Obsidian Wings

What Should You Do for Gay Rights

--by Sebastian

Now that Prop 8 has provided a temporary setback to marriage rights in California, I was thinking about what the best positive step next would look like.  Eventually there will probably have to be another vote, and the best thing I can think of for that is rather mundane.  In the next weeks and months, talk to some generally good but misguided people you know about why marriage is so important.  Talk about how the commitment of two people is just as important for those people no matter what sex they are.  Talk about how the community benefits from the commitment by allowing the joy of the public commitment to be shared.  Talk about how much it can hurt for the ceremonies of love to be denied.  You can preempt some of the stupid lies  about schools and tax exemptions that were spread by the "Yes on 8" campaign, but ultimately focusing on the human aspect is best.  It may seem boring compared to other forms of political activism, but ultimately it is how we win. 

If you don't think you know any otherwise good people who are also against gay marriage, look again. 

I Go Out on Friday Night and I Come Home on Saturday Morning

By Eric Martin

In honor of Teh One's ascendance to Supreme and Transcendtal Dear Leader, I am proposing a little Obsidian Wingnut meet up.  Mildly drunken revelry to ensue.  Details below:

Date: Friday, November 7th
Time: 8:45pm
Location: Scratcher (on 5th Street just east of Bowery/Cooper Sq. - the bar is slightly sub-street level fyi).  One of the better pints of Guiness in NYC.

Just ask Natalie the bartender to point you in my direction. RSVP if you're coming in the comments, and feel free to email me with questions.

An Avalanche of Foibles

by publius

Sounds like the oppo dump on Palin is coming. Carl Cameron sez: "Notwithstanding that there is to be an avalanche that will continue for many days now we're told of story upon story of the foibles of Sarah Palin." The fuller exchange is in the video below. Here's a little teaser -- Cameron reported she didn't know Africa was a continent rather than a country:

And she would have been a heartbeat away.

A Man Out of Time

by Eric Martin

In July 2005, Powerline's John Hinderaker made the case for Bush as The Misunderstood Genius in Chief:

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.

Now, as Bush's eight-year run approaches the final stretch, the Wall St. Journal picks up the hindrocket hindbaton and stumbles toward the finish line:

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Via Krugman, who adds:

Yes, George W. Bush’s status as the most disliked man ever to occupy the White House shows that America was not worthy of him. And attacks on Bush gave aid and comfort to his enemies — unlike the firehose of abuse that will be directed against President Obama, which will of course be an expression of true patriotism.

Shrill. 

Prop 8 and the Black Vote

--by Sebastian

I saw this interesting post from Ta-Nehisi Coates on California’s Prop 8 (the amendment reversing the CA Supreme Court allowing gay marriage).  I was going to leave this response to the post and comments, but he closed the comments because they were getting ugly. 

I found Prop 8 very annoying.  Its existence was in response to what I thought was a poor strategic decision on the part of gay rights advocates—to take the faster court route rather than plodding through the legislature for a few more years.  I thought that going through the courts was likely to produce a backlash that would make gay marriage ultimately take longer to get than if we stuck to the California legislature and governor.  But, once it was before the people, I of course supported voting against the initiative.  Allowing gay marriage is the right thing to do.  In any case, the comment I tried to post is quite a bit more limited in scope and is based on the statistical information available as of Wednesday morning November 5, 2008:

Look Busy People

by Eric Martin

Alright people, roll up your sleeves, we've got some work to do.  The Eds was nice enough to put together a to-do list that we can use for starters:

Agenda for the 1st Hundred Days:

1. Sharia.

2. Communism.

3. Compulsory gay marriage for all preschoolers.

4. Surrender to Aztlan.

5. Abortion legal until 12 years after conception.

6. NASCAR banned, replaced by all-male ballet.

7. Official language of the USA: Ebonics.

8. Christmas banned.

9. ‘Red Dawn’ banned.

10. Box turtles.

That should do it.

We'll also need to identify two large groups of Americans: those counter-revolutionaries that will be part of the 25 million to be "permanently retired," and those millions more that merely need an extended stay in the new Yes We Can Re-education Camps of Change.  Feel free to leave suggestions and potential candidates for either grouping in the comments.   

After all, Obama's Black Panther Civilian Security Force is going to need all the help they can get!

We on Award Tour with Muhammad My Man

by Eric Martin

Reactions from around the globe:

People across Africa stayed up all night or woke before dawn to watch U.S. history being made, while the president of Kenya — where Obama's father was born — declared a public holiday.

In Indonesia, where Obama lived as child, hundreds of students at his former elementary school erupted in cheers when he was declared winner and poured into the courtyard where they hugged each other, danced in the rain and chanted "Obama! Obama!"

"Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place," South Africa's first black president, Nelson Mandela, said in a letter of congratulations to Obama.

Many expressed amazement and satisfaction that the United States could overcome centuries of racial strife and elect an African-American as president.

"This is the fall of the Berlin Wall times ten," Rama Yade, France's black junior minister for human rights, told French radio. "America is rebecoming a New World.

"On this morning, we all want to be American so we can take a bite of this dream unfolding before our eyes," she said.

In Britain, The Sun newspaper borrowed from Neil Armstrong's 1969 moon landing in describing Obama's election as "one giant leap for mankind."

The astounding thing is that there are some on the right that have actually tried to paint Obama's popularity outside of the United States as a bad thing.  Because it's really terrible when the rest of the world is awed by the realization of our exalted principles, rather than our ordnance.  The type of people that ascribe to the credo that it's better to be feared than loved, without realizing that it's better still to be both.  A little respect doesn't hurt the cause either.

Random Election-Related Thoughts

by hilzoy

(1) Sometime during the primaries, for no obvious reason, it occurred to me to reflect on the question: suppose I were a black parent: how would I handle the conversation with my child about whether or not she could be President? The idea that in America anyone can be President is so basic to our national mythology that, I imagined, the question would come up at some point; at any rate, I couldn't assume that it would not. What would I say? Would I try to explain to my child that while perhaps, in her lifetime, an African-American might become President, it didn't seem that likely at the moment? Would I lie? Or would I say that of course she could become President, even though I didn't believe it, on the grounds that I didn't know for a fact that it wasn't so, and that I should not blight her hopes without certain knowledge?

I didn't know what I would choose. But I hated the fact that these seemed to be the options. I hated it all the more because, as I said, the idea that in America anyone can become President is so basic, and so if I believed that neither I nor my child could ever become President, that thought would have to take the form: it is part of what America is that we think that anyone can become President, but it is not true for people who look like we do. We are exceptions. These ideals do not apply to us.

Of course, I knew all that before, but somehow the idea of trying to explain it to my child, to whom I ought to be able to say that the entire world was open to her if she worked hard and did right and had the talent, who I ought to try to prepare to face any danger and rise to any challenge, and whose heart I ought, above all, never ever to break -- it brought it home in a new way. I suppose this is better than the conversations of an earlier era -- the ones about why we couldn't just get a soda in the department store, or sit down in the bus, or do anything, ever, that might annoy some white person, not to mention the still earlier conversations about how her daddy had been sold and she wouldn't get to see him again -- but still.

No parent ever has to wonder how to have that conversation any more: whether to lie to his child or to take her dreams away before she's had a chance to try to realize them.

That is extraordinary.

(2) After eight years of assault on our Constitution, we have elected a President who teaches Constitutional law. I cannot express what this means to me.

(3) Ezra:

"The skill of an Obama administration has yet to be proven. The structure of our government will prove a more able opponent of change than John McCain. But for the first time in years, I have the basic sense that it's going to be okay. Not great, necessarily. And certainly not perfect. But okay. The country will be led by decent, competent people who fret over the right things and employ the tools of the state for recognizable ends. They may not fully succeed. But then, maybe they will. At the least, they will try. And if they fail in their most ambitious goals, maybe they will simply make things somewhat better. After the constant anxiety and uncertainty of the last eight years, maybe that's enough."

I think I might put the odds of actual goodness slightly higher than Ezra does. But the knowledge that we will at least have basic competence is an immense, almost inexpressible relief.

