Snowballs in Hell:11.26.06


Well, it happened and two recent NYT articles suggest that the nascent Democratic Congress may already be off to a bad start.

The first, by Louis Uchitelle, entitled Here Come the Economic Populists , suggests that "Rubinomics", the pro-market Liberalism of the Clinton years is dead. Replacing it is a new wave of populist market interventions. That may not be the best direct direction for the new Congress. Aside from the politics of the issue, using government to determine market outcomes — things like income and employment levels - are apt to be counter-productive.

There's probably nothing wrong with a minimum wage — even a generous one. And there is certainly plenty of room for regulation respecting health, safety and the environment — areas which the market ignores, and which the "free-market" fixated Republicans neglected or degraded. And of course market actors should be held to high ethical and fiduciary standards. But Democrats should be wary of determining how the market works or dictating is outcomes. Instead, Democrats should use government in two broad ways. First it should guarantee equality of opportunity to participate in the market, i.e. seeing that everyone is educated and healthy — a case for universal access to secondary education and health care. Second, it should guarantee a minimum to everyone who falls outside the market system, i.e. to those unable to work for whatever reason, and to those 'underserved' by the free-market, i.e. the working poor. Beyond that, Democrats should let the market be the market. Like it or not, the market is the source of wealth, literally the sine qua non, for everything Liberals in power will want done for the nation. For proof of that, one need only note that the rise in tax receipts over the course of the Bush administration has come from taxes on business, not on individuals. Don't kill the goose...

Speaking of which...

The second article, by Kate Phillips, highlights attitudes toward earmarks among incoming Democratic committee chairpersons. Senator Patty Murray's "What is good for the goose is good for the gander" is not encouraging. Her comments that Republicans used earmarks to buy votes, and that Democrats were not going to do that, may very well be a distinction without a difference. Reform suggestions by other Democrats, such as greater transparency, a ban on last minute amendments and "requiring lawmakers to certify that they had no financial interest in their earmarks requests" may be a good start, but may also be just bumps in the road to the same old government venality. Democrats simply have to be better — demonstratively, dramatically better. Coming changes in policy are all to the good, but America suffers most at this time from a corrupt and corrosive style of governance. Unaddressed, it is ultimately a crumbling foundation for anything Democrats might want to build on it.

There is so much opportunity here, and so much opportunity for it to slip away.

War and Democracy: 08.25.06


Just to establish my own bona fides, I opposed the war in Iraq before it started, and for all the reasons that have now become apparent: that it wasn't in the interest of the United States, that it would end up being our West Bank, and that it would only further radicalize the Middle East and the rest of Islam against us. So far, I have been correct — but then, it was a no-brainer to begin with.

On the other hand, I was a follower of Colin Powell's philosophy after the deed was done: you break it, you buy it. I'm not a pull-out/date-certain liberal. While it's unfortunate the Bush administration seems incapable of dealing with the mess its created, it's still in the vital interest of the nation to do so. Like Joe Lieberman, I think leaving tomorrow would be a disaster.

Most troubling (and most understandable) has been the public reaction to the war. The public is tired of it, and tired of seeing those they love come home maimed in body and mind, or worse, in boxes.

Of course, in a democracy, vox populi, vox dei. But a war is a hard and real thing. A nation may choose to end it for any reason they see fit, but that doesn't mean they have won it, nor even that they have ended it to their own advantage. It may be that the administration has failed effectively to define the final goal of the war (or better said, its goal has shifted with the drift of political expediency); but we are there — we have begun this thing — and that has involved us in a logic that transcends public disgust or ennui.

Don't get me wrong, I am as in love with the effect of public disgust with this war on Republican prospects in the next election as any liberal, but I am also mindful that the effects of of our invasion of Iraq dwarf political expediency. There is a real, practical debate about whether we should continue in Iraq or not; but, in my opinion, that debate has nothing to do with politics, and only tangentially with the mathematics of death. America does not successfully complete a conflict (I avoid the phrase "win a war") because it is tired of it. It successfully completes a conflict when the conflict is successfuly completed.

We may well argue about what "success" is, whether it is possible, and if possible, whether it can be attained. But no matter one's opinion of a war, once it is engaged, the parameters of the debate change. As much as we may deplore the Administration's commitment of the United States to it, the war in Iraq has defined a new reality, one we have to live, and deal, with. And that means that the real debate about the war has to do with the war: with the dynamics of Middle East politics, and with the over-arching issue of Islamic radicalism and the West. The question should not, at this point, be what hurts Bush and the Republicans, but what benefits the nation. The gravity of the situation — a situation I whole-heartedly admit we should never have been commited to — dictates that.

Answers to Unasked Questions: 07.23.06


Anthony Cordesman's short paper, The Road to Nowhere, Everyone's Strategic Failure's in Lebanon, for CSIS makes such obvious sense that's it's hard to fathom how rational actors could act as those in the Middle East are acting today.

And Vendrick's and Woltjer's paper for the Institute for Labor, Happiness and Loss Aversion: When Social Participation Dominates Comparison, suggests why playing the "class card" doesn't work for Liberals: people measure their economic well-being relative to others in their immediate social sphere, not against those outside it. In effect, as long as they can keep up with the Jones next door, what happens in other groups — income, geographic, etc. — is irrelevant.

