The passing of California Proposition 8 that declares that marriage is only between individuals of opposite sex sharply focuses attention on what is meant by marriage.
Marriage is primarily a religious ceremony. It is a religious acknowledgment that two people have committed themselves to each other and intend to act as a family, and that society should recognize their commitment because they do for each other what otherwise society would need to do. If society substitutes for a single committed individual then the job will be a lot more expensive and will fail a lot more often. Social recognition of marriage is cost-efficient for society.
Most Christian denominations make a distinction about the basis of the commitment between the two people. If the commitment is based on two individuals who are different sex, then it is normal and approved. The birth and rearing of children becomes a reason for social recognition of that commitment. That is in addition to the support the two individuals provide for each other - in sickness and in health. A similar commitment between two individuals of same sex is unusual and appears to outsiders to have no purpose since children cannot result. The individuals involved do not see it that way, and the commitments between same-sex individuals are as strong as those between individuals of different sex.
Businesses, government and religion are social institutions. They are different in how rapidly they accept changes. Businesses change quickly, small businesses more rapidly than large ones because large organizations find it more difficult to change because of their size. Government are even larger, so they change more slowly than most businesses. The institution which changes at the slowest rate is religion. Individuals join religions because they know they will not change, so they are the slowest to do so, even as the facts on the ground change and demand different reactions from individuals and institutions.
Society has changed as nations became more populated and more urban. A major change is the reduction of the number of children in each family. This shifts the relative importance of support between two individuals away from the importance of child-rearing. In addition, governments have increased the support for families with children by providing public education and health care to children. What has not changed is the need for individuals to support each other.
At the same time, it has clearly been shown that homosexuality is something that is only different. It does not threaten society or other families. Nor is it a choice. Homosexual individuals are attracted to other individuals of the same sex because of factors beyond their control.
This is important to society because these individuals who are attracted to each other provide exactly the same support to each other as do a traditional husband and wife. It is cost-effective to society to support such relations. In fact, if such individuals adopt or raise children from prior heterosexual relationships, the resulting families give society the same benefit as do relationships based on heterosexual relations.
Society is slow to recognize such changes. Businesses have reacted most rapidly. Same-sex benefits have become quite common in businesses. Governments have been slower, but they have begun to recognize the social benefits of recognizing and supporting same sex relationships. It is now only the slowest to change institution - religion - that resists accepting same sex relationships.
It is now primarily religious organizations and strongly religious individuals who work to force governments to avoid recognition of same sex relationships. The latest example is the effort by the Mormon church to defeat California proposition 8.
Government needs to act to recognize same sex relationships and offer the normal government benefits to married couples to individuals in committed same sex relationships. A committed relationship is one in which the partners have a ceremony and present themselves to the public - especially each others families - as belonging to each other and eschewing relationships with anyone else.
Religious organizations, being the slowest institution to change, may not recognize such a relationship, but it is government and the individuals themselves who pay the price of replacing the benefits to the individuals of such a recognized relationship. But the problem is not religious recognition of the same-sex relationship. It is the failure of government to recognize the same-sex relationship in inheritance and in the agency between two committed individuals. Why should government recognition of the same-sex relationship be limited to what religions recognize?
European nations and most other nations offer civil marriage, recognized by the government. Individuals become married when the file a marriage certificate. If two individuals want a religious marriage they do that in addition to the civil marriage. The civil marriage brings all the legal government privileges of marriage. The religious marriage provide the religious benefits of marriage, but they are withing the particular denomination.
Why should committed individuals be limited by religion to the religious limitations of marriage? Most civilized nations offer a civil marriage to those who qualify. It in no way detracts from the commitment before God that a religious marriage offers.
If civil marriage were separated from religious marriage, the proposition 8 in California would be meaningless, and society would be overall better off.
A first step in getting to such a situation would include Congress canceling the Defense of Marriage Act. Civil marriages should be recognized across the nation. Religious marriages should be recognized withing the denomination.
That should be obvious. What's to fear in that?
For an example of the problems, see Glenn Greenwald.
Monday, November 10, 2008
How passionately should people object to our elite opinion-forming classes when they support and encourage this?
Here is Glenn Greenwald's description of what the Bush administration done to America.
Frankly I think anyone aware of these Bush administration actions who is aware of them and does not passionately oppose them is simply unAmerican.