(4) I live in a rather sedate part of Baltimore. It's residential; you can find largeish streets if you walk four or five blocks, but it's nothing like a downtown commercial district.

I had just gotten home from watching the election returns with friends, and I was checking some results on my computer. Suddenly, I heard this huge cheer coming from all around me. It wasn't a crowd in the streets, or a visible celebration, though it sounded like one: as though there was a victory parade right outside my windows, on all sides. It was people in a bunch of townhouses reacting to the fact that the networks had called the race for Obama. Everyone was cheering. About fifteen minutes later, someone started shooting off fireworks. Horns were honking, people were cheering. It went on for at least an hour.

(5) I still can't really believe that Obama actually won. But I'm trying.

One Note of Caution

by publius

Not to be a buzzkill, but the next question is obviously whether Obama will be able to get anything "big" done. That turns on lots of factors, but two big ones are the Senate races and the nature of his popular victory (i.e., is it a blowout? will politicians feel pressured to follow him?). On these last points, there is some cause for concern.

The Senate in particular is going to limit Obama's "big" agenda. It looks like Franken's going down. Plus, and rather shockingly, Alaska's going to send a convicted felon back it seems. And I'm not holding out hope for Georgia. At best, it's a runoff, and then he loses by a lot without the Obama wind.

But the popular vote (while certainly good enough) is not as overwhelming as it seems. Basically, everyone should go read Andrew Gelman's post crunching some numbers. His takeaways show potential warning signs -- (1) the election was close; (2) Obama lost the white vote by a decent bit; (3) the red/blue map wasn't really redrawn, there was just a global shift of a few percentage points to the Democrats (see his post for more and for more explanation).

Look, I'm as happy as anyone. But it's looking increasingly likely that the GOP is going to have both the numbers -- and the political ability -- to mount successful filibusters. Hope I'm wrong about that though.

[UPDATE: On the other hand, and on a far brighter note, John Judis argues that Obama's election is evidence that much larger underlying demographic shifts are taking place (e.g., the majority, she's "emerged"). The "Joe the Plumber"/Palin constituency is shrinking, while knowledge workers and minorities are growing. Thus, the GOP has hitched its wagon to a demographically shrinking base.

Also, as someone pointed out in the comments, we have to remember that this victory (which included very traditionally GOP states) went to a black man named "Obama." So I'm done finding clouds for the time being. Now's the time to be happy.]

The News Today, Oh Boy

by publius

What Rove Hath Wrought

by publius

Tonight's win is hard to put into words. The historical significance speaks for itself. But for all its rich history, tonight is also about far more than Barack Obama.

Any way you slice it, the 2008 election should be seen as a massive repudiation of the George W. Bush administration. Karl Rove's project failed miserably. Bush is instead bequeathing large Democratic majorities to the next president. And that's no accident. It's the inevitable byproduct of a political strategy based on polarization. That strategy may win in the short term (indeed, it did) – but it’s a long-term loser. That’s because this type of strategy inevitably rallies forces against it. It’s just a matter of physics – every action brings an equal and opposite reaction. In this sense, the 2008 election is simply the ripple effects of the 2002 election.

For this reason – and somewhat ironically – George W. Bush is arguably the father of the modern progressive revival. Tonight's victories -- and the infrastructure that made them possible -- would simply be unthinkable in the absence of Bush. That’s not to say, of course, that the nation is better because Bush was president. It’s not. But the birth of the new progressive infrastructure is the silver lining of that long eight-year cloud.

Looking back, one of the most important Bush legacies is that he radicalized a new generation of progressives. Personally speaking, I started blogging because of a deep anger about Iraq and the exploitation of 9/11 that bubbled in me during 2003. This deep anger caused me to return to politics – to see its importance. In short, Bush woke me up from a long slumber. And I’ve been very engaged since.

But I’m just a small inconsequential fish in a big ocean. The bigger story is that this same anger – this same frustration – has led liberals to organize in more numerous and consequential ways. In the last few years, we’ve seen new think tanks. We’ve seen blogs flower. We’ve seen the rise of media sites like TPM and Huffington with real journalistic chops. We’ve seen unprecedented efforts to register and canvass voters.

In short, we’ve seen a new energy driving liberals back to politics. And tonight, it started bearing real fruit (though it did in 2006 too). That energy, however, is in many ways a reaction – an equal and opposite reaction – to the nasty polarization of 2002 to 2004. Again, I’m not trying to justify the Bush administration – far from it. My more humble point is that when your strategy is to make half the country hate you, that half is ultimately going to fight back, and it’s ultimately going to win. Tonight, it did.

But we'd all be better off if we could end those tactics altogether. And maybe I’ll come to regret saying this – but I believe Obama truly wants to end this kind of politics. I also think he’s capable of doing it. It’s hard for a generation raised on Seinfeld irony to admit these things – to let go of easy sarcastic defense mechanisms. But what the hell -- I believe in him. And that’s a new thing for me.

So congrats to the Obama campaign – and congrats to all those who volunteered. What a great great night.

McCain Concedes

by hilzoy

John McCain just gave a truly gracious concession speech. I particularly liked the way he seemed to be urging his supporters to give Obama their complete support, not to forget that Obama will, in fact, be their President. It would have been an easy thing to somehow forget to say. It was an honorable speech, and I salute him for it.

Congratulations President Elect Obama!

by publius

I can't really believe it.

OHIO!!!!

by publius

Ohio!!!! Speechless.

Election Thread

by publius

Let's do this thing.

UPDATE: Don't want to jinx anything, but I'm happy right now. The NC Senate race is huge. That makes Minnesota even more huge. In KY, I don't think Lunsford will catch him.

Also, Fox called Ohio and then took it back. There should be some sort of intentional tort for that.

AIRWOLF

by Eric Martin

A mere matter of days after Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Iraqis, "Read my lips, no new amendments to the status of forces agreement," Xinhua is reporting that the US has, in fact, agreed to the most recent revised draft submitted by Iraqi negotiators.  In fairness to Gates, such ultimatums are a normal part of the negotiation process, and a shift now is not really a mark against him - I'm just having a little fun at his expense.

Further, these are preliminary reports and should be treated with some skepticism until we get official corroboration.  Nevertheless, the article states:

Iraqi officials said that Washington has agreed on most of Iraq's proposed changes to a draft security agreement that would allow U.S. troops to stay in the country until 2011, an Iraqi newspaper reported on Monday.

"According to information received from the Americans in Baghdad, Washington has agreed on three changes out of five earlier proposed by Baghdad to amend," the official al-Sabah daily quoted a well-informed government source as saying.

The paper also said that the U.S. side "rejected changes on the immunity item, but the U.S. response which is expected in two days would include a proposal that would solve this issue."

According to the source who spoke anonymously, the article on withdrawal will also be amended to stipulate that withdrawal of U. S. forces from Iraq should be within 36 months from the start of implementation of the security agreement, which called Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

Among other articles, that the Americans agreed to change, is to rename the SOFA to be "agreement on withdrawal of U.S. forces," the paper said.

Meanwhile, Shiite lawmaker Sami Al-Askari said that if the Iraqi government's changes are approved by the U.S., all parliamentary blocs will agree to it.

So maybe instead of arguing about the wisdom of labeling a comprehensive agreement such as this a SOFA, we can start calling it an AWOF?  Er, ARWOF...ARWOLF...AIRWOLF!

Joe the Strummer

by Eric Martin

I must confess that I have an unfair advantage over many of my fellow citizens come election day in that my designated polling place happens to be in the lobby of my apartment building.  No distance to travel, no consulting a map, no mixups: just roll out of bed and pull the lever in my boxers.

Despite my cushy voting existence, today, things didn't exactly go as planned.  I ended up spending an hour on a line that stretched a full city block just to get back into my lobby.  The line was easily more than twice as long as 2004 - and this is New York City! Where our votes count little!  And yet, there was this interminable line of people exuding a palpable excitement, if a bit dampened with a touch of groginess.

