Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve: "'Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money is, as he put it,' Bernanke said. 'The money in this case is in entitlements.'"
Bernanke has taken as his mission in life, the repeal of the New Deal.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
The return of the plutocrats
Felix Salmon:
Indeed, the Perfect Storm came and went, and nothing changed.
I like Felix Salmon's writing a lot. I wonder what kind of career he can have, after writing this column. Because things have not changed.
The underlying problem here is a fundamental disconnect between the plutocrats and the people. . . .
We’re at a fork in the road right now. People who were comfortable with seven- and eight-figure salaries a couple of years ago have a natural tendency to want to return to the status quo ante; the rest of us see a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring executive pay down to the kind of levels which normal human beings can relate to. Given that the pay levels of old clearly did no good and colorably did a great deal of harm, that doesn’t sound like an unreasonable request. But there aren’t any mechanisms in place to make it happen . . .
So the plutocrats, it seems are going to win. They had a nasty couple of years, by plutocrat standards, and in a handful of companies operating under de facto state control they don’t quite have the free rein they would ideally like. But the system as a whole hasn’t changed, and those who thought that it might can’t quite believe how naive they were.
Indeed, the Perfect Storm came and went, and nothing changed.
I like Felix Salmon's writing a lot. I wonder what kind of career he can have, after writing this column. Because things have not changed.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
$50
I got a call from a worker bee at the Democratic National Committee, working to gather funds for an advertising campaign in support of Obama's Health Care Reform.
And, I gave $50.
With very great reluctance, borne of feelings of hopeless futility.
Why would I want to spend my money for a health reform that accomplishes little or nothing of actual benefit to me, or to the mass of people?
The kind of radical, comprehensive re-structuring of health care, which is clearly necessary and desirable would begin with single-payer health insurance, in some form. But, such a proposal was never on the table.
I told the lady I was a very unhappy Democrat. I didn't vote for continuation of war. For secret torture prisons. For financial bailouts that deliver billions to Goldman Sachs, but nothing for foreclosure relief or jobs.
Or, for a health care reform featuring a new and costly mandate placed on working families, but holding Big Pharma secure in its perquisites.
"Bring on the Revolution", I said. And, I meant it. This country needs fundamental change. And, it is getting mindless tinkering with the status quo, with no recognition that the status is bankrupt, economically and morally.
And, I gave $50.
With very great reluctance, borne of feelings of hopeless futility.
Why would I want to spend my money for a health reform that accomplishes little or nothing of actual benefit to me, or to the mass of people?
The kind of radical, comprehensive re-structuring of health care, which is clearly necessary and desirable would begin with single-payer health insurance, in some form. But, such a proposal was never on the table.
I told the lady I was a very unhappy Democrat. I didn't vote for continuation of war. For secret torture prisons. For financial bailouts that deliver billions to Goldman Sachs, but nothing for foreclosure relief or jobs.
Or, for a health care reform featuring a new and costly mandate placed on working families, but holding Big Pharma secure in its perquisites.
"Bring on the Revolution", I said. And, I meant it. This country needs fundamental change. And, it is getting mindless tinkering with the status quo, with no recognition that the status is bankrupt, economically and morally.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The Second Coming
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
-- William Butler Yeats, January 1919
This famous poem, and most especially, the lines,
haunt me of late. I'm afraid I apply them rather literally to the passionate Right, of teabaggers and birthers, and to the complacent, insensible "center" of conservative Democratic and establishment journalists, academics and pundits.
Many bloggers have noted the Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll, which asked,
In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?
DEF PROB UNLIKELY WON'T NOT-SURE
DEM 27 29 25 15 4
REP 39 42 9 5 5
IND 32 33 15 8 12
The whole theme of this blog has been the "Perfect Storm" that arose in reaction to the destructive policies of the authoritarian Right, embodied in the Bush Administration. I have noted the re-alignment of American politics, which took place as a slice of secular conservatives reluctantly left the Republican Party and joined Obama's coalition. This viewpoint made my sympathetic to the struggle, in the Administration and among Congressional Democrats, to work out a new modus operandi, uniting the Democratic Party in productive governance.
But, the results have been disappointing, and the disappointment has become alarming.
This may still be part of the birthpains of a progressive coalition. But, right now, it looks like a runaway freight train bearing down on a country, whose driver has gotten stuck on the tracks, unable to effect the promised change and move forward or give up, and move back.
