More Important Considerations Than Personnel

What the hell were McChrystal and co. thinking? I don’t know. (Yes I do: they were drunk.) But this much I know to be true: their complaints about the civilian leadership are a hell of a lot less important than the actual on-the-ground success of their strategy in Afghanistan. Matt Yglesias makes the necessary point:

Back in the real world it seems obvious to me that the Obama administration’s actual McChrystal-related problem is simply that the situation in Afghanistan is deeply problematic. The hoped-for improvements in governance and the credibility of Hamid Karzai’s regime have not emerged. The population in much of the country remains pro-Taliban, anti-Karzai, and anti-ISAF. This is a big problem. And the portrait that emerges in the Rolling Stone article is of a military command that knows it’s not really making progress but doesn’t see the door open to any alternative policies. It’s a huge problem—much bigger than the question of what to do or not about one general.

What you have to remember here is that McChrystal is the architect of the bold and controversial Af-Pak strategy announced last December. The outcome of the months-long “strategic review” was buy-in to his vision. And that vision is failing. However, I don’t think that if McChrystal does leave, as is looking increasingly likely, this affair will occasion any change in strategy — the basic underpinnings of the current strategy are time and patience, after all. There’s still a year to go until the July 2011 deadline, nearly six months until the December review. Obama cannot be seen as capricious in this. But it does seem clear that McChrystal, brilliant strategist though he may be, is not the man for the job.

Tuesday Bloody Tuesday

It’s yet another primary day!

I know you’re just as excited as I am. Here’s a brief rundown of the four marquee races:

• Pennsylvania Senate: Nowhere can the right-left divide be seen more vividly than in the Keystone State. On the right, former Congressman and Club for Growth president Pat Toomey has the Republican nomination locked up. “Club for Growth” is, naturally, the euphemistic name for a group of anti-tax zealots. What’s more, Toomey managed to achieve a remarkable 97% rating from the American Conservative Union during his congressional career. He is very conservative. On the left, however, liberal Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak has a slight edge over five-term Senator Arlen Specter, the political chameleon who only switched to the Democratic Party last year when it became apparent Toomey would likely defeat him in a Republican primary matchup. Talk about lose-lose. In general election polling, Toomey has a 6-point lead over Sestak and 9 points over Specter. It’s not an insurmountable lead, but Republicans are viewing this as a prime pick-up opportunity.
• Arkansas Senate: Again, the GOP nomination is almost certainly decided, with Congressman John Boozman holding a commanding lead over all others. Both Arkansas Senate primaries force a runoff if no candidate wins a majority of the votes, but Boozman’s 46% in the polls seems soft in such a large field. On the Democratic side, the drama of a runoff could well unfold. Popular liberal Lt. Governor Bill Halter entered the race during the health care debate, as Senator Blanche Lincoln’s support cratered, and while she’s maintained a nearly 10-point lead, it remains to be seen if she can top 50%. It’s all a bit of theater, however, as structural and demographic conditions strongly suggest conservative Arkansas will elect (can you believe this?) only its second GOP Senator since Reconstruction come November.
• Kentucky Senate: The power of the Tea Party will be on full display in the race for retiring Senator Jim Bunning’s seat. Rand Paul, son of Dr. Congressman Ron, will likely breeze to victory over establishment Republican pick Trey Grayson, the Secretary of State. Paul will probably then go on to defeat whichever Democrat wins the dead-heat primary race, Attorney General Jack Conway or Lt. Governor Daniel Mongiardo, although general election polling shows either race closer than he’d probably like. This should be an interesting contest, as it turns out Kentucky voters are actually insane.
• PA-12 Special Election: The race to replace the late Congressman Jack Murtha is going down to the wire, with former Murtha aide Mark Critz and Republican Tim Burns in a statistical tie. Structural factors are against any Democrat, and President Obama’s favorables are under 50% in the district, so Burns has a good chance to win. But Murtha was outrageously popular in the district, so it’s possible Critz could win by virtue of their long-time association.

All in all, today should be a good day for Republicans, and especially for the Tea Party, as Rand Paul would be its first actual member to win a high-profile race. (Scott Brown had the support of the Tea Party, although he has never been a member.) Of course, a terrible economy, several divisive policy debates and a general anti-incumbent political atmosphere ought to give the GOP a natural advantage against Democrats in power this year. But it doesn’t help progressive hopes when laughably amateurish mistakes turn what ought to be a cakewalk (Linda McMahon!) into a real race.