On an unrelated note, my mind kept inserting various Clash tracks into my cerebral disc player while I was waiting to vote, and I haven't been able to get the buggers out all day.  Then I got to thinking that Joe Strummer would probably be smiling broadly at today's events - it's his kind of election.  And that's when it dawned on me: Joe Strummer has chosen me as his vessel to communicate to the people from beyond the grave on this most joyous of days.  Joe in his own words:

Right 16 out of the last 17

link

When the Redskins win their final home game before the presidential election, the incumbent party stays in office. When the Redskins lose their final home game before the election the incumbent party loses, except in 2004. Pretty simple, right? Steve Hirdt of the Elias Sports Bureau discovered it's happened precisely that way 16 of 17 times since 1940. Anything close to that exact is more than a trend and is certainly politically unbiased.

We can presume that Steelers in a romp means Obama in a landslide. You don't want to argue with numbers that overwhelming, do you? "Congratulations, Barack," Leftwich said, smiling and revealing his own preference.

The Steelers left town with a victory, with Roethlisberger also smiling and not seriously hurt, and with the Redskins licking their wounds after what felt like a loss on the road.

Just thought you should know.

This is an open thread on one of my favorite topics--the misuse of statistics, or any other topic *not related to today's election*.

There are other topics, you know!  ;) 

Department Of WTF?

by hilzoy

From Clusterstock:

"In a move that is sure to put to rest the notion that there are no second acts in American life, former Bear Stearns chief risk officer Michael Alix has landed a job in the office of the Federal Reserve charged with assessing the safety and soundness of domestic banking institutions.

We suppose that Alix at least has plenty of experience with unsound banking institutions. He was the chief risk officer of Bear Stearns from 2006 until 2008. So, basically, he was the guy on the mast charged with yelling "iceberg" just before the titantic introduced its bow to a floating hunk of ice. Prior to that he ran credit risk management for Bear from 1996 to 2006, Jon Keehner at Bloomberg points out. That worked out just great."

I suppose it's possible that Alix really was on top of the risks at Bear Stearns. Maybe he was Bear Stearns' very own Cassandra: warning of the dangers ahead, but doomed to have no one listen. Why they'd make someone their chief risk officer and then not listen to him about risks is a mystery, but I suppose it's possible. Just not all that likely.

Maybe next week they'll hire Michael Brown to run their crisis management operations, or that guy who wrote Dow 36,000 to run forecasting.

Nerves, Nerves, Nerves!

by hilzoy

By popular request, an election day open thread.

Not Better Off

by hilzoy

Eric has already noted this post by Kevin Drum:

"Back in 2004, I remember at least a few bloggers and pundits arguing that liberals would be better off if John Kerry lost. I never really bought this, but the arguments were pretty reasonable. Leaving George Bush in power meant that he'd retain responsibility and blame for the Iraq war. (Despite the surge, that's exactly what happened.) Four more years of Republican control would turn the American public firmly against conservative misrule. (Actually, it only took two years.) If we waited, a better candidate than Kerry would come along. (Arguably, both Hillary Clinton and Obama were better candidates.)

Conversely, it's unlikely that John Kerry could have gotten much done with a razor-thin victory and a Congress still controlled by the GOP. What's more, there's a good chance that the 2006 midterm rebellion against congressional Republicans wouldn't have happened if Kerry had gotten elected. By waiting, we've gotten a strong, charismatic candidate who's likely to win convincingly and have huge Democratic majorities in Congress behind him. If he's willing to fully use the power of his office, Obama could very well be a transformational president.

So: were we, in fact, better off losing in 2004? The downside was four more years of George Bush and Dick Cheney. That's hardly to be minimized, especially since the upside is still not completely knowable. But for myself, I think I'm convinced. The cause of liberal change is better served by Obama in 2008 than it would have been by Kerry in 2004."

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Obama wins tomorrow. (If he doesn't, this argument can't get off the ground.) And suppose further that we will, in fact, be better off for that fact, which I grant only for the sake of argument. This could still never be the basis for any actual decision in 2004. In 2004 we didn't know nearly enough to be able to predict this with certainty. If Kerry had won, he'd be the presumptive nominee this year, and if he had done reasonably well, we'd be looking at another four years of Democratic rule. Did we know nearly enough, in 2004, to be able to say with certainty that the Democrats would win this time? I don't think so. Among other things, we did not know that the Democrats would get a nominee of unusual political talent; we did not know about Katrina; we did not know that the economy would melt down as dramatically as it did a month before the election, or that the Republican candidate would react to that meltdown in a way that fundamentally undermined the premise of his candidacy, etc., etc., etc. Moreover, did we know, at the time, that even if things went very badly for Bush, the Democrats would react by growing spines? Not as far as I can see; at any rate, induction didn't provide a lot of support for that conclusion.

Moreover, if you tried to predict the future in 2004, you'd end up thinking: my willingness to stop working for Kerry for the sake of gains in 2008 depends on my confidence that Democrats would, in fact, win in 2008. But that depends in large part on how badly Bush does. So I should only consider hoping Kerry loses if I am convinced that Bush will be a complete disaster.

There is something profoundly wrong with that logic. If you think Bush would be bad for the country, that's a reason to work against him, not for him. And if you think he'd be not just bad, but a complete catastrophe, that's a reason to work even harder, not to stop.

Conversely, as Dana at Edge Of The West notes:

"For the argument to even get off the ground, you have to make the case that Kerry would have not done measurably better than Bush. I think it is reasonable to suppose that this is false. (Supreme Court. That’s one. We could make a list.) But suppose this is true; suppose that the various problems facing the country are too big for set of liberal policies to make a meaningful difference. Then what was the argument for voting for Kerry as the Democrats wanted us to do? (Will the same hold true for Obama? All these people seem to be supporting him strongly now. If he loses, am I going to hear how great that is, because in 2012 things will really suck which will be awesome for liberals?)"

Dana concludes:

"This mild rant would not be worth the ink if it were just an attempt to find a silver lining in a Kerry loss. But it seems to be to more than that, this idea that politics for liberals should be largely a game of scoring points, like it's an academic debate or a game of Civilization played as the Americans. It seems like it's meant to be something that should be informing grand strategies, or something that should be a consideration for the average liberal.

I cannot describe fully the visceral reaction I have to this argument, because it's complicated, about one-third "I can see your point…." and two-thirds "… but to endorse that point, I'd have to think we were playing a game, and we're not, and if you think we are playing a game, then you're in the relatively fortunate position of being personally indifferent to the outcome of the election because of the security of your station and finances, and maybe you should think about those who don't have that luxury.""

Or, to put it another way: I think that one of the reasons things turned so toxic for Republicans was Katrina. It made a lot of arguments about Bush's incompetence suddenly clear and vivid and all too easy to grasp. If you're willing to argue that we ought to be glad Kerry lost, then I think you ought to be willing to explain to the loved ones of someone who died as a result of our incompetent response why it was for the best that their loved one died. You might also imagine explaining to the Uighur detainees at Guantanamo -- who were found not to be enemy combatants -- why it is, all things considered, a good thing that they have spent years in solitary that they would not otherwise have spent, years in which children they have never met grow older, and their memories of what it means to walk the earth freely fade even further away. And, of course, you'd need to explain to a lot of families and friends of soldiers why their loved ones had to die for liberalism, whether they themselves were liberals or not.

Those are not arguments I'm prepared to make.

Exit Poll Boycott

by publius

Tomorrow I plan to wake up and read the newspaper. Then I'm going to turn my computer off and restart it at 7 EST when the first polls close. Radio silence for me. Maybe I'll take a stroll. Perhaps I'll whittle. Maybe I'll even start my Learn Spanish program.* But one thing I won't be doing is checking on -- or writing about -- exit polls. Why, you ask? Exhibit A:

Publius, "Over?", Nov. 2, 2004

I just talked to a friend of mine with polling/media connections with the heavy-hitter insiders. He says it's over. The second and more reliable round of exits are coming in. Up in Ohio. Up in Florida. Way up in NH. Tied in VA, NV, NM, and IA.

I don't want to jinx, but it's looking really good.

