by Dean has changed how the party responds to its constituency, current events, and selects its leadership. While the change in party head may take time to produce tangible benefits, the change in process and selection this time indicates a new, more ground-up era, where we have a voice in shaping the party's and country's destiny.
The other seemingly unrelated event concerns the de-talonization of "Talon News" and its Bushie devotie and propogandist, "Jeff Gannon" masquerading as a "journalist" with press credentials and White House briefing room access. Although the Howard Kurtz piece in today's Post credits Kos, Atrios, and World O' Crap with the "outing", David Brock and Media Matters for America got the ball rolling.
And here's a memo to the wingnuts (and Reynolds, this means you) who are now crying foul: If you want to be the Administration's waterboy, at least use your own damn real name. And if you now think it's A-OK for journalists and their employers to be biased, than shut y're trap about "media bias". If you don't care that this guy was a partisan shill, than your whole bogus haranging of The Liberal Media is a sham.
Anyway, so what's the connection? The connection is that despite November's losses, there are signs of life that a new progressive movement is beginning to gel and have focus. The Democratic Party and the conservative establishment have been put on notice. We're paying attention.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Can I Get a Witness?
Jesse Taylor says:
The Washington Post details today conservative concerns over the expansion of federal government under Bush. The typical objections are kindly trotted out, paraded around the sparsely populated arena, and trotted back in to the stables to a smattering of lazy claps and overheard questions about why hot dogs cost three dollars.
It's a nice show, but the core of Republican attitudes on the federal government are less an ideological opposition to the expansion of government power than an ideological opposition to the expansion of liberalism....
It's the decimation of personal control, the wholehearted embrace of the federal government's power to remove power from the individual. It's not about helping, supporting through hard times, ensuring a basic standard of living. It's about restriction, whether through fear, judicial fiat, or simple gross paternalism. It has nothing to do with the liberal embrace of the government's power to ensure and expand opportunity - the conservative ideal of government declares that its only power is to restrict rights...and they're perfectly fine with that.
The Washington Post details today conservative concerns over the expansion of federal government under Bush. The typical objections are kindly trotted out, paraded around the sparsely populated arena, and trotted back in to the stables to a smattering of lazy claps and overheard questions about why hot dogs cost three dollars.
It's a nice show, but the core of Republican attitudes on the federal government are less an ideological opposition to the expansion of government power than an ideological opposition to the expansion of liberalism....
It's the decimation of personal control, the wholehearted embrace of the federal government's power to remove power from the individual. It's not about helping, supporting through hard times, ensuring a basic standard of living. It's about restriction, whether through fear, judicial fiat, or simple gross paternalism. It has nothing to do with the liberal embrace of the government's power to ensure and expand opportunity - the conservative ideal of government declares that its only power is to restrict rights...and they're perfectly fine with that.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
6
The title of this post refers to:
a) The name George Constanza wanted to give his child;
b) The number of U.S. Senators elected to the Presidency while serving in the Senate;
c) The number of blogs that have linked to this humble blog;
d) The number of NHL teams that don't make the playoffs on any given non-strike year
Did you choose this blog's self-serving answer "C"? Then you were correct.
Blogging for two months and the number of my linked bloggers has increased to 6:
That Colored Fella
Suburban Guerilla
Seeing The Forest
Blonde Sense
Alt Hippo
The Rogue Progressive
If you've linked to me and I've neglected your inclusion in this list, please let me know. To those who have, thank you very much.
a) The name George Constanza wanted to give his child;
b) The number of U.S. Senators elected to the Presidency while serving in the Senate;
c) The number of blogs that have linked to this humble blog;
d) The number of NHL teams that don't make the playoffs on any given non-strike year
Did you choose this blog's self-serving answer "C"? Then you were correct.
Blogging for two months and the number of my linked bloggers has increased to 6:
That Colored Fella
Suburban Guerilla
Seeing The Forest
Blonde Sense
Alt Hippo
The Rogue Progressive
If you've linked to me and I've neglected your inclusion in this list, please let me know. To those who have, thank you very much.
Don't I Know You?
Republican Fascism
There have been a number of references from progressive blogosland to this article in the American Conservative, which expresses a concern from the right about the fascist tinges of America's current political climate. In particular, this passage was insightful:
"I dont think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them, hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind. They could be propelled into power by a populace ever more frustrated that the imperialist war it has supported, generally for the most banal of patriotic reasons, cannot possibly end in victory. And so scapegoats are sought, and if we cant bomb Arabs into submission, or the French, domestic critics of Bush will serve."
If I hadn't known any better, I would have bet my house that that passage had come from some leftish blog or from The Nation. That it is coming from the right is telling.
The AC article is of a special interest, coming as it does on the heels of yet another, previous warning shot from the (admittedly libertarian) right about the new state-embracing, freedom snuffing, "Red-State Bourgeoisie" that has come of age in the hyper-post-9-11-Iraq-War era.
That the conservative movement-turned-establishment harbors anti-democratic tendencies is not news to most of us on the left. It has been evident more or less since the country's founding in one form or another, regardless of whichever party label it cared to clothe itself with for the purposes of the moment. And there are many more capable than I who have outlined the excruciating details of the modern conservative fascist strain (in particular, see David Niewert) , so I won't attempt a further elucidation here, other than to note, as I have previously, what I believe to be its two main, distinguishing features: militant nationalism; and authoritarian religious sentiment; along with a third, more derivative pillar, corporate oligarchy.