Stay tuned. This should be interesting.

OH NO: Socialism Has Come To America

Or rather: Yay, it happened!

I’m not going to wade into the actual politics that led to health care reform’s passage — Yglesias and Chait do a fine job of that, and Bart Stupak is just so tiresome to think about, and really, Peggy Noonan, is “demon pass” the best you could come up with?

The noise is just noise, especially when there are practical consequences to think about. Soon everyone will have health insurance! And yes, while it is true that the whole nightmare debate isn’t quite over — the reconciliation bill, which, don’t let’s forget, improves the package, still has to tumble through the Senate — it is also true that the bill passed by the Senate in December will, with the President’s signature this week, become law. A huge part of American life will be improved by the stroke of a pen.

What I think is interesting is what can happen next. Can, not will. There are so many predictions and opinions, and all the pundits are so convinced of their right(eous)ness:

It’ll kill the Democrats in November! Think again! Major reforms always become popular over time! It’s poisoned our politics! We’ll repeal it! Good luck with that! Baby killer!

Shut up, all of you. (Especially the last.)

If there’s any advice I would give to a casual observer of this mess, it would be to turn off the TV, click “close tab” on everything except cat videos and your Netflix Instant Player, and reflect on the fact that half a century of work by progressives has finally paid off. That’s a long time, and anyone who thinks they can untangle the meaning of it in less than 24 hours is fooling themselves. 99% of what the pundits are saying today will be meaningless by tomorrow. They have no idea what they’re talking about! Remember when everyone was saying reform was dead after a moderate Republican beat a terrible Democratic party hack in a special election by a few hundred thousand people in a state that already had universal health insurance? Yeah, exactly.

So let’s all do ourselves a favor, take a step back, and if like me you think health care reform was a moral and historical imperative, gloat softly, to ourselves. Of course it’s difficult not to enjoy the hilarity of the Right’s meltdown. Feel free to do that too. (I mean, come on. You can’t make this stuff up.) But there’s still plenty of work to be done — on jobs, on the environment, on gay rights, on any number of problems America faces today. But we can cross this one off the list, for now, and that’s something.

One last point: if for some weird reason you’re interested in what the reform package actually does (and when), check out here, here and here. You’ll be surprised how banal socialism is when you get down to the details.

Paul Ryan Wants To Raise Your Taxes

Last month, during a little back-and-forth with a commenter, I conceded that although I completely disagree with it, Paul Ryan’s budget “roadmap” is serious and in good faith (unlike most recent GOP “plans” for major issues).

What I didn’t know at the time was that if you run the numbers, as the Center for Tax Justice has, it turns out that Ryan’s plan has the unique effect of reducing government revenue while raising taxes on the bottom NINETY (90) PERCENT of Americans. (It also, of course, violently cuts programs and services.) I could have sworn Republicans were for lower taxes!

(I’ll note here that I’m not comparing Ryan’s plan to President Obama’s budget priorities, just pointing out an interesting fact.)

Along those lines, Matt Yglesias introduces some necessary dread:

So give Ryan credit. It’s quite difficult to raise taxes on 90 percent of Americans while reducing overall tax revenue, but he’s shown enormous ingenuity in getting the job done. Remember that this is the top House GOP budget guy. If John Boehner becomes Speaker after the midterms, Ryan will be writing budgets for the new majority, presumably animated by the same moral principles that led him to this idea.

Irreconcilable Differences

One of the more annoying tropes of the past few weeks, as it has become more and more likely that the Democrats will finally get their act together and inch past the goal line on health care reform, is the idea that budget reconciliation is somehow ”unprecedented” and “extreme” and ”jamming it through.”

This is bullshit, plain and simple. A few points:

First, it is, without question, not unprecedented. Even that dastardly Mainstream Media know this:

Second and more imporantly, the Democrats have already passed health care reform. All that’s left to do is find a way to reconcile (not exactly what “budget reconciliation” means, but we’ll get to that) the House and Senate bills. The difficulty is that since the Second Boston Massacre — WHICH CHANGED EVERYTHING DIDN’T YOU KNOW – the Democrats no longer have 60 votes in the Senate to pass an amended bill.