"Heavy hitter insiders" - jesus. But that's why you should ignore exit polls. And here's why you should go vote (same author, later that day):

UPDATE 5: I just saw the following three Yahoo headlines all in one column:

• Republicans retain control of Senate
• GOP defeats three veteran Texas Democrats
• Voters in nine states OK gay marriage bans

Dear Lord, make it stop.

Go vote. Go help others vote.

[*I'm using Barron's but it's really boring. Anyone have better suggestions?]

Purgatory, Not Exile, for Lieberman

by publius

I expect the Dems to get 59 Senate seats -- MN will break for Franken, but they'll lose all three Southern races. Even if the Dems ultimately fall short of 59, it will be pretty close. And that raises the ever-annoying question -- What to do with Lieberman? Obviously, he could very well be the all-important 60th vote on some issues. But he's also gone "all in" for McCain. What to do?

Here's my proposal -- a two-year "probationary" period. In short, purgatory. He should be exiled for two years. But... if he votes right during that time, then he could potentially get his seniority back in the 2010 session before his next election.

Here's my thinking -- First, there has to be consequences for his over-the-top McCain support. A party cannot allow those actions to happen with impunity. For that reason, Lieberman should be forced to resign from his committee chair and lose any other leadership or seniority rights.

The risk of booting him, though, is that Lieberman may decide to be a full-blown Republican with no interest in re-election (and he'll be on every TV station everywhere). There needs to be some sort of incentive for him to vote correctly.

Enter Step #2. I think Reid should approach Lieberman and basically say that he can regain all his seniority in the next session if he becomes a Democrat again. I wouldn't necessarily hold him to Iraq votes -- but he does have to vote correctly on health care, budget, energy, and labor laws. If he does -- and if he stops bashing Dems on Meet the Press, etc. -- then his seniority, etc. would be restored in two years.

This plan has the added benefit of giving Joe hope that he might be re-elected in 2012. He could basically run on the idea that he's back as a Dem, that he has real authority again to help Connecticut, etc.

I dislike Lieberman as much as the next guy. But I care more about taking advantage of this brief historical window to get some truly significant legislation passed. If the cost is giving Lieberman a committee back, so be it.

Catastrophic Success

by Eric Martin

Kevin Drum asks a question:

Back in 2004, I remember at least a few bloggers and pundits arguing that liberals would be better off if John Kerry lost. I never really bought this, but the arguments were pretty reasonable. Leaving George Bush in power meant that he'd retain responsibility and blame for the Iraq war. (Despite the surge, that's exactly what happened.) Four more years of Republican control would turn the American public firmly against conservative misrule. (Actually, it only took two years.) If we waited, a better candidate than Kerry would come along. (Arguably, both Hillary Clinton and Obama were better candidates.)

Conversely, it's unlikely that John Kerry could have gotten much done with a razor-thin victory and a Congress still controlled by the GOP...By waiting, we've gotten a strong, charismatic candidate who's likely to win convincingly and have huge Democratic majorities in Congress behind him. If he's willing to fully use the power of his office, Obama could very well be a transformational president.

So: were we, in fact, better off losing in 2004?

I'm not sure I can answer the question, but in August of 2004, I penned one of those posts discussing the upside of a Kerry/Edwards defeat.  I didn't go as far as to say, with certainty, that we'd be better off, but I was conflicted and tried to put forth the pros and cons that were then-swirling around my head.  Below the fold is a condensed version of that post, which in some ways looks eerily prescient, and in others frightfully naive (and that's with some of the warts removed).  Either way, an interesting look back at some of the darker days of the reign of Bush the Younger.

For McCain supporters, perhaps this post will show you that it's possible to take solace in what-if type rationalizations.  But, uh, don't get too carried away there.

Speak Now Larry, Or Forever Hold Your Peace

by publius

Frickin' Yglesias -- I wanted to write this post today. Oh well, it's very true and very funny:

This would be an opportune moment for Larry Johnson to release the “whitey” tape.

Larry Johnson deserves a lifetime wanker achievement award for his 2008 conduct. I think he's now officially the biggest scumbag on the Internet, and there's some stiff competition for that. Here's an excerpt from the post that helped him win this prestigious award:

I learned over the weekend why the Republicans who have seen the tape of Michelle Obama ranting about “whitey” describe it as “STUNNING.” I have not seen it but I have heard from five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape.

Have a drink tomorrow Larry. Maybe two.

Exception To The Rule

by hilzoy

Meteor Blades at dKos wrote a piece today arguing that if Obama wins, he should not name Chuck Hagel Secretary of State Defense (oops!). (I agree.) In the course of his argument, he cites Ilan Goldenberg's argument that Obama should not name any Republican to that position:

"Appointing a Republican Secretary of Defense would reinforce the "weak on security" stereotypes that have plagued Democrats for a generation. (...) This is not a strictly political problem; it has a profound effect on policy. When one party has the monopoly on security, bad decisions tend to get made. From the Iraq War vote, to the Patriot Act, to FISA, to military tribunals, Republicans are too often able to bully Democrats into bad national security votes. With greater confidence and higher approval ratings on security comes a greater willingness to stand up and fight back on these bad ideas. (...)

Appointing a Republican as Secretary of Defense could send a message that Democrats are still too uncomfortable with the military to take on the responsibility of defending our country by themselves."

In general, I agree with this argument. I think that the fact that people trust Republicans more on national security is deeply damaging to our country, and I do not want to perpetuate it. If Obama appoints almost any Republican, I will protest. However, a post by Spencer Ackerman persuaded me that there is one big exception to this, and when I read Meteor Blades' piece, I suddenly realized that I inexplicably forgot to blog it. Here it is:

"Keeping Bob Gates as defense secretary has its merits. (...) Here's the reasoning, and all of it is political. Getting out of Iraq requires buy-in from an officer corps that could be fairly described as schizophrenic: it wants out of Iraq at some point, but is acutely sensitive to any perceived slight, particularly from an incoming Democratic administration. False moves from an Obama White House will result in politically damaging leaks. Do not underestimate how powerful a narrative the following line could be: Obama is like Bush -- he wants to hew to an ideological agenda against the best advice of the professional military. All it takes is a few well-timed leaks to establish that narrative. The damage to an Obama administration that already has to deal with a global financial crisis would be massive.

All of that militates for appointing someone to the Pentagon whom the building trusts. And right now, just as Gates benefited from not being Donald Rumsfeld, Gates' successor will suffer for not being Gates. I can think of one person who would be both a substantively brilliant pick and would be instantly esteemed by the Pentagon: Jim Webb. But Webb shows every sign of wanting to stay in the Senate. Failing Webb, my choice for Obama's secretary of defense would be Tony Zinni, but legally, he has to wait 10 years since his 2000 retirement from the Marine Corps before assuming the office. Given all that, retaining Gates for a limited time makes a lot of sense.

For one thing, the gesture shown to the generals and admirals would be instantly understood and very likely reciprocated. Second, Gates is the sort of public servant who would understand that his duty as secretary is to manage withdrawal, not fight it. Third, bringing a Republican on board with withdrawal is both substantively good for implementing the political consensus that the public tells us already exists; and would make it more complicated for the ultras in the GOP to establish the stab-in-the-back narrative that they'll launch no matter what. And finally, whatever hits the Democratic brand would take by keeping a Republican on board temporarily would be wiped out by the esteem that the Broders of the world would suddenly find for Obama, as well as by the inevitable replacement of Gates by a Democrat."

I find this reasoning completely convincing, especially if Obama and Gates reach an understanding (public or private) that it will be temporary (i.e., for roughly the length of time needed to get out of Iraq.) If Obama wins, it will be really, really important to have the military on board. If appointing Gates for a couple of years could do that (and here I'm relying on Spencer's take), I think it would be worth it. And Gates is quite good, as far as I can tell. If he leaves after a couple of years, Obama can appoint a Democrat then.

The Joshua Moment? Race and the '08 Election

by publius

Somewhat ironically, race has been the great unspoken story of the 2008 election. The Obama campaign avoids discussing it like the plague (though for understandable reasons). And the pundits have generally been quiet too – other than in the aftermath of the Pennsylvania speech Obama grudgingly gave.