This is not to label all Republicans or even all conservatives as fascists. To a large extent, I doubt whether most party adherents and group activists on the right think at this level of abstraction or would salute these darker ends if it was laid out to them.
But I would go further than the AC article's author in identifying the new radical evangelicalism (of both protestant and catholic stripes) as being a considerable source from which this red-state bourgeoisie may emerge. And I believe its a problem that, however present in the masses, is particularly evident in the religious hierachy and elite. Some of these figures and organizations I have identified before: D. James Kennedy (The Coral Ridge Hour television program from Fort Lauderdale, FL), Rod Parsley (from Columbus, OH, and who also hosts his own show on cable), and of course, James Dobson from Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, CO. Each enthusiastically calls for a "return to America's Christian heritage", which manages to combine both a seemingly historical patriotism with a call for greater restrictions on individual liberty and the freedom of conscience.
And as I have also argued previously, it is this threat, more than generalities about improving economic welfare, that should be recognized by the Democratic Party, and because of which, I believe it to be a mistake for Democrats to try to accomodate the right-ward drift in American politics for the purposes of expendiency.
"I dont think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them, hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind. They could be propelled into power by a populace ever more frustrated that the imperialist war it has supported, generally for the most banal of patriotic reasons, cannot possibly end in victory. And so scapegoats are sought, and if we cant bomb Arabs into submission, or the French, domestic critics of Bush will serve."
If I hadn't known any better, I would have bet my house that that passage had come from some leftish blog or from The Nation. That it is coming from the right is telling.
The AC article is of a special interest, coming as it does on the heels of yet another, previous warning shot from the (admittedly libertarian) right about the new state-embracing, freedom snuffing, "Red-State Bourgeoisie" that has come of age in the hyper-post-9-11-Iraq-War era.
That the conservative movement-turned-establishment harbors anti-democratic tendencies is not news to most of us on the left. It has been evident more or less since the country's founding in one form or another, regardless of whichever party label it cared to clothe itself with for the purposes of the moment. And there are many more capable than I who have outlined the excruciating details of the modern conservative fascist strain (in particular, see David Niewert) , so I won't attempt a further elucidation here, other than to note, as I have previously, what I believe to be its two main, distinguishing features: militant nationalism; and authoritarian religious sentiment; along with a third, more derivative pillar, corporate oligarchy.
This is not to label all Republicans or even all conservatives as fascists. To a large extent, I doubt whether most party adherents and group activists on the right think at this level of abstraction or would salute these darker ends if it was laid out to them.
But I would go further than the AC article's author in identifying the new radical evangelicalism (of both protestant and catholic stripes) as being a considerable source from which this red-state bourgeoisie may emerge. And I believe its a problem that, however present in the masses, is particularly evident in the religious hierachy and elite. Some of these figures and organizations I have identified before: D. James Kennedy (The Coral Ridge Hour television program from Fort Lauderdale, FL), Rod Parsley (from Columbus, OH, and who also hosts his own show on cable), and of course, James Dobson from Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, CO. Each enthusiastically calls for a "return to America's Christian heritage", which manages to combine both a seemingly historical patriotism with a call for greater restrictions on individual liberty and the freedom of conscience.
And as I have also argued previously, it is this threat, more than generalities about improving economic welfare, that should be recognized by the Democratic Party, and because of which, I believe it to be a mistake for Democrats to try to accomodate the right-ward drift in American politics for the purposes of expendiency.
I've Very Angry
Why am I angry, you ask? I'll tell you why.
Because I didn't get to write this:
I am saying I do not understand why CNN or NPR would hire someone to talk about Iraq policy who has not read a book on the subject under discussion. Actually, of course, it would be desirable that he had read more than one book. Books are nice. They are rectangular and soft and have information in them. They can even be consumed on airplanes. Goldberg should try one.
and
An argument that judgment matters but knowledge does not is profoundly anti-intellectual. It implies that we do not need ever to learn anything in order make mature decisions. We can just proceed off some simple ideological template and apply it to everything. This sort of thinking is part of what is wrong with this country. We wouldn't call a man in to fix our plumbing who knew nothing about plumbing, but we call pundits to address millions of people on subjects about which they know nothing of substance.
and
But Goldberg is just a dime a dozen pundit. Cranky rich people hire sharp-tongued and relatively uninformed young people all the time and put them on the mass media to badmouth the poor, spread bigotry, exalt mindless militarism, promote anti-intellectualism, and ensure generally that rightwing views come to predominate even among people who are harmed by such policies. One of their jobs is to marginalize progressives by smearing them as unreliable.
But that is not all. I'm also angry I didn't get to write this:
And now I have to see I didn't get to write this either:
And, of course, the true irony is that all this breast beating and calls for dismissal and censorship comes on the heels of years of braying about political correctness in academia squelching free speech and dissenting points of view. It seems like only yesterday that I was reading conservative intellectuals like Walter Williams saying universities are "the equivalent of the Nazi brownshirt thought-control movement" and Paul Hollander calling it "the most widespread form of institutionalized intolerance in American higher education." (I won't even mention that champion of intellectual diversity David Horowitz.) Well now, it would appear that "political correctness vs academic freedom" comes in all flavors.