The President, who pioneered a new level of modern campaign organization looks, at this moment, to be headed toward electoral disaster -- a product of failing to deliver, and failing to use the participating progressive base to enact good policy.
Right now, speaking for myself, I feel like voting in 2010 for the worst cretin Republican I can find.
My hostility is not to the clown show on the Right, which is the Republican Rump. It is the moderate, muddled political center -- centrist Democrats, in the Congress and the Administration, and ostensible independents, especially as represented in the Media punditry -- who seem to simply not care about the country's problems, or to be aware of root causes in irresponsible elite behavior.
The country has not gotten change it can believe in, has not gotten the change it so desperately needs, morally or economically.
We are still torturing people in secret prisons. Unemployment and underemployment plagues a quarter of the population. Median income is declining. The financial sector remains a prosperous, powerful parasite. Health care reform has been stymied.
It really is hard to see that American Constitutional democracy, or its capitalism, is working. Maybe, it is time to bring the system down.
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
-- William Butler Yeats, January 1919
This famous poem, and most especially, the lines,
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
. . .
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
haunt me of late. I'm afraid I apply them rather literally to the passionate Right, of teabaggers and birthers, and to the complacent, insensible "center" of conservative Democratic and establishment journalists, academics and pundits.
Many bloggers have noted the Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll, which asked,
In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?
DEF PROB UNLIKELY WON'T NOT-SURE
DEM 27 29 25 15 4
REP 39 42 9 5 5
IND 32 33 15 8 12
The whole theme of this blog has been the "Perfect Storm" that arose in reaction to the destructive policies of the authoritarian Right, embodied in the Bush Administration. I have noted the re-alignment of American politics, which took place as a slice of secular conservatives reluctantly left the Republican Party and joined Obama's coalition. This viewpoint made my sympathetic to the struggle, in the Administration and among Congressional Democrats, to work out a new modus operandi, uniting the Democratic Party in productive governance.
But, the results have been disappointing, and the disappointment has become alarming.
This may still be part of the birthpains of a progressive coalition. But, right now, it looks like a runaway freight train bearing down on a country, whose driver has gotten stuck on the tracks, unable to effect the promised change and move forward or give up, and move back.
The President, who pioneered a new level of modern campaign organization looks, at this moment, to be headed toward electoral disaster -- a product of failing to deliver, and failing to use the participating progressive base to enact good policy.
Right now, speaking for myself, I feel like voting in 2010 for the worst cretin Republican I can find.
My hostility is not to the clown show on the Right, which is the Republican Rump. It is the moderate, muddled political center -- centrist Democrats, in the Congress and the Administration, and ostensible independents, especially as represented in the Media punditry -- who seem to simply not care about the country's problems, or to be aware of root causes in irresponsible elite behavior.
The country has not gotten change it can believe in, has not gotten the change it so desperately needs, morally or economically.
We are still torturing people in secret prisons. Unemployment and underemployment plagues a quarter of the population. Median income is declining. The financial sector remains a prosperous, powerful parasite. Health care reform has been stymied.
It really is hard to see that American Constitutional democracy, or its capitalism, is working. Maybe, it is time to bring the system down.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
America: An Apathy Story
Capitalism: An Apathy Story by Cindy Sheehan:
"Most Americans don't even give a poop, which is incredible to me since almost 1 out of 4 of us who want work can't find any and every 7 seconds someone in this country will lose their homes . . ."
Congress will make some squeaks in Goldman Sachs' direction and The Laureate will say something like: “This is not acceptable,” then he will go forward in total acceptance and obsequiousness to his masters that put him in power.
What will the American Public do?
I am afraid that Goldman Sachs doesn't even have to make the empty gesture of one billion dollars in charity because no guillotine brigades will march down Wall Street.
When Goldman Sachs wins the Nobel Prize in Economics next year, we will become mildly annoyed and then yawn in the best American tradition and go on allowing the Robber Class to steal us blind, hoping that there is another juicy divorce or celebrity death that can distract us from reality.
The Robber Class doesn't frustrate me nearly as much as the Robbed Class. Robbers will be Robbers only as long as we in the Robbed Class let them.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Independence
Atrios at Eschaton: "People may think of themselves as independent for all kinds of reasons, but in my experience many of the people who do so just don't pay too much attention to politics. When ideology is the reason it's because they're fed up lefties or libertarians."
America has third and fourth Parties, but they're called "independents". One of these days I want to do a post, analyzing the psychology and political functions of "independents" -- electorally, psychologically and in the Media.