As the reality gets closer though, it’s worth pausing to recognize what a tremendous milestone Obama’s election would represent in America’s long and complex racial history. Jack Shafer will probably think this post uncool, because it’s borderline sappy in places. But who cares. It’s a moment of enormous racial significance – and one that’s worth reflecting on.

At this point, I suspect some conservative readers are rolling their eyes, “here they go again on this race stuff.” In these readers’ defense, I know precisely where they’re coming from. In fact, many moons ago, I used to be one of them. My goal, though, is ultimately to make these very readers sincerely appreciate the racial significance of the election -- and to persuade them why liberals are right to focus on it. Accordingly, I will first explore why I think conservatives are often skeptical of liberals’ perceived obsession with race. Afterwards, I’ll explain why this “obsession” is actually a noble and worthwhile effort. (Just to warn you, this is a long one).

Restraint

by hilzoy

Here's an interesting piece by Jay Newton-Small at Time:

"Almost two years ago, in the first months of Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency, whenever the Illinois senator would get crowds going he would intentionally dial it down a notch. I remember seeing him in Columbia on his first trip to South Carolina in February 2007, six days after announcing his candidacy. When the crowd started chanting, "Yes, we can," to his riff on Civil Rights, Obama abruptly changed the subject to labor's right to organize. It was clear he was making a conscious effort not to be perceived (or pigeonholed) as the same inspirational speaker they saw at the 2004 convention; he wanted to introduce himself and tell his story, but most of all he wanted people to realize that there was substance underneath all the style. Indeed, what he wanted was the reaction he often ended up getting from many who came to see him on the stump during the primaries: "He wasn't what I expected." (...)

In this 20-month long campaign I have seldom seen Obama bring the full power of his oratory to the biggest possible crowd his campaign can build. That is, until this week. As the long campaign nears the end, the campaign has stopped shying away from such huge audiences, and the crowds have been stunning: 100,000 in St. Louis, 75,000 in Kansas City, 100,000 in Denver, 45,000 in Fort Collins, Colorado, 50,000 in Albuquerque. "We want to see and touch and talk to as many people as possible," says David Axelrod, Obama's top strategist. "This is momentum time.""

One of the things that has made the McCain campaign's harping on Obama's celebrity, "The One", etc., so surreal to me is that like Newton-Small, it has often seemed to me that Obama is deliberately not using his rhetorical gifts as much as he might have. There are exceptions to this: his speech on race is the obvious example. But he has often seemed to me to be quite deliberately downplaying his sheer oratorical force in favor of substance and solidity. It's as though he's thinking: I could use style and eloquence alone, but I'd prefer something more durable, and more respectful.

That's one thing that makes him such an interesting politician to watch: most politicians do not deliberately refrain from using whatever gifts they have. If they can go with eloquence, they do. I think Obama made the right choice. It allowed for a lot more real substance, and gave him the chance to make his case on a much more solid basis. That also made it a different case: calling for a change in the way we practice politics looks very different depending on whether or not the person who makes it also talks substance, addresses voters' genuine concerns about the issues, and generally treats us as adults.

But it also shows a sense of how to pace a campaign. I have wondered for years why politicians are so obsessed by the daily news cycle: most of the biggest stories on any given day will have been forgotten by most voters within six months. It's a real relief, after years of watching politicians grab as hard as they can for each micro-advantage at each moment in time, to see someone with larger sense of what matters: of the arc of a campaign, of when you can afford to hang back and let your opponent wear himself out, and when you need for everything to come together.

It also shows a lot of confidence. Not the kind of arrogance the McCain campaign complains about, of which I have seen very little evidence, but the kind of confidence that allows you to play a long game, rather than clawing for every apparent advantage, no matter how insignificant or counterproductive in the long run; to hold back sometimes; to choose understatement; and to keep your eyes on the prize. That, and discipline and self-restraint.

Obama doesn't play the game the way it is usually played. He also seems to have an unusual personality for a politician: early on in Dreams From My Father, he writes: "I had grown too comfortable in my solitude, the safest place I knew." Immediately afterwards, he tells the story of an elderly man who lives in his building, who he sees sometimes, helps with the groceries, but who has never said a word to him. He thinks of the man as a kindred spirit. Later, the man is found dead; his apartment is "neat, almost empty", with money squirreled away throughout. It's clear, from the way he tells the story, that this seems to him to be one of his possible fates, and though his description of the man is kind throughout, it's also clear that Obama thinks: his fate is to be avoided.

Ask yourself when you last heard of a politician who had to warn himself away from solitude, or who saw dying alone, without friends or family, as among his possible fates. Imagine how unlikely it is that, say, Bill Clinton ever thought: I have grown too comfortable in my solitude. Politicians normally crave attention. Obama seems to me not to. That's probably one reason why he can afford to underplay his hand sometimes, and to hold back. And it's certainly part of what makes him so interesting.

Cancel Sunday, Cancel Monday

by publius

Just let it be Tuesday already. This is like water torture. I wish my life was on DVR right now and I could just fast forward.

In Which I Get Sappy

by publius

I've got a longer post coming on the racial significance of the 2008 election, but this story is just amazing. Via MyDD, the Austin Stateman reports that a daughter (109 years old) of a former slave cast her ballot for Obama. It's amazing on many levels, but it also reminds us that the awful things we read about didn't happen all that long ago. I mean, my parents were raised in legally segregated communities. Her parents -- in slavery.

Amanda Jones, 109, the daughter of a man born into slavery, has lived a life long enough to touch three centuries. And after voting consistently as a Democrat for 70 years, she has voted early for the country's first black presidential nominee.

. . .

Amanda Jones says she cast her first presidential vote for Franklin Roosevelt, but she doesn't recall which of his four terms that was. When she did vote, she paid a poll tax, her daughters said. That she is able, for the first time, to vote for a black presidential nominee for free fills her with joy, Jones said.

Le Rouge À Lèvres Sur Un Cochon

by hilzoy

You may, by now, have heard about the prank call made to Sarah Palin by two Canadian comics pretending to be Nicholas Sarkozy. If not, here it is:

And here's the Palin campaign's response:

"Gov. Palin received a phone call on Saturday from a French Canadian talk show host claiming to be French President Nicholas Sarkozy," emailed spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "Gov. Palin was mildly amused to learn that she had joined the ranks of heads of state, including President Sarkozy, and other celebrities in being targeted by these pranksters. C'est la vie."

Now: I do not want to make fun of Sarah Palin over this. (I would be prepared to make fun of whomever it is who screens her calls, but that's different.) After I first heard this, I tried to imagine being in her position -- wondering what on earth was going on, not wanting to say "huh?" to someone who might, after all, be Sarkozy, etc. And sometime around the point at which the non-Sarkozy says" "I love the documentary they made on your life -- you know, Hustler's "Nailin' Paylin"?", it seemed pretty clear to me that she had caught on. (That said, I do think she should have known the name of the Prime Minister of Canada.)

What I want to do is footnote the call, because it's funny. (This was definitely a moment when it would have been good to speak French: she would have caught on a lot quicker. I was in stitches.) Here are the bits I've figured out:

"My special American advisor, Johnny Hallyday": Johnny Hallyday was an established rock star back when I was in junior high. During the Ford Nixon administration. I believe that Jimi Hendrix played his first concert opening for Johnny Hallyday. This YouTube is kind of funny, both for the alarming 60s-esqueness and for the little "Waoww!" bits on the bridge, which for some reason reduced me to hysterics.

Hunting: "Like we say in French, on peut tuer des bébé phoques" -- trans.: we could kill some baby seals.

"The Prime Minister of Canada, Stef Carse": this one I only know because Politico flagged it (though I did know that whatever the comedian said, it wasn't "Stephen Harper".) This YouTube is definitely worth checking out: it's his French version of 'Achy Breaky Heart'.

I don't know who the comedian says is the Prime Minister of Quebec, but it's not Jean Charest.

