(Okay, this is a little ranty, because that’s how I’m feeling today. Be warned.)
I don’t know if you all saw The Lives Of Others, but if you missed out on it, it’s worth checking out. It’s all about abusive political authority in the East German (DDR) government during the Cold War. There’s one line that came to my mind earlier: if you click to 7:30 of this clip, you hear the most wronged character in the film confronting a former DDR minister at a play and saying, “To think that people like you led my country.”
I have to say that this quote has been bouncing around my mind ever since January. Obviously, Republicans aren’t nearly as bad as the East German Communist Party. But I don’t take it that way. Having guys like John Boehner and Eric Cantor with real power is frustrating to me, just because they don’t deserve it. They’re like the minister from the movie, corrupt and self-important blowhards. Boehner and Cantor seem to be positively competing to desperately prove that they are Doing Something About The Deficit, but they’re incurious and ignorant men, as this statement from Boehner demonstrates:
Boehner’s statement in his Wall Street speech that government spending “is crowding out private investment and threatening the availability of capital” runs counter to the behavior of credit markets.
“Look at interest rates. Look at capital spending,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist of IHS Inc., a research firm based in Englewood, Colorado. “It’s very hard to come to a conclusion that there’s any kind of crowding out.”
The cost of borrowing is low by historical standards. Yields on 10-year Treasury notes were 3.21 percent and yields on 2-year Treasury notes were 0.59 percent at 5 p.m. in New York yesterday, according to Bloomberg Data. Average spreads on investment-grade corporate bonds have narrowed from 1.64 a year ago to 1.39 on May 9, according to Barclays Capital.
The TED spread, the difference between what banks and the U.S. government pay to borrow for three months, fell 2.2 basis points since May 9, the biggest drop since April 5. A narrowing spread means banks are more willing to lend. The 23.87-point spread is just below the two-year average.
That’s from Bloomberg, by the way, not Daily Kos. Republican thinking is so doctrinaire and unyielding that the facts are whatever the theory says they have to be. Sadly, this is not a new state of affairs. But that the likes of Ruth Marcus are actually calling him out on it is at least somewhat gratifying. At least some Villagers still have some dormant sense of responsibility somewhere.
I’m normally capable of keeping my frustration at these fools at bay, but sometimes I just can’t take it. Boehner and Cantor don’t care about the facts or even the effects of what they do--nobody who cares about the government they serve would voluntarily impose California-style fiscal restraints on the budgetary process. No Republican with half a brain would put in place rules that would give Democrats as much of a chance to abuse the process under Republican presidents. And yet Cantor has done both, and recently. And these two assholes keep taking hostages and issuing demands that are crafted solely to appeal to the braindead populist rabblerousers that are the only source of information for most Republicans, slick little speeches that sound good but reflect little but the absence of thought in their respective minds. These two men are hacks, not statesmen, and right now we really could use some statesmen. Then again, the GOP has spent the past few decades trying to clear them out, with a great deal of success, and if they primary Lugar next year they’ll have completed the job. This isn’t new information, but I just wish that at the very least, couldn’t we get people who actually give a damn?
(h/t: Political Wire)
{
0 comments
}
For those of us paying attention, this isn’t much of a surprise:
A new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows registered voters now favor a generic Democrat over a Republican in next year’s congressional election, 50% to 46%. The poll also shows women and non-college voters, both of whom supported Republicans in 2010, now supporting Democrats by 10 points and nine points, respectively.
And it’s no blip either. Check out this chart:
Now, the most important fact here is that Republicans are losing support much faster than Democrats are gaining it. But it is a sign of voters being turned off by the agenda and attitude of Republicans over the past four months. It certainly means that Democrats will have a shot at winning them back.