A lot of Media pundits assign themselves to the "independent" Party, as a matter of role -- sometimes cynically or dishonestly, sometimes with idealistic notions about a journalist's commitments to objectivity. And, the Media's political "independence" and "objectivity" becomes a model for the political "independence" of much of the politically under-informed and under-involved general electorate.
digby at Hullabaloo asserts: "The number of independents out there is quite large and all national politicians need to reach them in elections in order to win. But the knee jerk assumption that they are always more moderate than everyone else is probably wrong. They might just be more cranky, more cynical, more uninformed, more skeptical or more impatient. There are a lot of reasons why someone might be an independent in American politics but I suspect that ideology is at the bottom of the list."
I don't know that "ideology" has much to do with American politics, or partisan alignment, so it is difficult for me to assign a meaning to digby's use of the word. But, identifying with a political Party does have consequences for people's opinions: it's not unlike the way people tend to start coordinating their strides, when they walk in a group. And, being an "independent" also has consequences, in attitudes and opinions and openness to persuasion and openness to compromise or alliance.
"Moderate" might not be the right word in every respect, but there's legitimacy in believing that most self-proclaimed "independents" -- even though they do not share opinions with each other, do, in fact, by virtue of their identification as "independents" do have in common -- again not opinions themselves -- an alignment of opinions and attitudes oriented "between" the positions of the two Parties. Whether its an alignment of hostility to both, or of middle-of-the-road compromise and "some truth in both positions", it is still an alignment. On the open political issues -- the issues of active controversy and choice -- this is just the way it is going to be.
On the latent issues, it is harder to tell. The tendency of many of the independents to be politically disinterested and uninformed will be more telling. But, there are a lot of latent issues -- most issues are latent at any one moment.
It is in the transition from latency to active, that propaganda has its biggest impact. The Right is much better prepared to exploit latent issues becoming active, and the Media, and its nominally "independent" punditrocrisy, is part of the apparatus for making the exploitation of ignorance among the "independents" possible and cheap.
America has third and fourth Parties, but they're called "independents". One of these days I want to do a post, analyzing the psychology and political functions of "independents" -- electorally, psychologically and in the Media.
A lot of Media pundits assign themselves to the "independent" Party, as a matter of role -- sometimes cynically or dishonestly, sometimes with idealistic notions about a journalist's commitments to objectivity. And, the Media's political "independence" and "objectivity" becomes a model for the political "independence" of much of the politically under-informed and under-involved general electorate.
digby at Hullabaloo asserts: "The number of independents out there is quite large and all national politicians need to reach them in elections in order to win. But the knee jerk assumption that they are always more moderate than everyone else is probably wrong. They might just be more cranky, more cynical, more uninformed, more skeptical or more impatient. There are a lot of reasons why someone might be an independent in American politics but I suspect that ideology is at the bottom of the list."
I don't know that "ideology" has much to do with American politics, or partisan alignment, so it is difficult for me to assign a meaning to digby's use of the word. But, identifying with a political Party does have consequences for people's opinions: it's not unlike the way people tend to start coordinating their strides, when they walk in a group. And, being an "independent" also has consequences, in attitudes and opinions and openness to persuasion and openness to compromise or alliance.
"Moderate" might not be the right word in every respect, but there's legitimacy in believing that most self-proclaimed "independents" -- even though they do not share opinions with each other, do, in fact, by virtue of their identification as "independents" do have in common -- again not opinions themselves -- an alignment of opinions and attitudes oriented "between" the positions of the two Parties. Whether its an alignment of hostility to both, or of middle-of-the-road compromise and "some truth in both positions", it is still an alignment. On the open political issues -- the issues of active controversy and choice -- this is just the way it is going to be.
On the latent issues, it is harder to tell. The tendency of many of the independents to be politically disinterested and uninformed will be more telling. But, there are a lot of latent issues -- most issues are latent at any one moment.
It is in the transition from latency to active, that propaganda has its biggest impact. The Right is much better prepared to exploit latent issues becoming active, and the Media, and its nominally "independent" punditrocrisy, is part of the apparatus for making the exploitation of ignorance among the "independents" possible and cheap.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
The Great Recession Marches On
Calculated Risk: "the current employment recession was already the worst recession since WWII in terms of percent of job losses"
And, then, they revised the data.
There are two scary things in this chart.
One is how deep goes the employment loss in the current recession.
The other is how prolonged was the job loss in the previous recession.
The long rot of the structure of the American economy is showing, here, in collapse.
Shall I continue?