The song Carla allegedly wrote for Palin: "Le Rouge À Lèvres Sur Un Cochon", or: Lipstick on a pig.

Anyone else catch other funny bits?

***

Update: not funny, but in the interests of completeness:

From the very beginning: "This is Franck Louvrier; I'm with President Sarkozy..." Franck Louvrier is, in fact, Sarkozy's communications advisor.

Joe Lieberman - Political Genius

by publius

Assuming things go as statistically predicted on Tuesday, it’s worth taking a moment to admire the sheer political idiocy of Joe Lieberman. Saying that he has a political tin ear is probably a bit generous.

Whether we like it or not, one vital skill for politicians is knowing which way the political winds are blowing. We criticize politicians for changing positions – but it’s absurd to expect they wouldn’t. Politicians are, after all, reflections of the political will. If the public changes its mind, the public will expect its elected representatives to do the same. That’s not to say that politicians should always do what 51% of the public thinks – but neither should they completely ignore powerful trends (especially if they want to win and have influence).

In this respect, Lieberman has proven a truly horrible politician. It’s not merely that he ignores the political winds, he takes strong ostentatious stands in the opposite direction.

For instance, in the 2004 Democratic primary, Lieberman decided to base his campaign on loud support of the Iraq War. That support may be the essence of nobility in Lieberman’s head, but it was also the source of his embarrassing performance.

Moving forward to 2006, Lieberman could have avoided a primary challenge by swallowing his pride and offering a single high-profile critique of a horribly mismanaged war. Or at the very least, he could have remained silent until the end of the filing period. But Joe – in his infinite wisdom – decided to rub it in Democrats’ faces by publishing a Strawberry Fields-ish delusional op-ed about how Iraqi cell phones showed the great success of our not-to-be-criticized commander-in-chief. Lamont claimed the WSJ op-ed persuaded him to enter the race.

Finally, there’s 2008. In a year where fundamentals couldn’t be worse for Republicans, and where the Democrats are poised to significantly expand their Senate majorities, Lieberman decided to back McCain. And not just back him – to actually speak at the convention and otherwise be as ostentatious as possible.

What’s particularly stupid about Lieberman’s actions is that he could have enjoyed some political “redemption” this election season. Given his past stances, strong Obama support could have made him a powerful and persuasive surrogate. It could also have ensured that he would remain a very powerful member of the Senate, with White House chits to boot. Instead, he’s going to have exactly zero leverage with the White House. And he’s going to get booted from his committee chair. And he faces near certain defeat in very pro-Obama Connecticut if he runs again.

It’s really sort of mindboggling that someone with such horrible political skills has lasted this long.

Fixing The Process, Take 2

by hilzoy

Check out this video of 8-10 hour voting lines in Atlanta. It's pretty astonishing.

It's also something that should never, ever happen. Christopher Edley:

"Suppose in your neighborhood there are 600 registered voters per machine, while across town there are only 120 per machine. (That's a 5 to 1 disparity, which is what exists in some places in Virginia today.) On Election Day, your line wraps around the block and looks to be a four-hour wait, while in other areas lines are nonexistent.

This ought to be a crime. It amounts to a "time-tax" on your right to vote, and some of your neighbors will undoubtedly give up and go home. This scenario raises three questions: Nationwide, will it discourage tens of thousands, or untold millions? Which presidential candidate and down-ballot candidates might benefit from this "tax"? And what can be done in the next few days?

Voting rights advocates, watching this slow-motion train wreck that could disenfranchise so many minority voters, have filed emergency litigation in Virginia and Pennsylvania demanding that, at the very least, officials be prepared with plenty of paper ballots and reserves of competent poll workers. More litigation may follow elsewhere.

Judges can hold official feet to the fire, but they shouldn't have to. Assigning blame -- whether the fingers are being pointed at Congress or the Justice Department, county registrars or state legislators -- isn't crucial this week. Neither is this the time to focus on the reasons for failure -- whether indifference, incompetence, indolence or animus. What's crucial is that state and local officials nationwide salvage the situation by implementing second-best strategies: For starters, redistribute machines on the basis of voter registration, instead of assuming that minorities won't show up. Stockpile paper ballots, under lock and key, and offer a paper ballot voting option if wait times reach 45 minutes. Train platoons of reserve poll workers and stand by to shuttle them where they are needed. Commit right now to holding the polls open late if necessary. Advertise what you're prepared to do. For heaven's sake, a lot of people bled for this opportunity."

Even if we stipulate, for the sake of argument, that voting machines are not distributed unevenly, so that (for instance) people in richer or whiter suburbs end up being able to vote much more easily than people in poorer or blacker neighborhoods, it's discriminatory in effect: not everyone can wait in line for eight to ten hours, and asking them to do so means that people who are infirm or disabled, or have jobs that aren't willing to give them ten hours off to vote, or have left their children in the care of someone who doesn't have ten hours to spare, will be a lot more likely to be deterred from voting.

Besides that, the idea that anyone should have to wait for ten hours to vote is insane. And while I'd be happy to chalk up, say, 30 minute waits to unexpectedly high turnout, there's a point at which you just have to think: don't we pay people to estimate how high turnout will be, and to plan accordingly? And don't ten hour lines call their competence into question?

We have to fix this. It's shameful.

Lady de Rothschild, Working Class Hero

by publius

McCain is sending the big guns to PA:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a top fundraiser for Clinton's campaign, will spend several days speaking to Democrats on McCain's behalf.

"I think Pennsylvania could be a big surprise to the conventional thought in the Democratic Party," Rothschild said. "Pennsylvania is a conservative Democratic state, and John McCain can win it.

Yep, I can't think of a better way to woo working-class PA Democrats than by sending in a Rothschild known as "Lady."

Fixing The Process

by hilzoy

Rick Hasen on the various charges of voter registration fraud and voter suppression:

"The solution is to take the job of voter registration for federal elections out of the hands of third parties (and out of the hands of the counties and states) and give it to the federal government. The Constitution grants Congress wide authority over congressional elections. The next president should propose legislation to have the Census Bureau, when it conducts the 2010 census, also register all eligible voters who wish to be registered for future federal elections. High-school seniors could be signed up as well so that they would be registered to vote on their 18th birthday. When people submit change-of-address cards to the post office, election officials would also change their registration information.

This change would eliminate most voter registration fraud. Government employees would not have an incentive to pad registration lists with additional people in order to keep their jobs. The system would also eliminate the need for matches between state databases, a problem that has proved so troublesome because of the bad quality of the data. The federal government could assign each person a unique voter-identification number, which would remain the same regardless of where the voter moves. The unique ID would prevent people from voting in two jurisdictions, such as snowbirds who might be tempted to vote in Florida and New York. States would not have to use the system for their state and local elections, but most would choose to do so because of the cost savings.

There's something in this for both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats talk about wanting to expand the franchise, and there's no better way to do it than the way most mature democracies do it: by having the government register voters. For Republicans serious about ballot integrity, this should be a winner as well. No more ACORN registration drives, and no more concerns about Democratic secretaries of state not aggressively matching voters enough to motor vehicle databases.

Finally, universal voter registration is good for the country, not only because it will make it easier for those who wish to vote to do so, but because it should end controversy over ballot integrity that threatens to undermine the legitimacy of our election process. If President McCain or Obama makes this a priority, we can have the system ready in time for the president's re-election."

I think this is a wonderful idea. It addresses everyone's concerns in the best possible way, and makes it easier for people to vote in the process. It would also prevent these fights over voter lists, which, as Hasen says, undermine people's confidence in our electoral process.

I never thought that we'd be here, eight years after 2000, with a voting system that remains broken. Maybe if we get a President whose own legitimacy is not on the line, we will finally fix it.

