Jamelle

time-2006.jpg

Dana Milbank’s column in today’s Washington Post is impressively incoherent:

The federal debt has exploded to an incomprehensible $12.1 trillion, and the nation continues on its path to becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the People’s Republic of China. Yet lawmakers can’t even agree on a modest proposal to form an independent debt commission and then vote on its recommendations.

The debt commission is expected to be voted down Tuesday morning, as foes on the far left and the far right unite to form a status quo supermajority. Prospects have become so bleak that a couple of retired congressional leaders got together Monday morning in hopes of shaming their former colleagues into action.

Assuming words haven’t suddenly lost all meaning, it is literally impossible for an extremist fringe to constitute a supermajority. For that to happen, any given fringe would have to come in striking distance of a plurality, in which case, it wouldn’t actually be a fringe.

That bit of logical incoherence notwithstanding, Milbank’s column is a pitch perfect example of how Beltway elites are utterly incapable of correctly identifying or explaining problems, especially ones for which they are intimately responsible. Our bleak fiscal outlook is mostly due to the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the financial collapse. Put another way, each of the policies responsible for the deficit were supported, sometimes enthusiastically, by the “center” of American politics. Beltway elites — Democrats and Republicans — gleefully signed on to massive tax cuts, senseless “projection” of American power, and deregulation of the financial sector.

If anything, the “fringe” that Milbank (and other Beltway elites) deride was responsible for putting up what little resistance there was to the most egregiously “centrist” policies. Paleo-cons and progressives were, and are, deeply skeptical of the wars, the tax cuts, and the frenzy of deregulation that characterized the late-Clinton and Bush eras. And now, in this era of massive deficits, it’s the “fringe” advocating policies and approaches that actually have a chance of solving the problem. Progressives and reform-minded conservatives (which in the conservative movement, is a fringe view) recognize the need for tax increases, reduced military spending, and a restructuring of federal entitlements. Of course, there are serious points of disagreement, but let’s not pretend like its the fringes who are to blame for America’s sorry shape. That distinction belongs to the Beltway elites who dominate our political discourse.

(cross-posted from my blog)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

I respect E.D., but he’s completely off base here:

And yes, even though it may cause healthcare reform to die in its tracks, I still think that the right person won in Massachusetts.  I also think that there are ways the Democrats could scale back reform and get some conservatives on board with a much more modest, more market-friendly reform that still helps a lot of people who need help. [...]

In the end, I’m not too down over healthcare reform bottoming out.  I don’t think it’s over, for one thing.  And maybe something better, something more fiscally sound that still covers most Americans will emerge from all of this – perhaps even something with bipartisan support. Maybe a better, less cynical Republican party will begin to take root as well.  Maybe, just maybe, people will take another look at Wyden/Bennett….

There is almost nothing in recent political history to suggest that the Republican Party is anything but hostile to health care reform.  And if not hostile, then indifferent.  Republicans had nearly four years of uninterrupted dominance with which to tackle health care reform, and neither President Bush nor congressional Republicans proposed anything. What’s more, the bulk of Republican legislators are comically ignorant of health care policy, and those that aren’t are far more concerned with their political futures than they are with reforming the health care system (see: Olympia Snow, Chuck Grassley).

By suggesting that Democrats “scale back” reform, E.D. is effectively blaming Democrats for Republican intransigence, which is completely absurd.  Last year, Democrats offered Republicans the chance to make their mark on health care reform.  Yes, it would happen within a liberal framework, but Democrats were more than willing to compromise and scale down if it meant GOP support.  Republicans were repeatedly offered the opportunity to alter the bill to their liking; if Republicans wanted market-friendly reforms, they could have gotten them.  If Republicans wanted something modest and limited, Democrats probably would have delivered.  But they didn’t.  Despite that, Democrats produced and passed a bill that is moderate and bipartisan in everything but name.  The current bill is dramatically more conservative than Bill Clinton’s attempt to reform health care, and owes far more to Mitt Romney than it does to say, Harry Truman.