Consider this item from theNYTimes.com: "Despite signs that the economy has resumed growing, unemployed Americans now confront a job market that is bleaker than ever in the current recession, and employment prospects are still getting worse. Job seekers now outnumber openings six to one . . . "
And This! NYTimes.com:
And, then, they revised the data.
There are two scary things in this chart.
One is how deep goes the employment loss in the current recession.
The other is how prolonged was the job loss in the previous recession.
The long rot of the structure of the American economy is showing, here, in collapse.
Shall I continue?
Consider this item from theNYTimes.com: "Despite signs that the economy has resumed growing, unemployed Americans now confront a job market that is bleaker than ever in the current recession, and employment prospects are still getting worse. Job seekers now outnumber openings six to one . . . "
And This! NYTimes.com:
"The recession has hit middle-income and poor families hardest, widening the economic gap between the richest and poorest Americans as rippling job layoffs ravaged household budgets.
The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans -- those making more than $138,000 each year -- earned 11.4 times the roughly $12,000 made by those living near or below the poverty line in 2008, according to newly released census figures. That ratio was an increase from 11.2 in 2007 and the previous high of 11.22 in 2003.
Household income declined across all groups, but at sharper percentage levels for middle-income and poor Americans. Median income fell last year from $52,163 to $50,303, wiping out a decade's worth of gains to hit the lowest level since 1997.
Poverty jumped sharply to 13.2 percent, an 11-year high."
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The Center cannot hold
I've tried to make a general point about the current obsession of everyone with the antics of the Right, and its tea-baggers, birthers, tenthers, and the rest. Some highly visible part of the Right has been displaying their literal craziness.
But, the scary thing is not that the Right is crazy -- they've always been crazy.
What's scary, and needs critical attention is the complacency of much of the Middle, which acts as if the Right are not-crazy. This is true, both of some politicians, who should know better, and a lot of Media personalities.
Mark Kleiman takes on the fake controversy over "czars":
Then, after 287 words, in which he himself seems to succumb to playing the straight man in this political, Groucho Marx "secret word" fest, Mark finally comes to the real point:
Mark Kleiman shouldn't have to be arguing this silliness. The Media should not even let it take up our time or attention, and the politicians, who promote it should pay a high price, in derision from non-partisan journalists and pundits. That that is not happening is extremely worrisome. The poor functioning of Media journalism has been a serious, serious problems since Clinton and Whitewater; but, we need to notice the failures of journalism more, and the antics of the Right, less.
As if to illustrate, Matthew Yglesias points to this Newsweek story:
Matthew Yglesias restates the Newsweek complaint:
But, the scary thing is not that the Right is crazy -- they've always been crazy.
What's scary, and needs critical attention is the complacency of much of the Middle, which acts as if the Right are not-crazy. This is true, both of some politicians, who should know better, and a lot of Media personalities.
Mark Kleiman takes on the fake controversy over "czars":
"The gullibility of the national political press corps has seldom been on more hideous display. Glenn Beck and his tame dogs in Congress have managed to make “czars” an issue without anyone’s ever bothering to define the term “czar.”
Then, after 287 words, in which he himself seems to succumb to playing the straight man in this political, Groucho Marx "secret word" fest, Mark finally comes to the real point:
"Again, the astounding thing isn’t that Republicans are pulling this stupid pet trick, but that reporters are covering it rather than asking basic questions about it."
Mark Kleiman shouldn't have to be arguing this silliness. The Media should not even let it take up our time or attention, and the politicians, who promote it should pay a high price, in derision from non-partisan journalists and pundits. That that is not happening is extremely worrisome. The poor functioning of Media journalism has been a serious, serious problems since Clinton and Whitewater; but, we need to notice the failures of journalism more, and the antics of the Right, less.
As if to illustrate, Matthew Yglesias points to this Newsweek story:
"Anyone who watches cable news surely knows that conservatives are getting themselves all hot and bothered over the Obama administration's appointment of so-called czars. Today, the Democratic National Committee is going nuts in response. I've got more e-mails from them about this today than I care to count. This whole debate is descending into complete partisan hackery: GOP operatives are fanning ridiculous fears while Democrats are proffering inflated claims to counter them."
Matthew Yglesias restates the Newsweek complaint:
"Silly Democratic National Committee, boring reporters by tediously pointing out that the central political argument being made by their opponents is totally dishonest! What partisan hackery! How sad that the debate is “descending” to this level! But who’s to say who’s to blame for this situation? Maybe the DNC should have just turned the other cheek and not annoyed Newsweek with its pesky emails."
