Democrats in the Middle... and Getting No Credit

Great point here from the Plum Line at the Washington Post.

Calling for a third party is a quick and easy way to get yourself booked for a round of cable TV appearances. But many of those calling for a third party are refusing to reckon with an inconvenient fact: One of the two parties already occupies the approximate ideological space that these commentators themselves are describing as the dream middle ground that allegedly can only be staked out by a third party.
That party is known as the “Democratic Party,” and it alreadly holds many of the positions these commentators want a third party to espouse.

I couldn't say it better myself.  Click through to the post- lots of good examples abound.

As a liberal myself, I don't particularly like that the Democrats have become the party of the center.  I want to see a dynamic in which Democrats start at the position that tax hikes should be the primary way to handle the deficit, for example.  Then we can compromise and end up at... the current Democratic position.  Starting there just guarantees that we'll end up closer the far-right position.

Right now we have the GOP for the far Right, the Democrats for the Center, and..... nobody in the polity representing the Left.

A Provocative Comparison of Republicans and Palestinians

An analagy occurred to me today: Democrats are to the Republican party as Israel is to the Palestinians.

You probably want an explanation for that.

Here goes: The Palestinians (particularly Hamas) are completely intransigent when it comes to peace with Israel.  When Israel has offered land for peace swaps, they have uniformly rejected the deals.  When Ehud Olmert offered them practically everything they could expect (West Bank and Gaza sovereignty, sharing of Jerusalem in return for end to hostilities) they responded with refusal and a renewal of terrorism.  The Israeli peace movement, quite strong in the 1980s and 1990s, is a pale shell of its former self, as Israelis have decided that they have "no partner for peace", will just have to hunker down and wait for Palestinians to change.

Analgously, the Republican party has been completely intransigent since the 2008 elections.  Any overture made by Democrats to join them in the Center and compromise has been met by implacable opposition.  President Obama has naively offered very reasonable policies once favored by the Right (health care with an individual mandate, cap and trade environmental laws, deficit reduction based mostly on spending cuts) and has been met with refusal and an escalation of tactics designed to grind all of Washington to a halt.  Hopefully, at long last, Obama and other Democrats have finally seen that they have "no partner for governing".  They have to hunker down, fight to win elections, and wait for the GOP to return to planet Earth.

We just have to convince the David Brookses and Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans of the world that this is the case.  We're not there yet, and I despair of ever getting there.

My Mood Starts to Shift in Baby Steps

I was really discouraged a month or so ago, by Obama's repeated caving to an intransigent GOP.  His recent pivot to "pass this bill!" populism has me a little more hopeful, though. While I have pretty much accepted that the guy just isn't that liberal- that was wishful thinking- I'm hoping that he might actually fight for something- anything.

But his attempts to come to the center and be the adult in the room have been remarkably ineffective. I think he's calculated at long last that compromise is completely impossible with these guys and he has to draw contrasts. I'd have liked to see it happen a long time ago, but BHO believed his own rhetoric about bringing people together and changing the culture. Better late than never.

The economy is going to be terrible next November, which is very bad for incumbent presidents. The only chance he has is to draw the contrasts and try to blame it on the Republicans.

What continues to bum me out, though, is that Obama is obsessed with staking out this "middle ground"- deficit reduction, tax cuts as stimulus more than government spending, etc- which liberal economists say is just way too weak to make much difference in the economy. So I'm left arguing not that Obama's plans are great, but that they're the bare minimum. "But the Republicans would be even worse!" Not much of a slogan.

And then on top of that, he doesn't get any credit for being in the center. David Brooks in the NYT this week hammered Obama for giving up on centrism!

Yes, I’m a sap. I believed Obama when he said he wanted to move beyond the stale ideological debates that have paralyzed this country. I always believe that Obama is on the verge of breaking out of the conventional categories and embracing one of the many bipartisan reform packages that are floating around. But remember, I’m a sap. The White House has clearly decided that in a town of intransigent Republicans and mean ideologues, it has to be mean and intransigent too. The president was stung by the liberal charge that he was outmaneuvered during the debt-ceiling fight. So the White House has moved away from the Reasonable Man approach or the centrist Clinton approach.
It has gone back, as an appreciative Ezra Klein of The Washington Post conceded, to politics as usual. The president is sounding like the Al Gore for President campaign, but without the earth tones. Tax increases for the rich! Protect entitlements! People versus the powerful! I was hoping the president would give a cynical nation something unconventional, but, as you know, I’m a sap.