And it's always a-ok for mainstream, influential intellectuals like Frank "cakewalk" Gaffney to say things like "The U.N. is a hateful and anti-Semitic mobocracy" or Michael Ledeen to publicly float a theory that 9/11 was the result of a "Franco-German strategy ...based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States." These inflammatory statements at a time of great global unease are not repudiated by anyone. Indeed, such dangerous rabble rousing is completely accepted and in some cases endorsed by the Republican establishment. No one questinos whether such statements might endanger American security or its stated foreign policy. Indeed, one is left to ponder whether it might actually be American foreign policy, considering the fact that those who write these screeds are welcome in the White House.
And that brings us to the crucial difference between Ward Churchill's politically incorrect ravings and Gaffney, Ledeen and Williams' politically incorrect ravings --- the latter are powerful, well known intellectuals in the conservative movement who are on the inside of government policymaking at the highest reaches. Churchill on the other hand is a nobody.
Liberals have nothing to apologise for. Indeed, intellectual honesty requires that we do not. These conservative critics' facts are wrong and their analysis is self-serving. They have concocted a "mental model" that is designed to marginalize and intimidate those who speak out against them. I'm not talking about obscure college professors with eccentric views. I'm talking about average Americans with mainstream views that don't hew exactly to the Republican party line who are now viewed with suspicion as UnAmerican by association with this leftist chimera that sides with terrorists.
So, I think you will agree with me that I have a lot to be angry about. I didn't get to write these great pieces. But thanks to Juan Cole, James Wolcott, and Digby, we can all read them. Thank you gentlemen for your courage and wit in articulating that which I am unable to express.
Because I didn't get to write this:
I am saying I do not understand why CNN or NPR would hire someone to talk about Iraq policy who has not read a book on the subject under discussion. Actually, of course, it would be desirable that he had read more than one book. Books are nice. They are rectangular and soft and have information in them. They can even be consumed on airplanes. Goldberg should try one.
and
An argument that judgment matters but knowledge does not is profoundly anti-intellectual. It implies that we do not need ever to learn anything in order make mature decisions. We can just proceed off some simple ideological template and apply it to everything. This sort of thinking is part of what is wrong with this country. We wouldn't call a man in to fix our plumbing who knew nothing about plumbing, but we call pundits to address millions of people on subjects about which they know nothing of substance.
and
But Goldberg is just a dime a dozen pundit. Cranky rich people hire sharp-tongued and relatively uninformed young people all the time and put them on the mass media to badmouth the poor, spread bigotry, exalt mindless militarism, promote anti-intellectualism, and ensure generally that rightwing views come to predominate even among people who are harmed by such policies. One of their jobs is to marginalize progressives by smearing them as unreliable.
But that is not all. I'm also angry I didn't get to write this:
And now I have to see I didn't get to write this either:
And, of course, the true irony is that all this breast beating and calls for dismissal and censorship comes on the heels of years of braying about political correctness in academia squelching free speech and dissenting points of view. It seems like only yesterday that I was reading conservative intellectuals like Walter Williams saying universities are "the equivalent of the Nazi brownshirt thought-control movement" and Paul Hollander calling it "the most widespread form of institutionalized intolerance in American higher education." (I won't even mention that champion of intellectual diversity David Horowitz.) Well now, it would appear that "political correctness vs academic freedom" comes in all flavors.
And it's always a-ok for mainstream, influential intellectuals like Frank "cakewalk" Gaffney to say things like "The U.N. is a hateful and anti-Semitic mobocracy" or Michael Ledeen to publicly float a theory that 9/11 was the result of a "Franco-German strategy ...based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States." These inflammatory statements at a time of great global unease are not repudiated by anyone. Indeed, such dangerous rabble rousing is completely accepted and in some cases endorsed by the Republican establishment. No one questinos whether such statements might endanger American security or its stated foreign policy. Indeed, one is left to ponder whether it might actually be American foreign policy, considering the fact that those who write these screeds are welcome in the White House.
And that brings us to the crucial difference between Ward Churchill's politically incorrect ravings and Gaffney, Ledeen and Williams' politically incorrect ravings --- the latter are powerful, well known intellectuals in the conservative movement who are on the inside of government policymaking at the highest reaches. Churchill on the other hand is a nobody.
Liberals have nothing to apologise for. Indeed, intellectual honesty requires that we do not. These conservative critics' facts are wrong and their analysis is self-serving. They have concocted a "mental model" that is designed to marginalize and intimidate those who speak out against them. I'm not talking about obscure college professors with eccentric views. I'm talking about average Americans with mainstream views that don't hew exactly to the Republican party line who are now viewed with suspicion as UnAmerican by association with this leftist chimera that sides with terrorists.
So, I think you will agree with me that I have a lot to be angry about. I didn't get to write these great pieces. But thanks to Juan Cole, James Wolcott, and Digby, we can all read them. Thank you gentlemen for your courage and wit in articulating that which I am unable to express.
Monday, February 07, 2005
The Iran Blues
I don't know about you, but I'm so ready to wack Iran. Well, not me, actually, but I'm totally down with somebody else doing it. Who says progressives can't be chickenhawks?