Kevin Drum pretends to be David Broder
Why Bipartisanship Matters | Mother Jones:
But, of course, this is the David Broder argument. David Broder does NOT argue for split-the-difference; David Broder argues for leaving "partisan ideology" and "partisan bickering" at the door, and having the "adults" just "get together" and "solve problems" like there are no legitimate partisan or ideological differences about policy.
The problem of assembling a governing coalition is always the same: how to enable the rational and sane to cooperate, against the corrupt and crazy.
When the rational and sane, and the corrupt and crazy, were both split between the Parties, bi-partisanship made sense, to the extent that it meant assembling the rational and sane from both Parties, to govern together. That's how Civil Rights got passed: liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans voted together against reactionary southern Democrats: voila!
And, that's how bi-partisanship got a great reputation, in a now lost era, when political polarization between the Parties was minimal, and both Parties had extremist nutcases in approximately equal measure.
The Parties are divided differently today, in case you haven't noticed, but, in the end, the motivation for assembling a governing coalition of the sane and rational remains the same: policy has consequences.
You don't want politicians to "make tough decisions" because it sounds dramatically satisfying. You want them to do so, because the consequences are serious.
The people in Congress, who are genuinely responsible and not hopelessly corrupt or stupid, are all in the Democratic Party. And, outside of the Congress, almost all of the remaining responsible conservatives are allied closely with the Administration.
If you want good policy, the governing coalition has to be assembled, within the Democratic Party. The "bi-partisan" gambit just won't work. The marginal, semi-corrupt or semi-stupid vote has to be afraid of the consequences of policy failure, sufficiently afraid that they will compromise their greed with people they recognize are smart and care about the consequences. Only a handful of such marginal votes will come from nominal Republicans; most Republicans are committed to the politics of the shock doctrine and bringing on Armegeddon, or simply don't believe in reality and policy consequences.
Now, you can argue that governance from within the majority Party simply cannot work, but the problem is not the lack of consensus, or even the lack of party discipline, which would enable those "tough decisions" of which the Village Pain Caucus among the punditocrisy has become so fond. The problem must be that responsible governing by a single Party cannot be successfully "branded" and the brand marketed. FDR managed it with a very unlikely Party, but nevermind.
We've had a remarkable experience over the last 16 years: a responsible, albeit fairly conservative President followed by an irresponsible, conservative President, from different political Parties. Now, we're back to a responsible, conservative President from Party Number 1.
I have my doubts about whether this contrast can be brand-marketed. But, my doubts concern the role of the news Media, as fair and sensible tribunes.
If Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are going to judge what constitutes responsible government, and what consequences are to be blamed on what policy, then we are in a lot of trouble.
"Bipartisanship is in bad odor these days because it's associated with a knee-jerk, David Broderish tendency to assume that the answer to any policy dilemma is automatically halfway between the liberal position and the conservative position. But that sells bipartisanship short. Where it shines is its ability to allow politicians to make tough decisions.
If all you want to do is hand out goodies — tax cuts, prescription drugs, defense contracts — life is easy. Everyone loves goodies. You don't need help from your opposite numbers to get stuff like that through Congress.
But what if you want to pass something tougher? Something that takes as well as gives? If you have bipartisan support, you can do it right: you can stand up to special interests and K Street lobbyists and enact real reform. But you can only do this if you have political cover and plenty of votes."
But, of course, this is the David Broder argument. David Broder does NOT argue for split-the-difference; David Broder argues for leaving "partisan ideology" and "partisan bickering" at the door, and having the "adults" just "get together" and "solve problems" like there are no legitimate partisan or ideological differences about policy.
The problem of assembling a governing coalition is always the same: how to enable the rational and sane to cooperate, against the corrupt and crazy.
When the rational and sane, and the corrupt and crazy, were both split between the Parties, bi-partisanship made sense, to the extent that it meant assembling the rational and sane from both Parties, to govern together. That's how Civil Rights got passed: liberal Democrats and moderate Republicans voted together against reactionary southern Democrats: voila!
And, that's how bi-partisanship got a great reputation, in a now lost era, when political polarization between the Parties was minimal, and both Parties had extremist nutcases in approximately equal measure.
The Parties are divided differently today, in case you haven't noticed, but, in the end, the motivation for assembling a governing coalition of the sane and rational remains the same: policy has consequences.
You don't want politicians to "make tough decisions" because it sounds dramatically satisfying. You want them to do so, because the consequences are serious.