The simple fact  is that there isn’t a single shred of evidence to support the idea that congressional Republicans have any interest in passing health care reform, even conservative, incremental health care reform.  They are opposed to health care reform, they have always been opposed to health care reform, and if this bill fails, they will still be opposed to health care reform.  If this bill fails, there won’t be another and — if previous history is any indication — it will be fifteen years before another president attempts to tackle health care reform, and in the meantime, the system will move closer to complete failure.

I don’t think I can be emphatic enough about this: the idea that there are Republican votes for a conservative health care bill (it’s already pretty moderate) is a complete fiction.  The truth is that Republicans have made a conscious choice to categorically oppose each and every one of President Obama’s priorities, under the theory that obstruction is the surest way back to political success. Judging from their success so far, I think it’s fair to say that isn’t going to change anytime soon.  To pretend otherwise, as E.D. does, is to be willfully ignorant of political reality.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Late Night Husker Du

by Jamelle on January 14, 2010

“Makes No Sense at All” by Husker Du Continue reading this post…

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

(cross-posted from my blog)

If you look at the breakdown for the House’s vote on health care reform, you’ll see that of the 39 Democrats voting against reform, 24 were Blue Dogs.  Nearly each of the Blue Dogs voting against reform came from districts that supported John McCain in 2008, and of those, fourteen were freshmen Democrats defending seats in districts that went for McCain by at least ten points.  Most of those districts are predominately rural, and it’s very likely that they rank on the low end of most socio-economic indicators.

All of this is apropos of low-tech cyclist’s discussion of “Blue Doggism” or the tendency on part of Blue Dogs to adopt positions and support policies that hurt their districts economically.  The health care bill stands prominently, but there are dozens of smaller, equally egregious instances of Blue Dogs signing on to legislation that benefits the wealthy and privileged at the expense of the folks they actually represent.  Low-tech cyclist blames the Blue Dogs themselves for this behavior, and while that explanation holds water for some Blue Dogs — see: former Rep. Harold Ford (TN-9) — I’m not sure if it’s true of each Blue Dog.

Looking at the data from the health care vote, my hunch is that the majority of Blue Dogs are actually reflecting their constituents’ preferences.  I’m certain that if you were to look at each of the Blue Dogs that voted against health care reform, and polled health care reform within their districts, you’d find that their constituents are significantly (if not overwhelmingly) against the legislation.  Yes, your average Blue Dog is a corporate lackey, but he also represents aconservative district and in all likelihood, is reflecting the preferences of his constituents.

When it comes down to it, the problem isn’t that Blue Dogs are spineless, it’s that a large swath of rural America –disproportionately poor and disadvantaged — has decided that its interests are best served by conservative policies. Which, at the moment, amount to little more than giveaways to the wealthiest and most privileged Americans.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

(cross-posted from my blog)

Writing in praise of Halperin and Heilemann’s Game Change, Marc Ambinder predicts that political scientists won’t find much to love in the book’s depiction of politics:

Political scientists aren’t going to like this book, because it portrays politics as it is actually lived by the candidates, their staff and the press, which is to say — a messy, sweaty, ugly, arduous competition between flawed human beings — a universe away from numbers and probabilities and theories.

Speaking as someone who spends a lot of time around political scientists, my guess is that they — like most people, frankly — won’t be all that interested in the book, and those that are will read it as nothing more than a collection of interesting gossip about the campaigns.  Which, you know, is what it is.  That said, it’s worth actually addressing the substance of Ambinder’s assertion that political scientists are too sterile and systematic to appreciate the glorious mess that is American politics.

I have little doubt that most political scientists don’t particularly care for the gossip, drama and triviality that characterizes the political dialogue.  Contra Ambinder however, it’s not that political scientists are too cold and lifeless to appreciate the human drama, but that political scientists understand that the human drama says little about the actual outcomes of politics.  Taking a magnifying glass to “politics as lived”  – looking at personalities, staff dynamics, and press relationships — is interesting, but it doesn’t really tell you anything.  At basic, elections are determined by the fundamentals: the economy, incumbency, population distributions etc, and the vast majority of presidential elections can be predicted by the macro-factors.