I'm just not sure who that somebody would be. We can barely staff the military in that other Arab-muslim country we're occupying, er, liberating now. What? Iran isn't Arab? Oh. Well, you know what I mean. Anyway, if we invaded Iran, we might have to have a draft. Even though I'm overage, there are a lot of other people who could still serve. And I'm pretty sure that Brit Hume, Bill Oh-Really?, and those other Faux gangbangers have kids of their own that'll serve. I'm not sure how old Hannity is, but I'd recommend him, too.
Invading Iran would be awesome. I wish MSGOP and Faux would start putting up their Countdown Iran banners. I'm bored with Iraq already. We've been there long enough and these intermittent rebel attacks just don't do much for me. I miss those retired generals and their topographical map models, pointing our where The Troops are and which bomb is being dropped where. Sadly, the Shock and Awe from March 2003 has worn off. Can we have some more?
If Ofgeorge doesn't want to go against Iran, yet, how about North Korea or Syria or both? I suspect that NK would be a bit of a challenge, but then again, as I've said, I'm sure we have plenty of right winger offspring that can serve as cannon fodder, so long as I don't have to go.
Wow, this progressive, chickenhawk stuff is starting to feel good. All I ask is that Ezra and Jesse head to Canada before it's too late.
Bring It On!!!
I'm just not sure who that somebody would be. We can barely staff the military in that other Arab-muslim country we're occupying, er, liberating now. What? Iran isn't Arab? Oh. Well, you know what I mean. Anyway, if we invaded Iran, we might have to have a draft. Even though I'm overage, there are a lot of other people who could still serve. And I'm pretty sure that Brit Hume, Bill Oh-Really?, and those other Faux gangbangers have kids of their own that'll serve. I'm not sure how old Hannity is, but I'd recommend him, too.
Invading Iran would be awesome. I wish MSGOP and Faux would start putting up their Countdown Iran banners. I'm bored with Iraq already. We've been there long enough and these intermittent rebel attacks just don't do much for me. I miss those retired generals and their topographical map models, pointing our where The Troops are and which bomb is being dropped where. Sadly, the Shock and Awe from March 2003 has worn off. Can we have some more?
If Ofgeorge doesn't want to go against Iran, yet, how about North Korea or Syria or both? I suspect that NK would be a bit of a challenge, but then again, as I've said, I'm sure we have plenty of right winger offspring that can serve as cannon fodder, so long as I don't have to go.
Wow, this progressive, chickenhawk stuff is starting to feel good. All I ask is that Ezra and Jesse head to Canada before it's too late.
Bring It On!!!
Report Card
I know the semester has just started, but I'm itchy to start handing out grades. The Senate Democrat's legislative goals, summarized at their website is as good a place to start as any.
Slogan: Security, Opportunity, Responsibility
Grade: D
Comments: Sounds like something thought up by the Republican's host of newspeak jabberwockies
1. S.11: Standing With Our Troops
Increases size of standing military by 40,000 by 2007 and promises greater income support and health care access for those who serve.
Grade: D+
Comments: On increasing size of standing army, please see earlier post.
2. S.12: Targeting the Terrorists More Effectively
We're going to get those terrorists.
Grade: D-
Comments: essentially adopts neocon rhetoric about taking the fight to the terrorists but throws in some stuff about preventing nuclear proliferation. Lacks creativity.
3. S.13: Fullfilling Our Duty to America's Veterans
Ensure better treatment for our veterans.
Grade: C
Comments: Worthwhile goal, but doesn't clarify change from current policies.
4. S.14: Expanding Economic Opportunity
Increase minimum wage, better trade protections, end tax breaks for outsourcing, etc.
Grade: B-
Comments: outside of minimum wage part, unimaginative
5. S.15: Quality Education for All
Fully fund NCLB, increase Pell Grants, some other stuff
Grade: C
Comments: why is college tuition "skyrocketing"? What're the budgetary implications?
6. S.16: Making Health Care More Affordable
allows drug reimportation, tax credits for businesses, "protect Medicaid"
Grade: C-
Comments: Does the notion of sending of our subsidized and overpriced pharmaceuticals to Canada, where they get priced down, and then reimporting them strike anyone besides me as being just a little bit bizzarre?
7. S. 17: Democracy Begins at Home
federal standards for elections, same day registration, shorter lines, paper trails, etc.
Grade: B
Comments: The best of the lot so far. Any thoughts on federal redistricting guidelines?
8. S. 18: Meeting Our Responsibility to Medicare Beneficiaries
gets rid of "donut" in recent Medicare prescription drug legislation and allows govt to negotiate lower group prices with Pharma.
Grade: C+
Comments: Sounds expensive
9. S. 19: Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future
Restores Pay as You Go and sequestration; restricts misuse of reconciliation
Grade: B
Comments: Sidesteps sunsetting of 2001 and 2003 tax cuts
10. S. 20: Putting Prevention First
more $ for family planning and contraceptives
Grade:
Substance: C
Symbolism: B+
Comments: Right to choose?
Total Grade: C-
Comments: while recognizing that these items are intended to look like bills that might actually be considered by this congress and could even pass on a good day, there's not much here that indicates an underlying Democratic ideology or sense of purpose for government; doesn't do much to challenge Republican orthodoxy. What about the Republican "junk lawsuit bill"?