As the Bush administration comes to a close, one overarching question is this: how were the transgressions and abuses of the last eight years allowed to be unleashed with so little backlash and resistance? Just consider -- with no hyperbole -- what our Government, our country, has done. We systematically tortured people in our custody using techniques approved at the highest levels, many of whom died as a result. We created secret prisons -- "black site" gulags -- beyond the reach of international monitoring groups. We abducted and imprisoned even U.S. citizens and legal residents without any trial, holding them incommunicado and without even the right to access lawyers for years, while we tortured them to the point of insanity. We disappeared innocent people off the streets, sent them to countries where we knew they'd be tortured, and then closed off our courts to them once it was clear they had done nothing wrong. We adopted the very policies and techniques long considered to be the very definition of "war crimes".Can the supporters of these Bush administration actions rationally argue that those who learn about what was done should not respond to such non-American aberrations from the Constitution in a passionate manner?
Our Government turned the NSA apparatus inward -- something that was never supposed to happen -- spying on our conversations in secret and without warrants or oversight, all in violation of the law, and then, once revealed, acted to immunize the private-sector lawbreakers. And that's to say nothing about the hundreds of thousands of people we killed and the millions more we displaced with a war launched on false pretense. And on and on and on.
Prime responsibility for those actions may lie with the administration which implemented them and with the Congress that thereafter acquiesced to and even endorsed much of it, but it also lies with much of our opinion-making elite and expert class. Even when they politely disagreed, they treated most of this -- and still do -- as though it were reasonable and customary, eschewing strong language and emphatic condemnation and moral outrage, while perversely and self-servingly construing their constraint as some sort of a virtue -- a hallmark of dignified Seriousness. That created the impression that these were just garden-variety political conflicts to be batted about in pretty conference rooms by mutually regarding elites on both sides of these "debates." Meanwhile, those who objected too strongly and in disrespectful tones, who described the extremism and lawlessness taking place, were dismissed by these same elites as overheated, fringe hysterics.
Frankly I think anyone aware of these Bush administration actions who is aware of them and does not passionately oppose them is simply unAmerican.
Republicans: their radical ideas to solve middling problems are gone as the problems the ideas caused overpowered them
David Brooks really caught the zeitgeist of the Republican Party on Face the Nation yesterday. He was asked what the current status of the Republican party was. This was his reply:
Meanwhile the remaining Congressional Republicans seem to be mostly members of the "Hell No!" camp. Senator Jon Kyl is already threatening to filibuster Obama's (unnamed) choices for future Supreme Court nominees, while the House Minority Leader John Boehner appears to believe that the Republicans lost this last election because they weren't conservative enough.
Steve Benen points out:
Let me try this idea out. Two things kept the Republicans competitive in national politics. First, the Democrats were similarly bankrupt in grand ideas. They ran on good government but were not trying to change American society. They offered improvement (or perhaps just change) around the edges of what appeared to already be a good society along with government that was effectively doing what most Americans wanted it to do. But why should Democrats offer grand new ideas for change when the American society faced no major existential problems? This was at one time Bill Clinton's lamentation. He felt he could have been a great President, but was never faced with great problems that would allow him to prove it. The Democratic Party in general was designed to face such a generally non-threatening environment. The Republicans are an alliance of people who each think they have compelling problems that need to be fixed by government, and their alliance was based largely on opposition the the Democrats who did not share their belief if the need to deal with the Republican grab bag of problems.
Second, when Bush 43 was elected he was rapidly going nowhere until 9/11. When 9/11 happened Dick Cheney largely took control of the administration's response and directed it into regaining the power he believed had been taken from the Presidency after Nixon resigned. Dick Cheney had absolutely no interest in how his ideas played politically. He left that to Karl Rove to deal with politically.
In short, the Republicans sold themselves as the party of grand, massive radical solutions to solve middling difficulties, and as they did it their Congressional Senators and Representatives became more and more corrupt, happily stealing what they could of the massive amounts of money that flowed through the government. This is not just a Republican problem. Democrats in government become corrupt also. But for a party that has both contempt for and disinterest in what government does, it is easier to justify so it has been a lot more widespread among Republicans.
These grand solutions found a willing ear in George W. Bush. Bush has a belief that when making changes, big changes are better than small changes [*]. He and Cheney agreed that an appropriate reaction to 9/11 should be a lot more than just attacking al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They wanted to completely recreate the Middle East, and for that they adopted the NeoCon ideas offered by the PNAC. They felt that attacking Iraq and recreating it as a conservative free market small government democracy they could accomplish that recreation.