He's so committed to his narrative ("the two sides need to come together in the middle and we'll be united and solve all our problems") that he's blind to the reality, which is that Republicans won't come to the center no matter what. [I love this Jonathan Cohn takedown of the Brooks piece]  There's no hope for David Brooks I guess.  He really is a sap.

NY-9 and Obama's "Anti-Israel" Politics

I guess Israel was a significant factor in the Republican victory in the race for Anthony Weiner's House seat.  Ed Koch made some serious statements about the Democrats' lack of support for Israel, and in this heavily orthodox Jewish district, that might have made a difference (along with a weak Democratic candidate, a bad economy, and a recent state assembly vote in favor of gay marriage by the Democrat).

The result is worrisome for Democrats.  It seems that Obama has been successfully tarred as an Israel-hater by many in the Jewish community.  I think this is driven by the neocons, who have lots of reasons to oppose Obama, but it has seeped into the rest of the community.

Now I yield to nobody in my own support of Israel.  I've traveled there three times, I speak a little Hebrew, and I'm a fervent Zionist.  It's my favorite place on Earth.

And I've got to tell you: Obama is not anti-Israel.  He's just not.  Military cooperation is as strong as it's ever been.  Aid is flowing as generously as ever.  The US is about to veto a Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN.  The list goes on.

Yes, the President has made mistakes; he has dealt naively with the situation at times.  His criticism of West Bank settlements, while appropriate at some level, was clumsy and did not advance peace.  But to call him anti-Israel is just silly.

I guess you can say that Republicans are more pro-Israel than Democrats, if you define pro-Israel as blindly supporting whatever that country does.  I don't think that serves Israel very well.  Netanyahu clearly can't stand Obama, but it should be kept in mind that the two are on opposite ends of the political spectrum.  Obama's counterpart in Israel is really Tzipi Livni, not Netanyahu- she's the leader of the more liberal party, and she has encouraged Obama to speak out. 

Feels like a losing battle in traditional Jewish public opinion.  But the truth is that Obama's policies are better for Israel than Bush's were.

UPDATE- Links: This Tom Friedman op-ed makes the point that Israel's government has been squandering opportunities for the past several years, giving the US nothing to work with.  Haaretz, a leading Israeli newspaper, urges Netanyahu to engage with Abbas and the Palestinian Authority. A Haaretz news story points out that the Obama administration is working hard to stop the PA from winning a UN vote for statehood.

Rick Perry's Achilles Heal

What is Rick Perry's big problem right now? We heard it in last night's debate, when Michelle Bachman slammed him for attempting to innoculate 12 year old girls from the HPV virus, which can protect them from a sexually transmitted disease that causes cervical cancer.  In the 19th century view of the Tea Party, this is Big Brother telling little girls to start having sex as soon as possible, now that it's safe to do so.

And it is a little puzzling that a Christian conservative like Perry would support such a policy.  But Bachman suggests a reason- his former Chief of Staff was a lobbyist for Merck, which makes the vaccine, and was donating money to the campaign.  [By the way, I loved Perry's response- "they gave me $5000- if you think I can be bought for $5000 then I'm offended".  My reply: OK, governor, what would it cost to buy you?  Do I need $100,000?].  So the irony is fascinating: Perry was convinced by his old Chief of Staff, a lobbyist, to propound this very sane policy (protecting women from cervical cancer sounds pretty good to me), and now he's getting creamed for it by the anti-science nuts who are his main constituency.

Similarly, he's catching heat for being compassionate toward illegal immigrants.  He proposed that they be able to attend UT schools at in-state tuition rates.  The xenophobic Republican party won't put up with that any more.  Why would we want our illegal aliens educated and productive?  Much better to keep them in low-wage jobs with no way out, so that they can be a drain on society!

Of course Mitt Romney has the same sanity problem.  He signed universal health care in Massachusetts, and now must pay for his moment of sanity.  Noboby would care if Obama hadn't just managed to pass it nationally.