This really shouldn’t be too surprising. Republicans think that 2010 was a return to sanity after four years of madness. I always figured it was the other way around. The GOP have moved aggressively on every level to implement policies they never campaigned on, to advocate for issues that didn’t suddenly become popular, and in many cases they’ve showed contempt for the preferences of the public and the fineries of the legal system (see Walker, Scott). That’s an attitude that, more often than not, will bite you in the ass. Let’s hope this trend keeps continuing. And it is my sincere hope that the next election will rid us of the intellectually bankrupt, unscrupulous, heartless and arrogant Republicans in Washington.
So much sadness...
A gambler once told me that, while pretty much all gambling systems are bullshit, there is a way of gambling that more often than not can get you some money. The idea is that you keep doubling your bet every single time you play a hand of, say, blackjack. Eventually, you’re going to win, and that’s when you walk away. I’ve never tried it myself, but it’s definitely a pretty risky strategy, it requires some significant capital and real commitment, and you have to have a stomach for it.
I think of this because it appears that it’s John Boehner’s strategy of choice in the budget struggles. I can see why he’s doing it. He’s not really in control of his caucus and it’s a way of looking “strong” and “tough” without really having to be those things. But it should be recognized as a desperation play. Boehner doesn’t really have the capital, and I wonder if he really has the guts. Considering how his demands and attitudes are changing daily, I doubt he has the commitment. It is interesting to watch this guy operate with literally no slack. It’s predictable, really–every time he tries to act the sensible, dealmaking adult, literally days later he starts raging like a dictator fulminating at illusory enemies. In a way, he reminds me of Yasir Arafat, another leader with no slack who operated on the consensus of his most extreme elements. It’s an interesting dynamic to watch, but it’s pretty scary to think through the consequences.
What can I say, I miss Nancy and the solid, pragmatic leadership she provided.
Must... find... bilous... criticism...
Can everyone smell the unity?
The mighty Wingnut Wurlitzer has been looking for a meme to discredit and/or discount President Obama’s involvement in the end of Bin Laden. So many efforts are being tried that it is getting hard to keep track of them, but they all fall into a few very rusty old buckets:
- He only did what his white handlers told him to do and was forced into it.
- It was the great plan that George W. Bush put into motion and tried as he might Obama could not stop it.
- After the fact Obama has become (as usual) a credit hog and showboat who is very disrespectful to his betters: men like GW Bush.
- Obama got lucky and he was too frightened to do the job right [torture] —and so it was a defeat.
That last point was on display when John Yoo told CNN on Thursday night the President Obama was too afraid to capture Osama bin Laden so he ordered his shot on sight. In Yoo’s view the entire incident was a failure because Obama did not have the backbone to support torture. In Yoo’s rich fantasy life real men torture and Obama is not a real man because he does not embrace the “enhanced interrogation techniques” celebrated by Yoo (and his fellow travelers).
My friends...
So it goes for John McCain: once a climate leader advocating cap-and-trade just three years ago to wanting to abolish the EPA today, joining only the hard-right and hard-right poseurs like Orrin Hatch. That’s a big journey. Probably the biggest flip-flop you can make on this issue (naturally, Gingrich beat him to it). And he’s traveled thus, one suspects, having never had a truly honest moment at any point.
I don’t profess to be a McCain expert, but I really wonder if he’s aware of the legacy he’s finalizing. The guy has more days behind him than ahead of him, and considering his approval ratings, I’m guessing this is going to be his final term. He’s in the home stretch no matter how you look at it. And ever since the demise of much of his campaign finance bill, pretty much all he has to show for his 30+ years in Washington is support for one foreign war after another, an embarrassing campaign against ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a series of grudges against anyone who goes up against him in an election or (especially) beats him, and ultimately just a tremendous thirst for more and more power, culminating in picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. As a legacy, that is just terrible. Going whole hog on climate denialism isn’t going to help that.