The people in Congress, who are genuinely responsible and not hopelessly corrupt or stupid, are all in the Democratic Party. And, outside of the Congress, almost all of the remaining responsible conservatives are allied closely with the Administration.
If you want good policy, the governing coalition has to be assembled, within the Democratic Party. The "bi-partisan" gambit just won't work. The marginal, semi-corrupt or semi-stupid vote has to be afraid of the consequences of policy failure, sufficiently afraid that they will compromise their greed with people they recognize are smart and care about the consequences. Only a handful of such marginal votes will come from nominal Republicans; most Republicans are committed to the politics of the shock doctrine and bringing on Armegeddon, or simply don't believe in reality and policy consequences.
Now, you can argue that governance from within the majority Party simply cannot work, but the problem is not the lack of consensus, or even the lack of party discipline, which would enable those "tough decisions" of which the Village Pain Caucus among the punditocrisy has become so fond. The problem must be that responsible governing by a single Party cannot be successfully "branded" and the brand marketed. FDR managed it with a very unlikely Party, but nevermind.
We've had a remarkable experience over the last 16 years: a responsible, albeit fairly conservative President followed by an irresponsible, conservative President, from different political Parties. Now, we're back to a responsible, conservative President from Party Number 1.
I have my doubts about whether this contrast can be brand-marketed. But, my doubts concern the role of the news Media, as fair and sensible tribunes.
If Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are going to judge what constitutes responsible government, and what consequences are to be blamed on what policy, then we are in a lot of trouble.
Have a Nice Day
Tom Friedman - Have a Nice Day - NYTimes.com: "if you like importing oil from Saudi Arabia, you’re going to love importing solar panels from China."
Tom Friedman is an ass. But, he makes a good point. Change we can believe in? Where the hell is it, already?
Tom Friedman is an ass. But, he makes a good point. Change we can believe in? Where the hell is it, already?
The compromise without the cover.
I've been writing about how the re-alignment of American politics, ratified in Obama's election, and the marginalizing of the Republican Rump, will require a shift in the composition and habits of the governing coalition.
Governing coalitions are always shifting and morphing. But, a basic dynamic, for 40 years, has been conservatives in both Parties, conspiring against the bases of their respective Parties. This "bipartisanship" of conservatives has been continuously blessed by the corporatist Media and its punditocrisy.
It broke down in the Bush years, as the reactionary and radical base of the Republican Party came to dominate that Party's conservatives and throw out the moderates. The dominance of reactionary radicals undermined confidence in the ability of conservatives (aka "the adults") to control things.
Since the election, there's been a tremendous effort to restore conservative "bi-partisan" government, but the Republican reactionary base is having none of it.
The obvious alternative is cooperation between the Progressive and Conservative wings of the Democratic Party. So far, conservatives in the Democratic Party have not embraced the obvious. We're getting close to the cliff, here, folks.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller Dumps on Baucus' Bill and No Snowe Yet - George's Bottom Line: "the fundamental problem is that Democrats “are being asked to support a bipartisan bill that doesn’t have bipartisan support.” The compromise without the cover."
It's a bad bill. It's a bad bill, because it is a "conservative" bill, designed without meaningful concessions to progressives. Bad policy, for not respecting principles. Bad politics, for not empowering progressives.
Governing coalitions are always shifting and morphing. But, a basic dynamic, for 40 years, has been conservatives in both Parties, conspiring against the bases of their respective Parties. This "bipartisanship" of conservatives has been continuously blessed by the corporatist Media and its punditocrisy.
It broke down in the Bush years, as the reactionary and radical base of the Republican Party came to dominate that Party's conservatives and throw out the moderates. The dominance of reactionary radicals undermined confidence in the ability of conservatives (aka "the adults") to control things.
Since the election, there's been a tremendous effort to restore conservative "bi-partisan" government, but the Republican reactionary base is having none of it.
The obvious alternative is cooperation between the Progressive and Conservative wings of the Democratic Party. So far, conservatives in the Democratic Party have not embraced the obvious. We're getting close to the cliff, here, folks.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller Dumps on Baucus' Bill and No Snowe Yet - George's Bottom Line: "the fundamental problem is that Democrats “are being asked to support a bipartisan bill that doesn’t have bipartisan support.” The compromise without the cover."
It's a bad bill. It's a bad bill, because it is a "conservative" bill, designed without meaningful concessions to progressives. Bad policy, for not respecting principles. Bad politics, for not empowering progressives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