With the Senate GOP voting in lockstep against everything, the only way to get anything close to the (again, already-)passed bills to the President’s desk is for the House to pass the Senate’s bill. There are significant differences between the two, but the foundation is largely the same. What matters now is whether Pelosi and co. can get enough “no” votes to switch to “yes.” (And at least fewer “yes” votes to switch to “no.”) That is literally all that matters for health care to pass. Reconciliation is only a small part of the bargain between the House and the Senate to get that done.

If you watch CNN, however, you’ll see Mary Matalin, who is about as pleasant as bedbugs, drone on about how reconciliation is a travesty of democracy and will destroy the Democrats’ majority come November. Every other cable news network will carry another loathesome version of the same drivel. You’ll read more of this in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and in a thousand witless posts on the Corner.

It’s all a big red herring.

Budget reconciliation, as I understand it, is just a patch for legislation that has already been approved. Because budget-related legislation is so complicated, involving so many committees, the budget reconciliation process allows policy changes to entitlements (such as MEDICARE) and tax laws to be passed in a streamlined, unfilibusterable way, to avoid total gridlock. After all, the federal government’s gotta have a budget, one way or another. If you’re really interested in the procedure, the House Rules Committee has a nicely dense summary.

In the case of health care reform, reconciliation will allow the Senate to appease House members’ concerns about things like affordability and the Medicare Part D “donut hole,” but not, since it’s not budget-related, things like the Stupak abortion language and the structure of the insurance exchanges. Still, still, still: all that matters is that the House pass the Senate bill.

The point is that reconciliation is the icing, not the cake. It doesn’t even actually have to happen for reform to pass. The worst fears of conservatives arrive earlier – health care reform is a few House votes away from becoming law. (I suspect the rumors of a smaller compromise bill are a political feint. Obama said as much yesterday.) The furor over reconciliation is merely a last-ditch effort on the part of Republicans to squeeze a little more political blood from the fight. They aim to tar Obama as a partisan, so they can run against him and his “socialized medicine” in the fall. Let them. Health care reform is too important, and too close, to be sacrificed on the altar of politics. The ineptitude of the Democrats over the past year has already guaranteed a bloody midterms. And the hubristic failure of Rove’s “permanent majority” should have Democrats realizing that huge majorities are unsustainable anyway.

Besides, if they don’t get health care reform passed, the Democrats are really screwed in November. They couldn’t be that stupid, could they?

Quote of the Day

Here’s the President making a timely point on health care reform (emphasis mine):

At the Republican caucus, they held up—they said, we’ve got a plan; it’s going to provide everybody coverage at no cost. And I said, well, if that were true, why wouldn’t I take it? My wife Michelle thinks I’m stubborn sometimes, but I’m not that stubborn. Okay, let me think. I could have everybody get health care coverage that’s high quality, and it’s free, which I’ll bet is really popular. But I’m not going to do that. I’m going to go through the pain of really working through this hard process in Congress, getting yelled at and called a socialist, because I just — that’s how I roll. I’m a glutton for punishment. (Laughter.)

No, look, if this were easy and simple, first of all, somebody would have done it before. Seven Presidents have failed at this; seven Congresses have failed at this. If this was simple, it would have already been done. It’s not.

This much I know to be true: Americans don’t like complication. Which is part of why Obama, the former law professor, loathe to dumb things down, has trouble explaining policy to the American people in terms they can understand. Which is why I thought the State of the Union was mostly successful.

Mark Blumenthal, meanwhile, published a column this week that I think goes a long way towards explaining why Americans are generally against health care reform, until they know anything about it.

Why I Am Not A Conservative

A major topic of this blog since its inception has been the vacuous, uninformed nature of right-wing political discourse. I bemoan this fact because I believe in a robust dialogue, and as a temperament I believe conservatism has much to offer our politics. But what passes for conservatism these days is, in my opinion, a mostly content-free ideology. It’s nice to have this confirmed on my own blog.

A reader named Karl Keller has been commenting, quite passionately, on a few recent posts. I don’t know who Karl Keller is or anything about him, but since I want to take my readers’ dissents seriously, I thought his comments deserve a detailed response, which I try to make after the jump.

(more…)

The State of Our Union Is… Sassy!