Bunny Ears Update

by hilzoy

When last I wrote about Bill Sali (R-ID 01), he was making bunny ears at his opponent's staff while they were being interviewed. The time before that, he was claiming that "Forty percent of the mass of every tree in the forest is crude oil." In devastating news for humorists everywhere, it looks like he might finally be getting into electoral trouble:

"CQ Politics, which takes past voting behavior and demographics into account in handicapping elections, has held the Idaho 1 race at a very tenuous Leans Republican rating, meaning Sali had an edge but an upset by Minnick was a plausible scenario. But the growing financial disparity between the parties in this contest — and the fact that Minnick had a 51 percent to 45 percent lead in an Oct. 18-19 poll by SurveyUSA, the only published independent poll to date in the race — has prompted a rating change to No Clear Favorite."

But just to make up for this news, the article I just cited notes one Sali gem that I wasn't aware of:

"He also introduced a bill proposing to weaken Earth’s gravity that was intended to lampoon Democratic-led efforts to raise the minimum wage, calling the two proposals equally absurd."

Much to my chagrin, I find that Sali did not actually introduce the bill, though he did draft it (pdf). Still, it's the thought that counts.

This Year Halloween Fell on a Weekend...(as did this open thread)

by Eric Martin

My friends, here's some Halloween costumin' you can believe in:

That's me on the left half-heartedly dancing ala The Dude (click should you wish to enlarge though I don't recommend it). 

I'd say that falls somewhere on the continuum between Jeffrey Lebowski and Jesus, which is kind of how I like to see myself.  And no, that's not some kind of Eastern thing.

Despite my clear abidedness, my brother's Barry Gibb might steal the show. 

And now that I've provided something to haunt you all weekend, and whenever you read a post written by yours truly, allow me to say:

Happy Halloween Obsidian Wingnuts!

(PS: candy corn is the candy of satan)

(PPS: eat your heart out John Cole)

A Chorus Of Concord

by hilzoy

It's not every day that Paul Krugman and Martin Feldstein (head of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors and an economic advisor to the McCain campaign) find themselves in complete agreement, but they are in agreement now. Feldstein:

"With the Fed's benchmark interest rate down to 1 percent, there is no scope for an easier monetary policy to stop the downward spiral in aggregate demand. (...)

The only way to prevent a deepening recession will be a temporary program of increased government spending. Previous attempts to use government spending to stimulate an economic recovery, particularly spending on infrastructure, have not been successful because of long legislative lags that delayed the spending until a recovery was well underway. But while past recessions lasted an average of only about 12 months, this downturn is likely to last much longer, providing the scope for successful countercyclical spending."

Krugman:

"One of the high points of the semester, if you're a teacher of introductory macroeconomics, comes when you explain how individual virtue can be public vice, how attempts by consumers to do the right thing by saving more can leave everyone worse off. The point is that if consumers cut their spending, and nothing else takes the place of that spending, the economy will slide into a recession, reducing everyone’s income.

In fact, consumers' income may actually fall more than their spending, so that their attempt to save more backfires -- a possibility known as the paradox of thrift.

At this point, however, the instructor hastens to explain that virtue isn't really vice: in practice, if consumers were to cut back, the Fed would respond by slashing interest rates, which would help the economy avoid recession and lead to a rise in investment. So virtue is virtue after all, unless for some reason the Fed can't offset the fall in consumer spending.

I’ll bet you can guess what’s coming next.

For the fact is that we are in a liquidity trap right now: Fed policy has lost most of its traction. It’s true that Ben Bernanke hasn’t yet reduced interest rates all the way to zero, as the Japanese did in the 1990s. But it's hard to believe that cutting the federal funds rate from 1 percent to nothing would have much positive effect on the economy. In particular, the financial crisis has made Fed policy largely irrelevant for much of the private sector: The Fed has been steadily cutting away, yet mortgage rates and the interest rates many businesses pay are higher than they were early this year.

The capitulation of the American consumer, then, is coming at a particularly bad time. But it’s no use whining. What we need is a policy response. (...)

No, what the economy needs now is something to take the place of retrenching consumers. That means a major fiscal stimulus. And this time the stimulus should take the form of actual government spending rather than rebate checks that consumers probably wouldn’t spend."

Likewise: Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, Joseph Stiglitz (pdf), Nouriel Roubini, etc.

Here's a handy chart detailing which measures give us the most stimulus bang for the buck (h/t):

The Bomb that Will Bring Us Together

by Eric Martin

ABC News is reporting today that General Petraeus has been pushing for a meeting with Syria's leadership but the Bush administration has refused.  Although ABC News labels this an exclusive scoop, in truth, the story has been circulating for some time.  Josh Landis, for example, was on the beat months ago:

The following “Exclusive” ABC story is not so exclusive. Syria Comment has been writing since August 2008 that Petraeus tried to go to Damascus in the fall of 2007, but was refused permission by the Vice President. It wasn’t the president.

As Daniel Levy mentioned recently, Petraeus and Pentagon leadership have been pleased with recent overtures from the Syrians, and cautiously optimistic about the potential to build on that cooperation:

The Pentagon sees Syrian efforts to seal the border with Iraq as having been a mixed bag, and they would certainly want further improvements. General Petraeus has acknowledged these improvements and carries with him a PowerPoint presentation that includes a box entitled "Improved Relations and Coordination with Syria".

But then, despite this progress and the continuation of peace talks between Israel and Syria, the Bush administration went ahead with a cross border raid and airstrikes aimed at targets in Syrian territory.  Instead of supporting and expanding the diplomatic process, the Bush administration opted for a show of force.  According to initial reports, which, admittedly, should be taken with a grain of salt, this hasn't worked out too well:

The Syrian government has broken relations with Baghdad. It has completely opened its border. This article in  Al-Arabiya  (Al-Arabiya is generally fairly reliable) says that the Syrians have reduced their forces on the border. That's NOT what I'm hearing from BOTH sides of the border. What I'm hearing from very trustworthy sources whom I've known for years is that the Syrians have completely withdrawn their forces from the border.

• No troops.
• No border guards.
• No police.

Do I have to spell it out? Maybe I do. The Syrians have worked massively to close their border. They have worked massively to prevent armed groups getting across the border. All of that has now come to an end.

But then, the belief in the efficacy of force, coupled with an uncompromising refusal to accommodate the vital interests of various adversaries, is a particular maladay of the Bush administration.  This passage from Ron Suskind's One Percent Doctrine (pp. 104-105) is prophetic as to the many foreign policy stumbles and tragedies to ensue:

...it became clear at the start of 2001 that [the Bush] administration was to alter the long-standing U.S. role of honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to something less than that. The President, in fact, had said in the first NSC principals meeting of his administration that Clinton had overreached at the end of his second term, bending too much toward Yasser Arafat -- who then broke off productive Camp David negotiations at the final moment -- and that "We're going to tilt back ward Israel." Powell, a chair away in the Situation Room that day, said such a move would reverse thirty years of U.S. policy, and that it could unleash the new prime minister, Ariel Sharon, and the Israeli army in ways that could be dire for the Palestinians. Bush's response: "Sometimes a show of force by one side can really clarify things." [emphasis mine]

Sometimes it does, but as Sharon learned, as we learned in Iraq, and the Israelis relearned in Lebanon in 2006, the clarification that follows a show of force isn't always a positive.  War, the use of force, armed conflict - each has myriad unintended, and often painful, consequences for all parties involved.  Yes, that is stating the obvious, but then, our foreign policy during the Bush years has been modeled on a doctrine that disdains reality and empiricism so common sense takes on the air of wisdom. 

If it is true that Syria has flung open its borders, then what exactly is the value of clarifying the situation with such bellicosity when the net result is a negative?

To echo publius' point, the Republican Party's foreign policy consensus - drawing heavily from neoconservative doctrine - has been repeatedly discredited and battered by reality.  Yet the Bush administration, when Cheney's wing gets too much say, stumbles on.  And the McCain campaign, instead of repudiating the neocon program, has doubled down by recruiting the most committed and doctrinaire advocates to fill out his roster of advisors.