Poor Republican politicians.  They keep pushing to the crazy Right, only to find their party has already shot past them even further into CrazyLand.

9/11 Thoughts

Watching the 9/11 Memorial service this morning I had a difficult time with the TV networks.  The reading of names in New York was riveting, and I kept finding myself upset with the journalists anchoring the shows as they talked or cut away for features.  I finally landed on C-Span, which was just showing the memorial service with no commentary- a simple reading of names, with a brief introduction by the relatives after every eight victims or so- "and my father, ---- ----, my hero, who I miss more than I can ever say...".  Heartbreaking, and requiring no words of wisdom from a newsman telling me what I should feel.  The pictures of the Memorial and the grieving families was enough for me.  [By the way, the Memorial itself looks beautiful, and I think they did a tremendous job with it.]

One thing about the features did bug me a bit.  There are many stories of survival from that day, as of course would be expected in such a chaotic and enormous attack.  The survivors tell stories of how a random decision or circumstance- we paused on the 4th floor to rest, and the people on the floors below us were crushed, or I went to get my coffee a few minutes earlier than usual, and then the planes hit, etc- and the implication, sometimes even explicitly stated, is that God or a guardian angel "was watching over me" and "saved me".

Now I understand that people create narratives to explain how the world works, and search for meaning through those narratives.  There must be a cosmic reason why I survived and the guy next to me died. But seeing these things as fate-driven or God-driven is wrong, and it's an insult to the dead to put such narratives out there.  If God chose me to live, that means He also chose 3000 other people to die.  If He left me on Earth for His purposes, that implies that he killed off the others for His purposes too.  To say such a thing about God is obscene.  So when the personal stories, which inspire so many people, get too close to cosmic explanations for survival, I just want to "be" with the families of the Dead.  Their deaths had no meaning- that's the horrible tragedy.  God wasn't involved in the Terrorists' attack, and He wasn't involved in choosing survivors.  He's there only to comfort the bereaved.

So may all the bereaved be comforted. 

Factionalism and the New Normal

Lots of people are writing and talking about the increasing sense that our government in the US doesn't work any more.  And I agree- the Republican strategy of all out war against their enemies through constant filibuster use, stonewalling of even uncontroversial presidential appointments, and refusal to compromise even when being offered most of what they say they want, is pretty dispiriting.

But the reason for this shift in our politics, from a congenial congress with lots of people crossing party lines to "put country before party" to an absolutist ethos with strict party discipline, has a pretty clear cause.

Until the 1980s, the parties in America weren't very ideological.  Many Southern Democrats were conservatives, and many northeastern Republicans were liberals.  But the "southern strategy" of Republicans succeeded eventually in bringing southern conservatives firmly into the Republican camp, followed by the purge of liberal Republicans from the party and into the arms of Democrats.  In recent years it seems that even moderate Republicans are being purged as the party lurches further rightward, maintaining tremendous discipline under the Bush II and Obama presidencies- no Republican will cross party lines any more except in very rare instances.

The purge of moderates makes me wonder what will happen to Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, and the few other moderate Republicans left.  I'm certainly hoping they see the light and become Democrats, or get defeated.  I guess conservatives would point to Joe Lieberman as the mirror of that, although I would contend that Lieberman moved right, rather than being left behind by his party.

Anyway, so now Republicans are fighting dirty in congress, using every weapon they have to obstruct.  Democrats are likely to try the same thing now when they are out of power (though I worry they don't have the stones to do it.  I've also predicted before that as soon as Democrats start using the filibuster the way Republicans do, the GOP will change the rules to stop it- which is what Democrats should have done this year).

So our government doesn't really work very well any more.  And it's not going to get better soon, because ideologically coherent parties have less reason to cross over party lines and compromise, which is what the American polity has been based on for many years.

What do we need then?  A new normal.  Rule changes in the congress. The filibuster has to end.  Senate rules have to be totally reformed to decrease the possibility of obstruction.  Or maybe the Press has to change the way it reports, going away from "he said she said" analysis and toward calling out politicians when they're being crazy.  Maybe an historic defeat for Republicans* will make them pull back on their strategy.  But something has to change so we can settle into a new ethos in Washington. 