Just wondering.

Senseless: 07.17.06


So, if just the week before, Hamas had nabbed an Israeli soldier and tried to trade him for Palestinian prisoners and failed, what made Hezbollah think the Israelis would trade with them?

And if Israel expects the Lebanese army to someday disarm and control Hezbollah, why are they bombing Lebanese army bases in the north of Lebanon?

Just wondering.

Liberal Foundations: 05.19.06

Recent reading has turned up two interesting essays on the ebb and flow of Liberalism over the last half-century, and hence the fortunes of the Democratic Party.

The first is John Judis' essay, Structural Flaw: How Liberalism Came to the U.S., from the 2.28.05 issue of The New Republic. Unfortunately, it is only available to subscribers (which I recommend everyone become), but its essence is this: that the "Liberal Consensus" which united both Democrats and many Republicans from the New Deal to the Great Society

was based primarily upon certain special economic and political conditions: popular pressure from below, business' acquiescence in reform, and the conviction of the nation's opinion-makers that reform was good for America. Since then, dramatic changes in the international economy have turned business against reform and weakened the other forces supporting reform.

It is an article of faith among many liberal Democratic partisans that a significant percentage of people who vote for Republicans are willfully voting against their own class interests. They are being suckered, the argument goes, by the Republicans' disingenuous appeals on issues of cultural morality and by simplistic calls for a less meddlesome government.

He points out, however, that the percentage may not be as significant as Liberals would like to think and that "class interests" may not be what Liberals would like to assume.

It might be argued that both Judis' and Rose's analyses are a bit narrow: both focus solely on Liberalism's economic reform agenda and ignore other Liberal priorities — civil rights and the environment, for example — but they are certainly food for thought.

What Goes 'Round: 04.09.06

In case there should be skating in Hell this November 8, I have a word of advice for Democrats: Don't try to out-asshole the Republicans.

First, resist the temptation to start House or Senate (or, unthinkably, both) investigations into every dark corner of the Bush administration and the once-Republican Congress. Prove you're above the kind of retributive politics that only confirms for the public that both parties are alike, and are more interested in cudgling each other than in governing. Investigations pursing the irrelevant or the irreparable — no matter the size of the black eye dealt the Right — are a waste of time. Focus on policy issues that benefit the nation, not on Republican-bashing that just benefits yourselves.

Second, make real government reform a top priority — reform incumbent on both parties with the goal of making government more responsive, more deliberative and more honest. Beyond mere "lobbying reform", consider changes in the actual processes of law-making. You might start with the 14-point program proposed at the end of last year by Dave Obey of Wisconsin, Barney Frank of Massachusetts, David Price of North Carolina, and Tom Allen of Maine as reported in The New Republic. According to the TNR editors, the proposal would "...require that all votes be closed within 20 minutes, unless both party's leaders or floor managers agree otherwise. And, to ensure that members know exactly what they are voting on, it would mandate that copies of all bills be available 24 hours before they are brought to a vote." You might also consider reforms of the amending process: how, where, when and by whom it is done. The words "transparency" and "accountability" should come to mind. Done well, procedural reforms just might make lobbying and campaign finance reform unnecessary.

Third, whatever can be done on a bipartisan basis, do it. Too much good is left undone in government because someone else might get credit for it. That's bullshit. Political expediency is a direct route to public cynicism; and public cynicism about government undercuts the entire Democratic project: that there are things for which we are collectively responsible. Democrats should live the principle that government doesn't exist for the party, but for its citizens.

Fourth, don't be ideologues. Make your mark as the party of practical solutions to real problems. When the free market works better than a government program, use the market. If you have to cut a benefit or end a subsidy, do it. If you have to tell a constituency something they don't want to hear, tell them. Aside from the opportunity to actually get things done, these are your Sister Souljah moments. Don't be afraid of them. They smell like leadership.

Fifth, never set higher ethical standards for your opponents than you do for yourselves; but set high standards. And when a colleague strays, be the first to say so; and when a Republican is unfairly trashed, be the first to defend him.

Finally, above all, act honorably. I know it's an old-fashioned concept, scorned in some circles, but it is still recognized, understood and appreciated by most of us. Who knows. You could start a national habit. People might vote for you again because they like what you do, not just because they're sick of Republicans.

But if all this is too much to ask, at least remember: Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

A Shifting Foundation: 03.20.06

While adding the Massachusetts Body of Liberties to another site I run, I was reminded once again of the claim by the religious right that America was founded as a Christian nation. They have a point, of course. If one dates the founding of the nation to 1620 or 1630, the conclusion is inescapable: the Pilgrims and Puritans came to North American to found religious commonwealths. On the other hand, if one dates the founding to the 1607 of Jamestown, Virginia, then it is equally inescapable that America was founded as a commercial nation, albeit the Jamestown colonists brought their religious prejudices with them. And finally, if one dates the foundation of America to 1776, then one must conclude that — for all their faith — the founders at that time intended a secular nation based on political, not religious, ideals; political ideals clearly articulated in each founding.

And that is an interesting point. America has been from the beginnig an amalgam of commerce, faith and political ideals; an on-going project ranging from conversation to outright conflict about what each of those mean; and how the meaning of each reinterprets and transforms the meaning of the others.

It is who we are.