Later: Senator Bulworth offers his own agenda
Slogan: Security, Opportunity, Responsibility
Grade: D
Comments: Sounds like something thought up by the Republican's host of newspeak jabberwockies
1. S.11: Standing With Our Troops
Increases size of standing military by 40,000 by 2007 and promises greater income support and health care access for those who serve.
Grade: D+
Comments: On increasing size of standing army, please see earlier post.
2. S.12: Targeting the Terrorists More Effectively
We're going to get those terrorists.
Grade: D-
Comments: essentially adopts neocon rhetoric about taking the fight to the terrorists but throws in some stuff about preventing nuclear proliferation. Lacks creativity.
3. S.13: Fullfilling Our Duty to America's Veterans
Ensure better treatment for our veterans.
Grade: C
Comments: Worthwhile goal, but doesn't clarify change from current policies.
4. S.14: Expanding Economic Opportunity
Increase minimum wage, better trade protections, end tax breaks for outsourcing, etc.
Grade: B-
Comments: outside of minimum wage part, unimaginative
5. S.15: Quality Education for All
Fully fund NCLB, increase Pell Grants, some other stuff
Grade: C
Comments: why is college tuition "skyrocketing"? What're the budgetary implications?
6. S.16: Making Health Care More Affordable
allows drug reimportation, tax credits for businesses, "protect Medicaid"
Grade: C-
Comments: Does the notion of sending of our subsidized and overpriced pharmaceuticals to Canada, where they get priced down, and then reimporting them strike anyone besides me as being just a little bit bizzarre?
7. S. 17: Democracy Begins at Home
federal standards for elections, same day registration, shorter lines, paper trails, etc.
Grade: B
Comments: The best of the lot so far. Any thoughts on federal redistricting guidelines?
8. S. 18: Meeting Our Responsibility to Medicare Beneficiaries
gets rid of "donut" in recent Medicare prescription drug legislation and allows govt to negotiate lower group prices with Pharma.
Grade: C+
Comments: Sounds expensive
9. S. 19: Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future
Restores Pay as You Go and sequestration; restricts misuse of reconciliation
Grade: B
Comments: Sidesteps sunsetting of 2001 and 2003 tax cuts
10. S. 20: Putting Prevention First
more $ for family planning and contraceptives
Grade:
Substance: C
Symbolism: B+
Comments: Right to choose?
Total Grade: C-
Comments: while recognizing that these items are intended to look like bills that might actually be considered by this congress and could even pass on a good day, there's not much here that indicates an underlying Democratic ideology or sense of purpose for government; doesn't do much to challenge Republican orthodoxy. What about the Republican "junk lawsuit bill"?
Later: Senator Bulworth offers his own agenda
What I Wanna Know Is....
Ezra Klein reminds us that although heavily marginalized, Democrats are trying to put forward alternatives to the GOP.
That may be. But, "what I wanna know is", why are our representatives still allowing us to get punked over stuff like this? The We-Need-to-Get-Rid-of-Junk-Lawsuits plank has been in the GOP top 10 list for so long it has its own AARP card (yeah, I stold that from Wolcott) and the fallacy upon which it rests is likewise well known, but nevertheless, our guys still seemed determined to bend over and let the GOP give us the business on it.
And I'll admit I'm clueless why we're promoting this, too:
"Democrats will work to increase our military end strength by up to 40,000 by 2007."
(from S. 11: "Standing With Our Troops")
Huh? We're calling for more troops? If we need greater security (against an army from ?????) and more troops to guard that security, why don't we just bring the ones over in Iraq home? Iraq's had its "successful" elections. The Republicons and the press have told us so.
Of course I'm acting as if bringing the military home from Iraq is a real policy objective that is just waiting for a favorable time. Now, of course it could be, just maybe, that the administration's intention all along has been to establish military bases in Iraq to serve as a visual reminder to Iraq's "leaders" of our desire to better police the Middle East and control its natural resources that we covet. But I don't know why I'd think that.
That may be. But, "what I wanna know is", why are our representatives still allowing us to get punked over stuff like this? The We-Need-to-Get-Rid-of-Junk-Lawsuits plank has been in the GOP top 10 list for so long it has its own AARP card (yeah, I stold that from Wolcott) and the fallacy upon which it rests is likewise well known, but nevertheless, our guys still seemed determined to bend over and let the GOP give us the business on it.
And I'll admit I'm clueless why we're promoting this, too:
"Democrats will work to increase our military end strength by up to 40,000 by 2007."
(from S. 11: "Standing With Our Troops")
Huh? We're calling for more troops? If we need greater security (against an army from ?????) and more troops to guard that security, why don't we just bring the ones over in Iraq home? Iraq's had its "successful" elections. The Republicons and the press have told us so.
Of course I'm acting as if bringing the military home from Iraq is a real policy objective that is just waiting for a favorable time. Now, of course it could be, just maybe, that the administration's intention all along has been to establish military bases in Iraq to serve as a visual reminder to Iraq's "leaders" of our desire to better police the Middle East and control its natural resources that we covet. But I don't know why I'd think that.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Open Letter to President George W. Bush
Congratulations, Mr. President.
You've had a very heady time, these last few months. You won re-election and increased your Party's majorities in both chambers. You've just come off a two week period of having given a very lofty, if not entirely realistic, inaugural address, followed by this past weekend's elections in Iraq, and last night, your second-term launching SOTU address, in which you included your eye-popping, opening salvo on the Social Security wars, which is certain to continue to draw considerable attention for at least the next day or two.