Is he even thinking about his legacy? I don’t know, most people his age do. But given the past few years’ worth of history, my theory about this is that McCain does what he feels he needs to do to hold onto power, and he figures his fans in the press will eventually forget the wretched things he did and just accept him again, as they always have. Truth be told, it’s served him quite well over the past three years. But this isn’t going to cut it if he wants to be remembered favorably by history. There is very little relationship between how presidents were regarded by the media in their day and how history remembers them, as Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan were generally disrespected by the press during their terms in office, and all were regularly regarded as intellectual lightweights back then. Reagan was clearly confused on any number of things, but he wasn’t a fool, and neither were Ike or Truman. I can’t say for certain there’s no relationship between contemporary press favor and later historical prestige, but there are plenty of examples indicating that it’s not all that strong a predictor of historical rating. In any event, the tricks that work with David Gregory on Sunday mornings aren’t likely to work with scholars decades from now, going only by public statements and voting records. Not that there aren’t places where scholars mess up, but you have to trust them much more than you trust David Gregory, right?
Lest you get the wrong vibe here, I could honestly care less whether John McCain is fondly remembered by later historians. In fact, he’s done enough to earn him some serious demerits on that front. But I’d rather he stop being an asshole and try to do something productive and be a statesman during his waning days. That evidently seems too much to hope for.
This is how you do a political song. “I wish time would go by fast/They find a way to make it last” pretty much describes the plight of the progressive, doesn’t it?
The Enterprise
I had been meaning to blog about this, but I was watching an episode of the original series of Star Trek (“A Taste Of Armageddon”, for those who know episode titles), and it struck me as a pretty wise rejoinder for those who argue that American military might is more conducive toward peace–I know that David Frum is fond of that argument, for one. It’s easy to forget how many of the great sci-fi writers had episodes on the show (Richard Matheson, Theodore Sturgeon and Harlan Ellison, off the top of my head), and this was sort of a classic sci-fi premise, in that there were two planets at war with each other for decades, but they had decided that actual warfare was too barbaric, so they set up a system in which they basically played war games over the computer, and whoever was judged to be killed in the attack had to report to a death chamber. Hence, civilized warfare.
Now, obviously, this is stretching a bit. The human desire for self-preservation would preclude such a scheme from ever happening, though technically I suppose these were supposed to be aliens. Still, I think there’s a smart point in there. We often talk about military budgets in terms of how much protection they buy, at what cost, with what waste–your $500 ashtrays on submarines, for example–but the fact is that making the experience of warfare so transparent to the common person, while simultaneously making it very, very easy to do, has the effect of making warfare a tool of first and frequent resort, when in reality it should be a tool of last resort. That is why one should favor lower defense spending–the higher it is, the easier it is to start new wars. Seems simple, but progressives keep going for the lower-hanging fruit of wasteful expenditures. The argument here really ought to be that spending more on defense is what facilitates aggressive warfare. I mean, if since WWII we’d had a small peacetime service like we had between WWI and WWII, would there really have been a Vietnam? An Afghanistan? An Iraq? I could see Afghanistan still happening, what with an actual U.N. coalition for that one. Not so much the others.
Obviously, this isn’t a new argument. Andy Bacevich has been making it for years. But he usually doesn’t phrase it in this particular way. As I see it, if the argument is “we need a strong defense” vs. “we need a strong defense, with less waste”, well, that’s just not going to get people all that juiced up over it. Making the spend less argument in particular argument will be difficult–you’ll be taking on some of the most entrenched and powerful interests out there–but it has the benefit of hitting the jugular instead of the capillaries.
This is an amazing poll result:
Wait, whaaaaaaat?
That’s right, libertarians are the squishiest on these matters, while hard-pressed Dems (i.e. the economically downscale segment of the public that votes Democrat but tends to be more socially conservative) are the most solid. That’s the opposite of what you’d expect if you listen to the media (and libertarian outlets like Reason in particular), but it sort of makes sense if you think about it. Libertarians tend to be more educated and affluent and have more to lose from possible attacks and related economic side effects, like markets slipping. Downscale voters would actually be less affected by the side effects of any such attacks, like the Dow crashing, etc. That would be my gut instinct to explain these numbers. At least, that’s the charitable explanation here.