The War in Iraq foundered in part on the Republican distaste for good governance and the conservative belief that intellectuals were to be ignored. Sure Iraq was the wrong war fought for reasons not well thought out, but it was also incompetently run from the White House down through the Pentagon. The White House gave the Pentagon total control of the war, cutting the State Department out of the loop because of conservative dislike for diplomacy. Don Rumsfeld ignored the experience of his Generals when they told him the invasion would require 400,000 troops. Lt. Col. Kwiatowski has written about the planning by Doug Feith in the Pentagon. When staff officers wanted to work out contingency plans for anticipated problems, Feith told them that such plans indicated a lack of faith in the success of the plan, so they did not make such contingency plans. So when the looters ran wild after Baghdad fell, no one knew what to do about it or what it might mean. The looting led directly to Sunni insurgency. Rumsfeld then refused for a long time to acknowledge that they faced an insurgency. In short, conservative ideology and dislike for good methods of planning and governing were very important in causing the invasion of Iraq to become the mismanaged occupation of Iraq.
The end result has been a discrediting of the ideas offered by the conservatives. First, the radical solutions to middling problems caused so many unanticipated nasty side effects that even a great many conservatives have at last broken with the rigid top-down message control of the Republican party. Second, the anti-intellectualism of the right-wing populism, together with the Libertarian disdain for government itself, has created a political party which used to present itself as the realistic managers but now simply can't run government competently.
The end result is the party that used to pride itself that it was held together by grand and radical ideas has tried them, and found they cannot make the ideas work. This has left the party with no new ideas, no national leaders and a deep gap between those who have accepted the failure of the conservative ideology (Brooks' "Yes, But..." Republicans) and the surviving "Hell No!" politicians. The "Hell No" politicians consist of House Republicans who were reelected only because they represent districts gerrymandered to contain a majority of conservative true-believers and Senate Republicans either from the South or who have not faced reelection this year.
The conservative radical, poorly thought out "ideas" which made such good political propaganda when it came time to be elected have clearly failed when serious problems face America. Worse, the radical ideas have been in large part the cause of America's current severe problems. The conservatives simply can't govern a modern industrial nation.
The National Republican Party in the near future is going to look a lot like the California Republican party since Governor Pete Wilson ran on the anti-immigrant idea which proved to be so unpopular in California. The California Republican Party has since been a permanent minority party generally dominated by "Hell No!" Republicans who can occasionally elect a "Yes, but..." Republican like Arnold Schwartznegger to statewide office. The National Republican party has followed the California Republican party down the same disastrous path.
[*]Bush's effort in 2005 to solve the Social Security problem by destroying it and recreating it as a massive government-run IRA was another of the massive changes Bush wanted to implement.
"World of pain," Brooks said. "A generation of pain. 1964, it was so much better than now. In '64, they had a coherent belief system. They lost, they didn't persuade the American people about it, but they understood where they wanted to take the country.Conservatives now how no new ideas and no leaders they trust (Christ! They are discussing resurrecting Gingrich? Palin will go nowhere.) For a national political party that prides itself for being held together by big ideas, this is a disaster. Many Republicans realize that America's current economic problems are a direct result of the failure of their conservative ideology. They're in Brooks' "Yes, but" camp.
"Now it's just a circular firing squad, with everybody attacking each other, and no coherent belief system, no leaders. You've got half the party waiting for Sarah Palin to come and rescue them. The other half is waiting for Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, to come rescue them. But no set of beliefs. Really a decayed conservative infrastructure. It's just a world of pain."
Harris said that the party has to decide whether they are looking for "another Ronald Reagan to carry them out of the wilderness? By the way, that took Reagan years, a full generation to do that. Or are they looking for a Republican version of Bill Clinton?"
Harris said that the party is now divided into two wings: the "hell, no" wing and a "yes, but" wing. "The 'hell, no' is going to fight [Obama] every step of the way" on ideological grounds.
"The other will say, '[Y]es, we agree with a lot of his objectives; we want to do it in a somewhat different way.' It really, I think, goes right to a tactical and philosophical fault line in the Republican Party."
Brooks was not convinced that Sarah Palin could be taken seriously as the GOP's next Ronald Reagan.
"Well, the 'hell, no' group is rallying around her," he said. "And this past week, I don't think, has been particularly flattering to her, the McCain people - and the whole thing has been a complete disaster. They've attacked her for her lack of human capital and for being a diva.