But, Mr. President, as the snarly Jack Nicholson character said in As Good As It Gets, "What if this is as good as it gets?" Mr. President, this is as good as it gets for you and your presidency. There is no more upside. The coverage in Iraq will return to the latest bombing and the calls for bringing the military home will escalate. Your Social Security initiative will certainly fail without at least some Democratic votes, and it isn't looking as if you're going to get many of them, especially after the implications of your plan's private account "offset" and other benefit reductions start making the rounds. The best you can hope for is some face-saving gesture that will make minor adjustments to the system, but that's about it.
I suspect that your tax magic is wearing thin, too. The deficit will continue to grow as long as the war in Iraq continues and will increase exponentially if your previous tax cuts are not sunsetted, as you oppose, in 2010.
And even though you may content yourself with the thought of the friendly Republican majority in Congress, recognize that now, they can divorce you. They have their own campaigns and goals to worry about. Many of them are even now as we speak, making hushed plans to succeed you. Rumours of Iowa and New Hampshire will soon start popping up.
And your congressional partners are busy slitting the throat of any high moral reformation you may have in mind. I know you've been busy, but did you catch the fact that on the day of your SOTU, your Party's majority leader and House Speaker sacked the chair of the Ethics Committee, and two of his fellow members, as punishment for opposing a change in the House rule requiring party and House leaders to relinquish their posts in case they should ever be indicted?
And even though its hard to imagine the prospect, some Democrats are sharpening their knives, waiting to rush in at the first sight of blood. While you can continue to gloat over winning 51% of the vote, the truth is, nobody thought you were going to lose this election anyway. The main party lights are gearing up for 2008. And the party leadership is about to be given over to a very caustic critic of yours, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
Yes, Mr. President, this is as good as it will get for you. But at least you have Faux News you can continue to count on.
Best,
Senator J. Bulworth
P.S. Sorry I missed last night's speech. I was under the mistaken impression that Simple Life 3 would be on TV last night and it wasn't, even though I did enjoy the Law and Order: SVU reruns just fine.
You've had a very heady time, these last few months. You won re-election and increased your Party's majorities in both chambers. You've just come off a two week period of having given a very lofty, if not entirely realistic, inaugural address, followed by this past weekend's elections in Iraq, and last night, your second-term launching SOTU address, in which you included your eye-popping, opening salvo on the Social Security wars, which is certain to continue to draw considerable attention for at least the next day or two.
But, Mr. President, as the snarly Jack Nicholson character said in As Good As It Gets, "What if this is as good as it gets?" Mr. President, this is as good as it gets for you and your presidency. There is no more upside. The coverage in Iraq will return to the latest bombing and the calls for bringing the military home will escalate. Your Social Security initiative will certainly fail without at least some Democratic votes, and it isn't looking as if you're going to get many of them, especially after the implications of your plan's private account "offset" and other benefit reductions start making the rounds. The best you can hope for is some face-saving gesture that will make minor adjustments to the system, but that's about it.
I suspect that your tax magic is wearing thin, too. The deficit will continue to grow as long as the war in Iraq continues and will increase exponentially if your previous tax cuts are not sunsetted, as you oppose, in 2010.
And even though you may content yourself with the thought of the friendly Republican majority in Congress, recognize that now, they can divorce you. They have their own campaigns and goals to worry about. Many of them are even now as we speak, making hushed plans to succeed you. Rumours of Iowa and New Hampshire will soon start popping up.
And your congressional partners are busy slitting the throat of any high moral reformation you may have in mind. I know you've been busy, but did you catch the fact that on the day of your SOTU, your Party's majority leader and House Speaker sacked the chair of the Ethics Committee, and two of his fellow members, as punishment for opposing a change in the House rule requiring party and House leaders to relinquish their posts in case they should ever be indicted?
And even though its hard to imagine the prospect, some Democrats are sharpening their knives, waiting to rush in at the first sight of blood. While you can continue to gloat over winning 51% of the vote, the truth is, nobody thought you were going to lose this election anyway. The main party lights are gearing up for 2008. And the party leadership is about to be given over to a very caustic critic of yours, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.
Yes, Mr. President, this is as good as it will get for you. But at least you have Faux News you can continue to count on.
Best,
Senator J. Bulworth
P.S. Sorry I missed last night's speech. I was under the mistaken impression that Simple Life 3 would be on TV last night and it wasn't, even though I did enjoy the Law and Order: SVU reruns just fine.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
The Firing Circle
I really like Matt, but where in the world did this come from?
There's also certainly no need for Dean to serve as the party's chief national spokesman, but my strong suspicion is that this is precisely the role Dean wants to play. We'll have to wait and see, but I have more confidence in Reid, Pelosi, and some of the other Senate Democrats as party leaders and spokespeople and don't really want to see them overshadowed.
More confidence in Reid, Pelosi, and some of the other Senate Democrats?! I can think of a Rude Pundit-like response here, but because this is a family-friendly blog, I'll leave it to your imagination.
Kevin Drum seems overly pessimistic, too.
What is it? Is it "the scream"? Is that what you're worried about? The party is in free fall, don't you get that? We keep moving to the center and the Republicans keep moving the center further and further to the radical right. They're about set to undue the New Deal and tell you you're going to like it. Our leadership supported their tax cuts and their war and in the last election LOST more seats in Congress. Again.