* I'm not predicting an historic defeat in 2012 of course.  One scenario that I think is possible, though, is a Republican sweep in 2012 followed by actual enactment of their crazy, tea-party inspired policies.  I think those policies would be disastrous, leading to an economic meltdown much worse than we have now, and that might lead to their big defeat subsequently.  I'm certainly not rooting for that- that's a lot of pain for a big victory and it's not worth it- but I think it's possible.

NOTE: This is a rehash of stuff I've been reading in the blogs of Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, and Kevin Drum for a while.  I just wanted to get it down in my own words.

What Austerity Means

This quote from the German Finance Minister (quoted by Krugman) is pretty striking to me:

Governments in and beyond the eurozone need not just to commit to fiscal consolidation and improved competitiveness – they need to start delivering on these now.
…
There is some concern that fiscal consolidation, a smaller public sector and more flexible labour markets could undermine demand in these countries in the short term. I am not convinced that this is a foregone conclusion, but even if it were, there is a trade-off between short-term pain and long-term gain. An increase in consumer and investor confidence and a shortening of unemployment lines will in the medium term cancel out any short-term dip in consumption.

This could have been written by anyone in the US Right too.  Krugman goes on to make his oft-repeated point that austerity will be contractionary, and that this strategy counts on the Confidence Fairy to work everything out, even though the economics models show austerity will just lead to long-term slow growth and high unemployment.

I'd make another point, though.  This argument as made above almost concedes the point that austerity will be rough in the short term, but worth it in the long term.  That might be a legitimate point- "we need to balance the budget and take the short-term pain, so that by 2018 we'll be growing like crazy again".  But that actual argument gets little play in the press or among the politicians and pundits who support it.

But let's be clear: conservative plans for the current economic crisis will clearly lead to lots of pain for many years, before a hoped-for explosion of growth when these inefficiencies are wrung out of the economy.  I don't think that's a winning argument with Americans who don't understand economics, but it would be nice if repoters would draw that distinction.

Nevertheless, it's full speed ahead for austerity.  After all, the economy in Washington is just fine so where's the job problem??

A couple of Quotes from others on Torture

From Ta-Nehisi Coates:
It's amazing, though it shouldn't be, to see the former vice-president of the United States arguing that the government still should be torturing people, and that torture is one of the things he's proudest of. I think the worst thing about the Obama administration's "looking forward" doctrine is that it virtually guarantees that torture will happen again--perhaps even under the very next administration.
It not simply that modern America officially condones torture, it is that modern America condemns torture when executed by people we don't like, and calls it "enhanced interrogation" when we do it. Media has, in disgraceful fashion, bought this Orwellian line. I fully expect to see more enhanced interrogation in my lifetime. I would not be shocked to see it filter down to law enforcement. Foreign terrorists are not the only people who kill.

And for a more comprehensive look, in light of Dick Cheney's book, here's Dalia Lithwick. Basically she makes the point that torture is de facto legal when performed by the US government, thanks to Dick Cheney and to all of those (including Barack Obama) who have averted their eyes.  Many of my more liberal friends still support the torture policies of the Bush administration.  It's shameful.

Thoughts on Mitt Romney

Mitt is the favorite Republican candidate of most of my conservative friends.  Which makes sense- he's from Massachusetts, he governed the state competently, he was a good businessman (the background of all my conservative friends- they really respect good businessmen), etc.

So what about now, as Mitt runs right to attempt to appease the wingnuts who don't trust that he's really one of them (because he really isn't)?  I hear he's having a campaign event as a Tea Partier.  He is fully in favor of austerity during our jobs crisis.  He professes belief in magic Laffer effects to tax cuts.  He will take most any position that will win him votes, and seems to have no core beliefs.  My favorite example of this was during the 2008 primary debates when the subject of Guantanamo detentions came up, and Romney famously said "I'd double Guantanamo!".  This from a guy with no particular hawkish bent previously.

So he talks like a wingnut.  But the wingnuts don't quite believe it.  And of course his moderate supporters don't really believe it either, which is why they still support him even though his positions are identical to those of Rick Perry at this point.

Another way to look at it is this: many mainstream conservatives support Romney because they assume he is lying about his beliefs to pander to the nutters.  These people hope that he is actually pandering. 

There's character for you!