This isn’t particularly satisfying, granted, but political scientists aren’t in the business of dredging up scintillating details about campaigns and candidates.  They are in the business of explaining and describing politics as it works.  While it’s true that politics is a messy, ugly affair, it’s also true that political behavior can be systemized, organized, and explained. And on the whole, that systemization and organization tells us a whole lot more about how our politics operate than does a bunch of gossipy, barely substantiated quotes.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Policy Pet Peeves (or the political cost of the hidden welfare state)

by Jamelle January 6, 2010

(cross-posted from my blog) Atrios: One of my longstanding pet peeves is that everyone in the US pretends we don’t have an “industrial policy” because that implies naughty state intervention in certain sectors. But of course we have lots of naughty state intervention in certain sectors, we just don’t do it even notionally for any good reason. We prop up the single family homebuilding industry and the automobile industry (even before the bailouts). We prop up certain agricultural sectors. We ...

18 comments Read the full article →

File this Under: Inappropriate Historical Analogies

by Jamelle December 30, 2009

(cross-posted from my blog) I know this shouldn’t come as a big surprise, but the Nuge is an idiot: “I think that Barack Hussein Obama should be put in jail. It is clear that Barack Hussein Obama is a communist. Mao Tse Tung lives and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. This country should be ashamed. I wanna throw up.” A quick observation: for as much as right-wingers like to play freedom fighter and throw around the word totalitarianism like a twelve-sided die, ...

88 comments Read the full article →

Why Emperor Palpatine Wasn’t as Wrong as You Think

by Jamelle December 11, 2009

(cross-posted from the United States of Jamerica) (Before I even begin, this is all apropos of the fact that I’m rereading a few of the older books in the Expanded Universe) It’s basically an article of faith among Star Wars fans that the Galactic Empire — as depicted in the original trilogy — is purely evil and the Alliance to Restore the Republic (or Rebel Alliance for short) is unambiguously good.  And there’s a lot of solid evidence for that assessment.  On-screen, ...

20 comments Read the full article →

The War on Pluralism Christmas

by Jamelle December 9, 2009

(cross-posted from the United States of Jamerica) This is a little ridiculous (via Dara’s Google Reader feed): Boss Creations, a new holiday decor company, has introduced the new “CHRIST-mas” Tree, featuring the unique trait of a trunk in the shape of a wooden cross. Company owner Marsha Boggs says the tree was specifically designed to counter the “war on Christmas.” “When I became a Christian a few years ago,” says Boggs, “I was appalled by the secularization of the Christmas ...

68 comments Read the full article →

“Racism.” As Defined by Clueless Conservatives

by Jamelle December 8, 2009

(cross-posted from the United States of Jamerica) Patterico, a conservative blogger, describes his “pontifications” as “harangues that make sense.”  Assuming the definition of sense has remained relatively constant, this can’t possibly be the case.  Especially when the blogger in question — in a post linked approvingly by America’s Worst Race Theorist — cites African-American discomfort with interracial marriage as a modern-day example of racism. Ignoring the fact that it is completely ridiculous to cite a single news article as indicative ...

52 comments Read the full article →

Standard Operating Procedure

by Jamelle November 25, 2009

Michael Crowley ruins an otherwise good post on the Obama administration’s engagement with Russia over the Iranian nuclear program with this aside:

2 comments Read the full article →

Yeah, another reason to raise taxes on the rich

by Jamelle November 25, 2009

Via Meteor Blades at Daily Kos is Sam Pizzigati explaining that the top 1 percent of income earners have a ridiculously low state and local tax burden relative to their low and middle-income fellow citizens: America’s most affluent 1 percent now pay, on average, just 6.4 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes. But they actually pay even less than that, since they can deduct their state and local taxes from their federal tax bill. The state and ...

15 comments Read the full article →

Fiscal Responsibility, part II

by Jamelle November 24, 2009

I don’t understand how Conor can say this with a straight face: You’d think after rightly complaining about the Bush Administration’s unprecedented irresponsibility for eight years, leading Democrats would understand that we’re trapped in a terrible hole, but instead they just keep digging, figuring that while they’re in power, why not lobby for a massive new health care entitlement, game its scoring to make its cost seem more palatable to voters, and pay for it by pretending that it won’t ...