He's from Vermont. Is that what's bothering you? The other side wants to turn the country into its version of the old south, and you're getting squishy because the guy's from the land of Ben and Jerry?
Civil Unions? Is that what's bothering you? The separation of church and state is about to be made a swear word and a relic. The other side wants to replace the Constitution with the Book of Leviticus. Is that what you want?
Big Money will leave us. Is that what you're worried about? Democrats outraised Republicans this year for the first time, most of that coming from the Web and small donors. Big Money, don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out.
Any questions?
There's also certainly no need for Dean to serve as the party's chief national spokesman, but my strong suspicion is that this is precisely the role Dean wants to play. We'll have to wait and see, but I have more confidence in Reid, Pelosi, and some of the other Senate Democrats as party leaders and spokespeople and don't really want to see them overshadowed.
More confidence in Reid, Pelosi, and some of the other Senate Democrats?! I can think of a Rude Pundit-like response here, but because this is a family-friendly blog, I'll leave it to your imagination.
Kevin Drum seems overly pessimistic, too.
What is it? Is it "the scream"? Is that what you're worried about? The party is in free fall, don't you get that? We keep moving to the center and the Republicans keep moving the center further and further to the radical right. They're about set to undue the New Deal and tell you you're going to like it. Our leadership supported their tax cuts and their war and in the last election LOST more seats in Congress. Again.
He's from Vermont. Is that what's bothering you? The other side wants to turn the country into its version of the old south, and you're getting squishy because the guy's from the land of Ben and Jerry?
Civil Unions? Is that what's bothering you? The separation of church and state is about to be made a swear word and a relic. The other side wants to replace the Constitution with the Book of Leviticus. Is that what you want?
Big Money will leave us. Is that what you're worried about? Democrats outraised Republicans this year for the first time, most of that coming from the Web and small donors. Big Money, don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out.
Any questions?
Who Said That?
Welcome to the first edition of our Who Said That? series, where we single out interesting quotes and ask you to choose from among several alternatives the person or group you believe responsible for them.
Ready? Let's begin.
1. "None of us believe that there should be a religious government (in Iraq)"
a. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte
b. U.S. Secretary of State, Ofgeorge
c. Former U.S. head of the Iraqi Occupation, Paul Bremer
d. Ibrahim Bahr Uloom, a top Shiite candidate in Iraq's recent elections
2. "We should separate religion from policy"
a. Iraqi voter, Abdel Waheed
b. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family
c. Marion "Pat" Roberton, head of television's The 700 Club
d. U.S. Senator, Rick Santorum (R-PA)
3. "If the people want (name of country) to be developed and rise in every aspect of modern life, religion has to be separated from government"
a. Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition
b. Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice, Roy Moore
c. Iraqi voter, Abdel Waheed
d. Televangelist, D. James Kennedy
Answers:
1. d
2. a
3. c
Ready? Let's begin.
1. "None of us believe that there should be a religious government (in Iraq)"
a. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte
b. U.S. Secretary of State, Ofgeorge
c. Former U.S. head of the Iraqi Occupation, Paul Bremer
d. Ibrahim Bahr Uloom, a top Shiite candidate in Iraq's recent elections
2. "We should separate religion from policy"
a. Iraqi voter, Abdel Waheed
b. James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family
c. Marion "Pat" Roberton, head of television's The 700 Club
d. U.S. Senator, Rick Santorum (R-PA)
3. "If the people want (name of country) to be developed and rise in every aspect of modern life, religion has to be separated from government"
a. Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition
b. Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice, Roy Moore
c. Iraqi voter, Abdel Waheed
d. Televangelist, D. James Kennedy
Answers:
1. d
2. a
3. c
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
The Show Me Party
If the new chairman of the DNC doesn't start off his opening speech to the party and the country by saying:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, there is one thing you cannot say about today's Republican Party, and that is that they haven't shown us. They have shown us. Let's look at what they've shown us.
1. there shalt not be academic freedom;
2. there shalt not be political dissent;
3. there shalt not be a social safety net;
4. there shalt not be a separation between church and state;
5. there shalt not be a right to privacy;
6. remember the Republican Party to keep it holy;
7. thou shalt love and respect thy neighbor except if they're non-heterosexual;
8. and except if they're non-Christian-Coalition-approved religious adherents;
9. and except if they're non-Americans;
10. only white males that own property shalt be free and able to vote"
then their speech will have been a major disappointment.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, there is one thing you cannot say about today's Republican Party, and that is that they haven't shown us. They have shown us. Let's look at what they've shown us.
1. there shalt not be academic freedom;
2. there shalt not be political dissent;
3. there shalt not be a social safety net;
4. there shalt not be a separation between church and state;
5. there shalt not be a right to privacy;
6. remember the Republican Party to keep it holy;
7. thou shalt love and respect thy neighbor except if they're non-heterosexual;
8. and except if they're non-Christian-Coalition-approved religious adherents;
9. and except if they're non-Americans;
10. only white males that own property shalt be free and able to vote"
then their speech will have been a major disappointment.
Why I am not a conservative, reason # 4358
Fred Barnes, of Faux News and the Weakly Standard, goes unplugged.