Now, obviously, it’s dangerous to generalize. Our own Gherald is quite solid on these issues, as are a number of other libertarians that I read frequently to periodically, like Will Wilkinson and Conor Friersdorf. But this data makes it clear that libertarianism is, as always, primarily focused on economic issues, ignoring valuable contributions that could be made with a greater focus in other areas. But it’s easy to read too much into this data: as with the public disliking “big government” while simultaneously approving of basically function of government, good and bad, I tend to think that people believe in privacy while simultaneously supporting (or not angrily opposing) most of the terrorism-fighting tactics that mitigate freedom. And aside from that, there’s the matter of fear of terror attacks and partisanship at play here that would tend to tip the balance the other way, that people might not be consciously aware of. Still, it’s worth noting that the hard-pressed Dems are by far the least willing to even say they’d make the trade, which strikes me as significant–one suspects that Dems are reluctant to engage on these issues not because of working class voters defecting to Republicans, so much as out of a fear of losing those socially liberal/economically conservative, libertarian-type of voters who do vote on social issues.
Okay, this is obviously mostly mockery and sarcasm. But it’s entirely possible that there are some teenagers who really don’t know who bin Laden was. It does give me an excuse to post one of the greatest Saturday Night Live sketches ever. Sadly, after ~5 minutes of searching there doesn’t appear to be any video of it on the great series of tubes, but imdb.com has the text version (please don’t get scared off by the names):
Joe Piscopo: Good evening. I’m Joe Piscopo. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the death of President John F. Kennedy. We’ve brought together these three people to share with us their members of the day they learned that President Kennedy had been shot. Jim, let’s start with you. What were you doing when you heard President Kennedy had been shot?
James Belushi: Well, I was in college and I was walking across the quad to call and this guy runs up and says ‘President Kennedy has been shot’, so I…
Joe Piscopo: Wait, how old are you?
James Belushi: I’m 26. So anyway, I went looking for a TV and…
Joe Piscopo: Wait a minute. You’re telling us you were in college at age 6?
James Belushi: No, I was 19. Anyway…
Joe Piscopo: Wait a minute! You didn’t know President Kennedy had been shot until eight years ago?
James Belushi: Well, hey now; you know, I was busy with school and girls and playing sports and stuff and I really wasn’t into current events.
Joe Piscopo: I can’t believe this. Mary, when did you find out President Kennedy had been shot?
Mary Gross: Well, Joe; in light of what just happened, I’m ashamed to admit that Jim told me right before the show started.
James Belushi: [Chuckling] What a dork, eh Joe?
Joe Piscopo: I can’t believe this! This was one of the most important events of the 20th century and you people are totally clueless!
Tim Kazurinsky: [shocked] Wait a minute! President Kennedy is dead? How? When?
Joe Piscopo: Yes! My God, He was shot in Dallas!
Tim Kazurinsky: Oh, no! No! Please, No!
[Begins crying uncontrollably and hanging onto the other guests]
Tim Kazurinsky: President Kennedy is dead!
Joe Piscopo: [shaking his head] This is Joe Piscopo; good night.
Only 18 short months from now!
Rick Santorum launches a bid for the presidency. So does Jon Huntsman. I don’t really understand why in either case. Well, I guess I get Santorum’s–he’s no doubt bored with think tank sinecures. But he’s still Sam Brownback with a worse haircut, as well as someone who it is impossible to imagine behind the desk in the Oval Office, addressing the nation. Huntsman is not very objectionable to me, but he really ought to know better. This really could ruin his chances at a later bid, and it’s not as though there are many other competent and humane Republicans out there now.