23 comments Read the full article →

Shameless Self-Promotion

by Jamelle November 13, 2009

Hey kids, just a heads up – I’m guest-blogging at Spencer Ackerman’s digs.  So for those of you who can actually tolerate my blogging, head over there for today.

4 comments Read the full article →

I don’t actually recall having any debate

by Jamelle November 12, 2009

This Gallup poll has gotten a bunch of attention, and I figure it’s worth posting here: Yesterday, Ruth Marcus (or rather, whoever writes her subheadline) called the House debate over the health care bill a “GOP blizzard of untrue statements.”  And for good reason. The Republican argument against the bill amounted to a series of incoherent tirades denouncing the health care bill as an apocalyptic threat to everything good and decent about America.  Hell, I half-expected someone in the Republican ...

40 comments Read the full article →

One minor quibble

by Jamelle November 9, 2009

Andrew Sullivan on his intellectual consistency: I was appalled by the anti-Semitism buried within ANSWER – the left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party peeps – their paranoia and their ad Hitlerum daffiness. I railed against “the intolerant, extremist and reactionary forces behind an unhealthy amount of the anti-war movement.” I argued that they were not offering any serious proposals to address the actual problem – Saddam’s WMDs. In many ways, my critique of the far left then is identical to ...

3 comments Read the full article →

You don’t know what you’re talking about, do you?

by Jamelle November 9, 2009

Note: This was a shitty movie. So, if Memeorandum is any indication, a few conservative bloggers have taken to mining fourth-rate dialogue from third-rate science fiction movies in order to make an absurd point about how a modest package of insurance reforms amounts to an attack on liberty itself. I asked something along these lines on Facebook yesterday and in light of the apoplectic conservative reaction to Saturday’s vote, it’s worth posing these questions to the linked bloggers (if they are paying ...

12 comments Read the full article →

Protecting American values from extremists

by Jamelle November 7, 2009

I agree with conservatives like David Horowitz and John Hinderacker; in light of the shooting at Ft. Hood, we need to reassert and protect our values.  The question of course, is the who we’re protecting our values from.  Hint: it’s not Muslims.  But first, a few quick points about Muslim-American attitudes: 1. Muslim-American are overwhelmingly happy with their place in the United States: Back in 2007, the Pew Research Center released the first comprehensive survey of Muslim-American attitudes.  According to the survey, nearly eight out ...

59 comments Read the full article →

Because, as we all know, Military Spending Doesn’t Count

by Jamelle November 5, 2009

New York Times: The nation’s top military officer said Wednesday that he expected the Pentagon to ask Congress in the next few months for emergency financing to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though President Obama has pledged to end the Bush administration practice of paying for the conflicts with so-called supplemental funds that are outside the normal Defense Department budget. The financing would be on top of the $130 billion that Congress authorized for the wars just ...

12 comments Read the full article →

Survey Says: 49% of Americans Don’t Much Like Homosexuality

by Jamelle November 5, 2009

This exchange between Rod Dreher and Ta-Nehisi Coates on the basis of opposition to same-sex marriage is interesting, if only because it provides another striking example of how ones identity has an incredible impact on how one views the world and other human beings.  That is, it’s pretty easy to believe that bigotry drives political action against same-sex marriage when you yourself belong to a minority group that was a regular target of disenfranchisement (or worse) for more than a century.  That ...

115 comments Read the full article →

A brief aside on yesterday’s election in Virginia

by Jamelle November 4, 2009

I live in Virginia (albeit one of the commonwealth’s few liberal strongholds*) and got my start in the blogosphere as a Virginia politics blogger, so if you’ll forgive me, I’m going to indulge my roots a little with a quick post on yesterday’s election.  As far as I can tell, the conventional wisdom about yesterday’s election is that it represents a “shot across the bow” from independent voters worried about heavy spending and deficits.  The election wasn’t a referendum on ...

11 comments Read the full article →