This has been building for awhile. It was especially high in the lead up to, and during "main combat operations" in Iraq. Dubya's narrow reelection win and the increase in GOP seats in November has no doubt emboldened the conservative establishment in its push to destroy Democracy at home while it obstensibly promotes it abroad.
Now in charge, conservatives would have us forget the Clinton years and the abundance of reckless personal charges they leveled at the president then, smear campaigns that included daughter Chelsea among the targets. Real values, that conservative crowd.
And I expect it to get worse. Naturally, the presence of the U.S. military over seas in an ongoing military conflict provides an extra layer of cover for anti-first amendment conservatives to do what they would do anyway, and that's attempt to suppress any and all opposition.
One hopes conservatives will be seen as overreaching. But I'm not hopeful. Once upon a time, before they seized power, conservatives were seen as the "radicals", the non-status quo party. Recall, if you will, the early estimates of Ronald Reagan, and later, Newt Gingrich. They were viewed as too rough around the edges, too extreme for the mainstream. But now, in the eyes of most of the media, what was radical has become the norm. As conservatives continue their attempts to turn back the clock on social welfare and individual liberty, liberals are busy playing defense on a ground of issues that were once, comfortably thought protected.
Academic freedom and political dissent are on the chopping block.
This is why Democrats cannot "move to the center".
This has been building for awhile. It was especially high in the lead up to, and during "main combat operations" in Iraq. Dubya's narrow reelection win and the increase in GOP seats in November has no doubt emboldened the conservative establishment in its push to destroy Democracy at home while it obstensibly promotes it abroad.
Now in charge, conservatives would have us forget the Clinton years and the abundance of reckless personal charges they leveled at the president then, smear campaigns that included daughter Chelsea among the targets. Real values, that conservative crowd.
And I expect it to get worse. Naturally, the presence of the U.S. military over seas in an ongoing military conflict provides an extra layer of cover for anti-first amendment conservatives to do what they would do anyway, and that's attempt to suppress any and all opposition.
One hopes conservatives will be seen as overreaching. But I'm not hopeful. Once upon a time, before they seized power, conservatives were seen as the "radicals", the non-status quo party. Recall, if you will, the early estimates of Ronald Reagan, and later, Newt Gingrich. They were viewed as too rough around the edges, too extreme for the mainstream. But now, in the eyes of most of the media, what was radical has become the norm. As conservatives continue their attempts to turn back the clock on social welfare and individual liberty, liberals are busy playing defense on a ground of issues that were once, comfortably thought protected.
Academic freedom and political dissent are on the chopping block.
This is why Democrats cannot "move to the center".
Monday, January 31, 2005
Dean, the DNC and Us
I'm not sure what to make of the fuss and skirmeshes involved in electing the new DNC chairman. As most of you probably know, the executive board of some Democratic subsystem called the association of state Democratic chairs, or something, has voted to support the young Don Fowler for chair over Dean. The vote by the larger association of state chairs is supposed to be today.
Ordinarily, the position of DNC chair is more about organization than substance, and for that reason, while I support Dean, the election of someone else to the position probably wouldn't make much difference. Except. The primacy of Dean in the race and the opposition to him have made the race a larger symbol of the direction of the party. And for that reason, Dean's losing would be a bitter pill to swallow.
But in the big picture view of things, the importance of the DNC chair is less than the existence of a prominent message or messenger, both of which the party today lacks. Organization and "strategery" is more critical when you are trying to disseminate a message and elect candidates across the country. But when you lack a message or compelling cause, the role of organization is only of peripherical impact.
I caught some of the replaying of the conference on Saturday on C-SPAN, getting to hear Fowler, Roemer, and Lindley(sp) address the caucus directly, and a few of the others respond to questions from the audience. There wasn't much of "message substance" covered, just some queries on how to respond to this or that event. I don't know whether to be disappointed by that or not. I know the DNC chair isn't necessarily about message: he or she will more likely reflect rather than direct the party's message. But for those of us who are starving for an unapologetic response to the Republican juggernaut, and a reshaping of the boundaries of political debate that conservatives have continued to shift further and further to the right, maybe our or my expectations have shifted.
Ordinarily, the position of DNC chair is more about organization than substance, and for that reason, while I support Dean, the election of someone else to the position probably wouldn't make much difference. Except. The primacy of Dean in the race and the opposition to him have made the race a larger symbol of the direction of the party. And for that reason, Dean's losing would be a bitter pill to swallow.
But in the big picture view of things, the importance of the DNC chair is less than the existence of a prominent message or messenger, both of which the party today lacks. Organization and "strategery" is more critical when you are trying to disseminate a message and elect candidates across the country. But when you lack a message or compelling cause, the role of organization is only of peripherical impact.
I caught some of the replaying of the conference on Saturday on C-SPAN, getting to hear Fowler, Roemer, and Lindley(sp) address the caucus directly, and a few of the others respond to questions from the audience. There wasn't much of "message substance" covered, just some queries on how to respond to this or that event. I don't know whether to be disappointed by that or not. I know the DNC chair isn't necessarily about message: he or she will more likely reflect rather than direct the party's message. But for those of us who are starving for an unapologetic response to the Republican juggernaut, and a reshaping of the boundaries of political debate that conservatives have continued to shift further and further to the right, maybe our or my expectations have shifted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)