"I'm not sure it's all fair, but one would not say she has spent her life preparing for an intellectual revolution to lead the party out of the wilderness. Let's put it that way."
Brooks declared himself a part of the "yes, but" wing. "You know, this is where the American people are," he said. "And, fundamentally, the conservative movement failed (and I've been in it my entire life) because it hasn't addressed the problems of today, the rise of China and Russia, the rise of inequality, energy, health care. It's great to worry about Reagan. I loved Reagan, but those days are over."
Meanwhile the remaining Congressional Republicans seem to be mostly members of the "Hell No!" camp. Senator Jon Kyl is already threatening to filibuster Obama's (unnamed) choices for future Supreme Court nominees, while the House Minority Leader John Boehner appears to believe that the Republicans lost this last election because they weren't conservative enough.
Steve Benen points out:
Brooks' even more compelling observation is that Republicans lack a "coherent belief system." This became evident when John McCain failed to present a policy agenda beyond an anti-earmark crusade, but it's bound to be even more glaring moving forward. After '64, Republicans knew exactly where they wanted to take the country. After '92, Gingrich had the sketch for a Contract with America.The Republicans have been bankrupt for years.
At this point, though, the party exists to oppose Democratic ideas. That's fine for an opposition force, but for a governing philosophy, it's an obvious sign of bankruptcy.
Let me try this idea out. Two things kept the Republicans competitive in national politics. First, the Democrats were similarly bankrupt in grand ideas. They ran on good government but were not trying to change American society. They offered improvement (or perhaps just change) around the edges of what appeared to already be a good society along with government that was effectively doing what most Americans wanted it to do. But why should Democrats offer grand new ideas for change when the American society faced no major existential problems? This was at one time Bill Clinton's lamentation. He felt he could have been a great President, but was never faced with great problems that would allow him to prove it. The Democratic Party in general was designed to face such a generally non-threatening environment. The Republicans are an alliance of people who each think they have compelling problems that need to be fixed by government, and their alliance was based largely on opposition the the Democrats who did not share their belief if the need to deal with the Republican grab bag of problems.
Second, when Bush 43 was elected he was rapidly going nowhere until 9/11. When 9/11 happened Dick Cheney largely took control of the administration's response and directed it into regaining the power he believed had been taken from the Presidency after Nixon resigned. Dick Cheney had absolutely no interest in how his ideas played politically. He left that to Karl Rove to deal with politically.
In short, the Republicans sold themselves as the party of grand, massive radical solutions to solve middling difficulties, and as they did it their Congressional Senators and Representatives became more and more corrupt, happily stealing what they could of the massive amounts of money that flowed through the government. This is not just a Republican problem. Democrats in government become corrupt also. But for a party that has both contempt for and disinterest in what government does, it is easier to justify so it has been a lot more widespread among Republicans.
These grand solutions found a willing ear in George W. Bush. Bush has a belief that when making changes, big changes are better than small changes [*]. He and Cheney agreed that an appropriate reaction to 9/11 should be a lot more than just attacking al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They wanted to completely recreate the Middle East, and for that they adopted the NeoCon ideas offered by the PNAC. They felt that attacking Iraq and recreating it as a conservative free market small government democracy they could accomplish that recreation.
The War in Iraq foundered in part on the Republican distaste for good governance and the conservative belief that intellectuals were to be ignored. Sure Iraq was the wrong war fought for reasons not well thought out, but it was also incompetently run from the White House down through the Pentagon. The White House gave the Pentagon total control of the war, cutting the State Department out of the loop because of conservative dislike for diplomacy. Don Rumsfeld ignored the experience of his Generals when they told him the invasion would require 400,000 troops. Lt. Col. Kwiatowski has written about the planning by Doug Feith in the Pentagon. When staff officers wanted to work out contingency plans for anticipated problems, Feith told them that such plans indicated a lack of faith in the success of the plan, so they did not make such contingency plans. So when the looters ran wild after Baghdad fell, no one knew what to do about it or what it might mean. The looting led directly to Sunni insurgency. Rumsfeld then refused for a long time to acknowledge that they faced an insurgency. In short, conservative ideology and dislike for good methods of planning and governing were very important in causing the invasion of Iraq to become the mismanaged occupation of Iraq.