Petraeus, much more in line with the progressive/Obama school of thought, recognizes the wisdom of engaging adversaries diplomatically, differentiating between opponents so as to deal with each entity and issue discretely (which disrupts alliances of convenience among enemies rather than encourage them) and, lastly, when the opportunity presents itself, even working with erstwhile battlefiled opponents.  Petraeus implemented this strategy in Iraq by encouraging the Awakenings movement that coopted former Sunni insurgents, is beginning to pursue it in Afghanistan by reaching out to certain Taliban elements and is trying to do the same with Syria - where he sees a potential opening and wedge to be driven between Syria and Iran.

Oddly, considering the extent to which he is lionized by so many McCain/Plain supporters, Petraeus would likely have to wait for an Obama administration to see any further exploration of normalizing relations with Syria.  McCain/Palin, like the Cheney wing of the Bush administration, label this type of pragmatism reckless, naive appeasement.  They don't negotiate with evil, dontcha know. 

Because that's worked out so well over the past eight years.

[UPDATE: I forgot to add this bit from McCain/Palin advisors Max Boot and Richard Williamson:

A McCain administration would discourage Israeli-Syrian peace talks and refrain from actively engaging in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Mavericky!]

Khalidi

by hilzoy

I want to second Eric's condemnation of John McCain's attack's on Rashid Khalidi. Eric quoted Juan Cole, which led some commenters to question Cole's objectivity. I will therefore cite two other people. First, Barnett Rubin:

"I actually find it demeaning, insulting, and depressing to have to defend Rashid. I could say, I know him, he has been a guest in my home in New York and in my rented house in Provence, he bears absolutely no resemblance to the image these despicable people are trying to project of him, and lot's more. I could point out that I am Jewish and have VISIBLE JEWISH ARTIFACTS IN MY HOME, which did not appear to alarm Rashid, if he even noticed them, but it is all just so ridiculous I don't know what to say.

I don't want to treat these charges with the respect of a refutation. I just want to express my disgust with those who uttered them and my solidarity with my friend, Rashid Khalidi."

Second, Scott Horton:

"In the current issue of National Review, Andrew McCarthy continues his campaign to link the Democratic nominee to various and sundry Hyde Park radicals. This time it is “PLO advisor turned University of Chicago professor Rashid Khalidi,” who now heads the Middle Eastern Studies Department at Columbia University. Khalidi, we learn, makes a habit of justifying and supporting the work of terrorists and is “a former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat.” And then we learn that this same Khalidi knows Obama and that his children even babysat for Obama’s kids!

This doesn’t sound much like the Rashid Khalidi I know. I’ve followed his career for many years, read his articles and books, listened to his presentations, and engaged him in discussions of politics, the arts, and history. In fact, as McCarthy’s piece ran, I was midway through an advance copy of Khalidi’s new book Sowing Crisis: The Cold War and American Dominance in the Middle East. (I’ll be reviewing it next month–stay tuned.) Rashid Khalidi is an American academic of extraordinary ability and sharp insights. He is also deeply committed to stemming violence in the Middle East, promoting a culture that embraces human rights as a fundamental notion, and building democratic societies. In a sense, Khalidi’s formula for solving the Middle East crisis has not been radically different from George W. Bush’s: both believe in American values and approaches. However, whereas Bush believes these values can be introduced in the wake of bombs and at the barrel of a gun, Khalidi disagrees. He sees education and civic activism as the path to success, and he argues that pervasive military interventionism has historically undermined the Middle East and will continue to do so. Khalidi has also been one of the most articulate critics of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority—calling them repeatedly on their anti-democratic tendencies and their betrayals of their own principles. Khalidi is also a Palestinian American. There is no doubt in my mind that it is solely that last fact that informs McCarthy’s ignorant and malicious rants.

McCarthy states that Khalidi “founded” the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). In fact, he neither founded it nor has anything to do with it. But AAAN is not, as McCarthy suggests, a political organization. It is a social-services organization, largely funded by the state of Illinois and private foundations, that provides support for English-language training, citizenship classes, after-school and summer programs for schoolchildren, women’s shelters, and child care among Chicago’s sizable Arab community (and for others on the city’s impoverished South Side). Does McCarthy consider this sort of civic activism objectionable? Since it was advocated aggressively by President Bush–this is “compassionate conservativism” in action–such an objection would be interesting. Nor was Khalidi ever a spokesman for the PLO, though that was reported in an erroneous column by the New York Times’s Tom Friedman in 1982. That left me curious about the final and most dramatic accusation laid at Khalidi’s doorstep: that the Khalidis babysat for the Obamas. Was it true? I put the question to Khalidi. “No, it is not true,” came the crisp reply. Somehow that was exactly the answer I expected. (...)

I have a suggestion for Andy McCarthy and his Hyde Park project. If he really digs down deep enough, he will come up with a Hyde Park figure who stood in constant close contact with Barack Obama and who, unlike Ayers and Khalidi, really did influence Obama’s thinking about law, government, and policy. He is to my way of thinking a genuine radical. His name is Richard Posner, and he appears to be the most frequently and positively cited judge and legal academic in… National Review."

***

I think this is completely dishonorable. Comparing Rashid Khalidi to a neo-Nazi is just beyond vile. But even without that, it just plays on anti-Arab sentiment. Does anyone think that McCain's audiences know much about Rashid Khalidi, other than his suspiciously Arab name? For that matter, does anyone think that McCain knows much about him? The fact that he repeats the charge that Khalidi was a spokesman for the PLO, a claim that Khalidi denies, and that there is independent reason to think is false -- suggests either that he doesn't know, or that he doesn't care what the truth is. [UPDATE: See here for an argument that Khalidi was, in fact, a spokesman for the PLO. I think that the evidence so far is inconclusive. END UPDATE] [FURTHER UPDATE: Ron Kampeas, who wrote the post I linked to right before the updates, now says that "the evidence of Rashid Khalidi's PLO past is now irrefutable." Thanks to Martin Kramer for bringing this to my attention. END FURTHER UPDATE>]

Khalidi is just a red flag to wave in front of McCain's audiences. Mentioning his name produces the effect it does because that name is Arab. McCain surely knows this.

Colin Powell was big enough to denounce this kind of appeal to bigotry. Years ago, I would have imagined that McCain would do likewise, or at least that he would not engage in it himself. I wish I had been right. And I imagine that in a few weeks, when he contemplates the shredded remains of his honor, he will too.

Um, Wow

by publius

Via John Cole, I've honestly never seen someone (at that level) act like such a complete d*** on TV before. He's attained some Platonic ideal of d***ness. I'm no PR coach, but I suspect the goal is to make something less than 100% of your audience detest you.

Stick with Dungeons & Dragons Michael -- the faux Billy Bada** routine doesn't really suit you.

Exhibit 1,005: High-Risk Pools

by publius

One of my hobbyhorses of late is to illustrate – at the institutional party level (i.e., the “sphere”) – that progressive policies are simply superior to conservative ones at this point in history. It’s not merely that I subjectively prefer the former, or that the dueling policy approaches present equally plausible options. It’s that recent events have vindicated progressive assumptions of the world, and illustrated why modern conservative policies are often based on factually inaccurate – or dreamworld – assumptions about how the world actually works. See, e.g., global warming, stimulus effectiveness, financial bailout, etc.

Today, let’s add high-risk pools to that list, because they illustrate this larger point perfectly. Yesterday’s WP examined Minnesota’s high-risk pool and explained why programs like these are central to McCain’s health care “policy.”

Here’s the nickel version. McCain’s proposal seeks to push more people into individual plans (rather than employer plans). The problem, however, is that lots of people would be disqualified on the individual market on the basis of, say, pre-existing conditions. In response, some states have established programs where the government subsidizes insurance companies to take on these higher-risk, high-cost individuals. McCain has made these pools a lynchpin of his larger plan – indeed, he has to, given that he’s otherwise doing literally nothing for people with pre-existing conditions. (Jonathan Cohn has a more extensive background on these programs here).

Sounds not terrible, right? Well, wrong. These high-risk pools are essentially big jokes. More precisely, the idea that high-risk pools adequately deal with the needs of the uninsurable is a joke. And it’s a joke for two reasons – (1) they have proven wretchedly deficient in practice; and (2) they are also a conceptually flawed idea. I’ll examine both after the jump. Take it to the chorus.