Anyway, the more I think about it, the more inevitable a Romney nomination seems to me. Not out of any “next in line” trend, so much as that he has the sort of base support one needs to win the Republican nomination. Many–myself included–have stated at times that Romney’s health care initiative will doom any candidacy, but I’m wondering if that’s true. In fact, I think it might just be the sort of fallacy that a lot of liberals fall into when discussing the right. Put simply, ideology is not coherent. It can seem that way, but it’s just not. Sure, it might just happen that T-Paw will drop a dagger on Romney about health care, and Romney will fumble about and everyone else will pounce, ruining his campaign in the process. But it might also happen that Pawlenty will try it, Romney will feign outrage at the audacity, the effrontery, to compare his health care system to Obama’s! Why, that sort of thing is dishonorable and meanspirited, and to a fellow Republican, no less! This is basically what George W. Bush did when John McCain said that Bush’s South Carolina activities were worse than what Bill Clinton would do, and that was pretty much the last nail in McCain’s coffin. Honestly, if Romney really stumbles that badly over the most obvious line of attack against him he really has no prayer to win anyway, so unless he’s a complete incompetent and an idiot he’ll be ready. Really, it depends on how the pundits on the right cover the allegations, who comes out sympathetically. If Limbaugh says that Pawlenty went too far in this hypothetical, then everyone else on the right will echo that, and Pawlenty will have to back down. You won’t hear anything more on the topic from anyone else, either. If Limbaugh says that Pawlenty was right, well, then everyone else on the right will echo that, too, and it’ll never end. I suppose there’s always the possibility of a civil war within the Republican Party, but there hasn’t really been one for fifty years, and the establishment has shown infinite accommodation of the yahoos in practice.
One hallmark of ideology is that the people are constantly told who their enemies are, and this can change overnight. Obviously, George Orwell took this concept to the extreme in 1984, perhaps inspired by the left-wing of Britain going from being anti-Hitler to pro-Hitler after Russia and Germany signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, then going back the other way when Hitler broke his word. All of which is to say that, if the elite right declares peace on Romneycare and war on Pawlenty’s hypothetical cap-and-trade system, the masses on the right will follow. They call it a feedback loop for a reason.
I’ve just been catching up with the weekend news and commentary. This rings true to me:
I felt sick to my stomach when the White House released Obama’s birth certificate. I was afraid this was the moment where it all came tumbling down, when the United States showed that it couldn’t handle having a black person as president, that this presidency would soon be politically delegitimatized somehow.
Three days later I realize that I was completely wrong, that Obama clearly believes that birtherism is an albatross for Republicans. Some wingers are even complaining about how deftly Obama is using birtherism against Republicans
This is the first time in my political lifetime that race-baiting has blown up in Republicans’ face. This is not that much of an explosion, but this does make them look bad and another six months of Trump probably does hurt the Republicans’ 2012 chances. Birtherism has reversed the pattern of higher and higher-pitched dog whistles.
I think the “conversation on race” in this country, such as it is, is in pretty shoddy shape because it demands nuance and attention to small details, but a lot of people see it as black-and-white (so to speak), and clearly it’s in many peoples’ interest to enflame the usual tensions that arise in any sort of multicultural environment such as ours. Not all (or even most) Republicans are racists, but some appreciable number are. The thing is that not even all of those folks really want to admit to some of the things they believe. I’ve known a few people in my life that have reasonably bigoted views about other races, in line with what you hear from Pat Buchanan, but who hate Buchanan and think he’s a racist asshole. Which he almost certainly is, but there is definitely a significant group of people in this country who both hold some prejudiced views while finding public expression of those views distasteful, as though they subconsciously know they’re wrong about this stuff. We’re all kinds of turned around in this country when it comes to race. My point is, though, that there’s a reason this stuff is relegated to dogwhistles. Trump is just laying it out there for all to see. Clearly, some aspect of the right is ready for that. But I would guess not too much of it has the stomach for that kind of argument, and Trump is doing them a disservice by airing their dirty laundry, but should his run have any lasting impact, it would have to be in rendering much of this line of appeal less politically possible.
I don’t know–either Trump’s the worst person in the world, or it all just points toward E.D. Kain’s stealth liberal theory of The Donald. Time will tell which is correct.
DOWN THE VINE
Syndication