The end result has been a discrediting of the ideas offered by the conservatives. First, the radical solutions to middling problems caused so many unanticipated nasty side effects that even a great many conservatives have at last broken with the rigid top-down message control of the Republican party. Second, the anti-intellectualism of the right-wing populism, together with the Libertarian disdain for government itself, has created a political party which used to present itself as the realistic managers but now simply can't run government competently.
The end result is the party that used to pride itself that it was held together by grand and radical ideas has tried them, and found they cannot make the ideas work. This has left the party with no new ideas, no national leaders and a deep gap between those who have accepted the failure of the conservative ideology (Brooks' "Yes, But..." Republicans) and the surviving "Hell No!" politicians. The "Hell No" politicians consist of House Republicans who were reelected only because they represent districts gerrymandered to contain a majority of conservative true-believers and Senate Republicans either from the South or who have not faced reelection this year.
The conservative radical, poorly thought out "ideas" which made such good political propaganda when it came time to be elected have clearly failed when serious problems face America. Worse, the radical ideas have been in large part the cause of America's current severe problems. The conservatives simply can't govern a modern industrial nation.
The National Republican Party in the near future is going to look a lot like the California Republican party since Governor Pete Wilson ran on the anti-immigrant idea which proved to be so unpopular in California. The California Republican Party has since been a permanent minority party generally dominated by "Hell No!" Republicans who can occasionally elect a "Yes, but..." Republican like Arnold Schwartznegger to statewide office. The National Republican party has followed the California Republican party down the same disastrous path.
[*]Bush's effort in 2005 to solve the Social Security problem by destroying it and recreating it as a massive government-run IRA was another of the massive changes Bush wanted to implement.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Reversing the last eight years - quick and easy
The Obama team has spent months Identifying about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that can quickly be reversed with the stroke of a pen shortly after Obama takes over. Areas covered include climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights as well as other things.
Looks like a good idea. The voters who elected him get an immediate dividend for electing Obama, and it's sure something that would not have happened if McCain had been elected.
[ h/t to Hilzoy. ]
Looks like a good idea. The voters who elected him get an immediate dividend for electing Obama, and it's sure something that would not have happened if McCain had been elected.
[ h/t to Hilzoy. ]
The Senate is still in play
Well, well. MSNBC thinks that there is still a possibility that the Democrats can make it to 60 votes in the Senate. So does Josh Marshall at TPM. Here's how.
The Democrats now have 57 Senators if we include the turncoat Joe Lieberman. There are three Senate raced that have yet to be determined. Those are Alaska's Republican convicted felon Ted Stevens vs. Democrat Mark Begich, Minnesota's Republican (accused in court of being paid off under the table) Norm Coleman vs. Democrat Al Franken, and the race between incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss and the Democratic candidate former state Rep. Jim Martin.
Coleman knows the danger and has already gone to court to stop the recount. The court has thrown out his law suit.
However, if the run-off is seen as the race that makes the difference for the Democrats to get a filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes in the Senate, then the national Democratic party may pull out all the stops, to include having Barack Obama campaign for Jim martin. That would also cause the national Republicans, still licking their wounds from November 4, to drop into the run-off with both feet, if only for pride.
How likely that is will depend on the outcomes in Alaska and Minnesota. It is also going to be weighing heavily on Harry Reid's mind as he and the Democratic Senate Caucus determine what to do about Joe Lieberman.
In short, the November 4th election isn't over yet nationally. The fun continues.
[*]An "undervote" is a case where the ballot has a vote for President but no vote for Senator. Since both appear at the top of the ballot it is considered unlikely that a high percentage of voters in one location will vote for President but skip Senator, so it is a strong indicator that there was an error recording the vote. Vote fraud is possible.
[**] An "overvote" is a term used with an optically scanned ballot when the scanner thinks it reads marks alongside more than one candidate in a particular race. When that happens the scanner does not record any vote in that race. Frequently it means the voter intended to vote for one candidate but accidentally placed a mark of some kind in a second block. The voter's intent is normally very clear visually in case of a recount.
The Democrats now have 57 Senators if we include the turncoat Joe Lieberman. There are three Senate raced that have yet to be determined. Those are Alaska's Republican convicted felon Ted Stevens vs. Democrat Mark Begich, Minnesota's Republican (accused in court of being paid off under the table) Norm Coleman vs. Democrat Al Franken, and the race between incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss and the Democratic candidate former state Rep. Jim Martin.
