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.

Sixty

Reid got there, and it’s a staggering achievement.

Politically speaking, I think Jonathan Chait has the most interesting take on what happened. Over the summer, during the heyday of the tea parties, it looked like health care reform was doomed, or at least eviscerated. Obama’s insistence on a bipartisan bill gave Republicans free rein to negotiate in bad faith. And boy did they.

Would you look at how that turned out! As Chait writes, “The Republicans eschewed a halfway compromise and put all their chips on an all or nothing campaign to defeat health care and Obama’s presidency. It was an audacious gamble. They lost.” A gamble for which we should be forever grateful.

Of course it’s not a perfect bill. Did you expect it to be? If so, there’s a bridge I’d like to sell you. (It goes To Nowhere.) But the package we got is certainly better than nothing; it’s better than what we could have gotten if the GOP hadn’t been so brazen; and it lays the groundwork for incremental improvement. Here’s what’s in it now. Marc Ambinder—one of the smartest observers in Washington—even thinks that what the President will sign, after conference, will be more progressive than the Senate bill:

The bill that Obama signs will be “better” from the standpoint of liberal activists than the bill that the Senate is going to pass. It will contain more subsidies…probably some version of a trigger for some sort of insurance competitive mechanism…a reinstatement of mandatory cost controls for hospitals…and even tighter restrictions on insurers.

It is, after all, the most wonderful time of the year. Know hope.

Rudy Giuliani and the Deep Unseriousness of the Right on National Security

With Sarah Palin on a national media blitz, the amount of false reality out there naturally increases by a huge amount. Palin lives in her own little impenetrable world; she’s the commensurate victim. Why anyone believes a word she says is beyond me.

(An aside: I don’t think Palin expects to be a credible conservative leader—she’d rather be a popular conservative celebrity. As Ana Marie Cox said on Rachel Maddow on Tuesday night, you don’t write a book taking revenge on staffers if you want to build a campaign in the future. Likewise, you don’t quit your only major elected office if you want to be seen as a qualified presidential candidate. So let’s agree, for now, that Palin’s lies are those of someone craving the spotlight as an ends, not a means.)

But this post isn’t about Sarah Palin’s false realities. It’s about Rudy Giuliani’s, and those of the right’s “experts” on national security, which I think are far more dangerous.

(more…)

New Adventures in Republican Hypocrisy

This is just hilarious. But I’m glad it’s so.

Walking Straight Into the Echo Chamber, or Why Sarah Palin Gets Away With It

It’s too easy to anger the mind.

I was catching up on my growing pile of New Yorkers this weekend when I came across a book review by Elizabeth Kolbert that got me to thinking about Sarah Palin and her whole phony “death panels” meme, which she reiterated on Saturday on her Facebook page. (Screw the MSM!)

First thought: I can’t believe I just went to Sarah Palin’s Facebook page.

Second thought: Anger. People believe this?

The occasion for Palin’s screed, of course, was the House vote on the health care reform bill. “What’s in this bill?” she “wrote.” “The ‘death panel’ provision is in it.”

Needless to say, this is still not what end-of-life counseling means. It has never meant what Palin claims it means. “Death panels” is a nefarious phrase—willfully misleading, politically expedient, morally repugnant. It’s a retreat to the cowardice of empty polemic. In other words: vintage Palin.

But why do so many people believe her? Why does she continue to get away with it?

(more…)

Election Reax

I think I’ve written enough about yesterday’s elections, so here’s some of what the Internet is saying:

• Over at the Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan compiles diverse election reactions from around the web, here and here. He also has some final thoughts on the pain in Maine after last night’s disappointing result. It wasn’t all bad news for the gays, though. “Everything-but-marriage” domestic partnerships survived a referendum in Washington state, and Chapel Hill—yes, the one in North Carolina, really!—elected a gay mayor.

• Alex Pareene has characteristically sensible and witty takes on yesterday’s elections, Maine, and Michael Bloomberg at Gawker.

• At the New Republic, Jonathan Chait dissects the national spin and Michael Crowley articulates what ought to become the conventional wisdom on Mayor Mike: “I’m glad Bloomberg got some comeuppance, but I’m also glad he won.”

• Brian Beutler makes a meaningful point about the elections and health insurance reform: a bill will now be easier to pass in the House.

• Reactions at NRO’s The Corner are predictably smug and self-serving. Jonah Goldberg thinks yesterday was a “very, very bad day for Democrats.” We’ll see. Mark Steyn tries to downplay Hoffman’s loss in NY-23. (Would shoulda coulda!) Never mind, of course, that the Dems actually picked up a seat in the House overall. And finally, slimy Maggie Gallagher is “so happy” about the conservative victory in Maine. (Too bad it didn’t go her way in Washington!)

In actual news, today is the 30th anniversary of the start of the Tehran hostage crisis, and protests there continue for various reasons.

Big Whoop

The media will spin tonight’s election results as huge political news, but really there’s little of note. Sure, the GOP swept the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, and may still win in NY-23 (although as I write Bill Owens, the Democrat, has a lead of just over 3,000 votes with 69% reporting).

Big whoop.

Lest we forget, in 2001 the Virginia and New Jersey statehouses switched parties—from Republican to Democrat. This is what they do—and have done for decades—when new presidents are elected. It’s called reactionary voting, and it’s especially to be expected when the economy sucks. People aren’t happy: get rid of the politicians.

As for NY-23, it’s one of the most conservative districts in New York state. This shouldn’t be a difficult win for the right. But it might well be a loss. And everyone seems to be forgetting that a special election in California’s 10th Congressional District, for the seat that Ellen Tauscher gave up to become Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, is almost certainly going to go to the Democratic candidate, John Garamendi, who, according to Nate Silver, should be significantly more liberal than his predecessor.

Far more interesting are the Maine same-sex marriage question, worryingly too close to call as I write, and the small margin—only 5%!—by which Michael Bloomberg is going to win in NYC. I’ll have more on all of this at some point tomorrow, but 2009 in general: Eh.