The State of the Union is so overhyped. The speech rarely has any substantive political effect, and it’s important to remember that Obama’s first-year problem has not, depite the past month, been one of narrative. Matt Yglesias makes a great point today:

[W]hat we’ve learned time and again over the past year is that there’s only so far that great speeches get you. [...] Obama seized the mantle of responsibility, pragmatism, and seriousness while challenging the GOP to show some good faith and willingness to be a constructive partner in government. But what he’s never been able to do is to generate the kind of specific, concrete political pressure on incumbent Republican senators that inspires them to vote “yes” on his bills or confirm his nominees. And nothing in his speech changes that dynamic.

It wasn’t a great speech, but it didn’t need to be. No speech is every going to change Olympia Snowe’s vote, or make Lieberman less of an asshole. But what I saw, and what I think the American people saw, was a pissed-off President not afraid to call out his enemies. He’s angry, and so are we! It was a brilliant piece of performance art. Watching Boehner and Cantor smirk through Obama’s rousing defense of the stimulus and bailouts and tax cuts served as a reminder of the fact that the Republicans are simply refusing to legislate. They’re not doing their jobs, and they’re incredibly unpopular because of it! There’s a reason Obama is far more popular than anyone in Congress, and, pace Scott Brown, it’s decidedly not because Americans are against health care reform. The triumph of last night was the return of 2008 Obama, just when we need him.

(more…)

Can the Party of ‘No’ Keep It Up?

Yesterday, I wrote about the Republican strategy of stonewalling the President and the Democrats on every major policy issue. It has been fairly successful for them! But short-term political wins do not necessarily yield long-term political gain. Jonathan Bernstein explains why rejectionism is a dangerous game:

What’s the cost to Republicans?  First, on policy, they lose the ability to negotiate on behalf of their important constituency groups; as we’ve seen, this can have the effect of actually driving some of these groups (the doctors, for example) right out of the party.  Second, embracing the crazy yields, well, the crazy in charge of your party.  Republicans stand to gain in the 2010 cycle because the economy is lousy, because Democrats have a lot of exposure after two terrific cycles, and because the party of the president almost always does badly in midterms.  If, however, Republicans nominate candidates who have embraced the crazy, they will be far more vulnerable to counterattacks than if they nominate good, solid candidates (and not every Democratic candidate will emulate Martha Coakley and not get around to attacking crazy things that their opponents say until the last 48 hours).

However, no one is going to listen to advice like that.  Republicans are invested in a particular interpretation of 1994, and yesterday’s election is only going to reinforce that interpretation, whether it’s correct or not.

Creative Obstruction

The political fallout from Scott Brown’s insurgent win has me thinking about the nature of our democracy. The way the republic is set up, if a large enough group of legislators—say, hypothetically, the Senate Republican caucus—simply chooses not to negotiate in good faith with the other side, offering only ideological proposals that have no basis in reality—say, hypothetically, deficit reduction and no cuts to Medicare—they can completely obstruct the agenda of even a huge majority like that the Democrats currently have (and will continue to have, don’t let’s forget, even in the wake of the Brown-out).

There is a certain brash creativity to this.

The Republicans stated, quite loudly, as soon as President Obama announced his intention to pursue health care reform in early 2009, that they would kill it. Straight up said it. A moderate few pretended to negotiate, but according to Harry Reid “it was a waste of time dealing with [Republican Senator Olympia Snowe] because she had no intention of ever working anything out.” The GOP can claim to have offered alternative legislation, but look at Jim DeMint’s proposals and try to tell me with a straight face that they would solve any problems. You can’t.

The Republicans’ capacity to obstruct has much to do with Senate rules and procedures. Use of the filibuster has jumped to historical highs in the past few years. There are many people, myself included, who believe that America might be better off if the Senate were simply abolished. If wishes were horses…

The broader point is that American democracy is imperfect, and always will be. A small minority can, with audacity and consistency, stop the government in its tracks. That old dinosaur The Village Voice captured it best today with their headline: “Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate.”

All eyes now turn to Obama. His reaction will determine how the Democrats will govern with only a 19-seat majority in the Senate. I leave you, for a dash of hope, with Jonathan Chait:

Here is what I think will happen. The shock and panic will play itself out over a few days. Then the Democrats will assess the situation and realize that letting health care die represents their worst possible option. And then they will make a deal to pass the Senate bill through the House. I am not positive this will happen, but it’s my bet, because elected officials at the national level, dim though they can be, are usually shrewd enough to recognize their political self-interest.

In the meantime, the display of hysteria is actually disgusting.