Alaska
In Alaska Stevens currently leads Begich by 3,400 votes but there are 55,000 absentee and provisional votes not yet counted. That count is expected to take about a week. Alaska's vote turnout is also surprisingly low while the results are very different from what the polls predicted, leading to questions of possible severe vote irregularities. This election's not over. Alaska's only Congressman, Don Young, who is under investigation by the FBI for corruption, was also surprisingly reelected. The results of the Alaska election are not in yet. Nate Silver provides an argument for why the recounts might break for Begich.Minnesota
The most interesting race remains the one in Minnesota between Coleman and Franken. At last count Coleman led by a scant 326 votes. Because it is so close there will be a recount. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune notes that there are at least 25,000 ballots in which voters voted for President but not Senate. These are called "undervotes."[*] These undervotes could be a result of "over votes"[**] in which the optical scanners thought that the voter marked more than one candidate for Senator. In that case the optical scanning machine reading the ballot will simply not count any vote in that race. But the recount will be manual, and the counters will be looking for a clear indication of who the voter intended to vote for. What is especially bad for Norm Coleman is that most of the ballots with votes for President and no Senate are in counties which are primarily Democratic. It is highly likely that Al Franken will come out of a recount as the winner.Coleman knows the danger and has already gone to court to stop the recount. The court has thrown out his law suit.
Georgia
The incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss has won his reelection race, but because of the votes taken by Libertarian Allen Buckley Chamblis did not win the required 50% of the vote that would prevent a run-off election. The Atalanta Journal-Constitution has the details. The run-off will be Dec. 2. The common wisdom is that the run-off will not bring out the number of voters who voted in the Presidential election, and that Martin came as close to beating Chambliss because of African-American voters who voted a straight Democratic ticket to elect Barack Obama. The result is that the Chambliss voters will return in larger percentages to vote for Chambliss than the Democratic voters. The Democrats, in this view, were voting for Obama, not Martin.However, if the run-off is seen as the race that makes the difference for the Democrats to get a filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes in the Senate, then the national Democratic party may pull out all the stops, to include having Barack Obama campaign for Jim martin. That would also cause the national Republicans, still licking their wounds from November 4, to drop into the run-off with both feet, if only for pride.
How likely that is will depend on the outcomes in Alaska and Minnesota. It is also going to be weighing heavily on Harry Reid's mind as he and the Democratic Senate Caucus determine what to do about Joe Lieberman.
In short, the November 4th election isn't over yet nationally. The fun continues.
[*]An "undervote" is a case where the ballot has a vote for President but no vote for Senator. Since both appear at the top of the ballot it is considered unlikely that a high percentage of voters in one location will vote for President but skip Senator, so it is a strong indicator that there was an error recording the vote. Vote fraud is possible.
[**] An "overvote" is a term used with an optically scanned ballot when the scanner thinks it reads marks alongside more than one candidate in a particular race. When that happens the scanner does not record any vote in that race. Frequently it means the voter intended to vote for one candidate but accidentally placed a mark of some kind in a second block. The voter's intent is normally very clear visually in case of a recount.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
It looks like Obama's management style has won the big prize
How did Obama defeat first Hillary Clinton and then John McCain supported by the Republican National Committee? Consider this description of Obama's management from Newsweek.
When everyone was complaining to Obama that McCain was gaining ground on him around the time of the Republican national Convention and were asking - demanding - that he respond somehow he stuck it out and prevailed.
When the McCain camp fielded Sarah Palin and was gaining major ground in the media, the Obama camp was quiet. The desperation at the base of the Palin decision soon became obvious as Palin herself became a major liability to McCain.
Consider the period when the financial markets fell out of bed. After a short time McCain decided to "suspend his campaign and fly back to Washington to deal with the problems." Then he got to Washington and accomplished -- nothing. It was a publicity stunt, one adopted by the losing campaign in a fit of desperation. Obama did whatever he did behind the scenes. It was like Aikido. Obama used McCain's own moves to defeat him.
As the last three weeks leading to the election passed it became clear that the Obama campaign was increasing the pressure. The McCain camp had no effective response and the polls shifted towards Obama. The election confirmed the polls.
Then the first Press conference by Barack Obama after the election demonstrated Obama's discipline and preparation.
The three major campaigns demonstrated the difference in their management by their willingness to leak to the Press. Both the Clinton Campaign and the McCain campaign began to leak like sieves during the final weeks before Obama was chosen as the winner. Obama's campaign has yet to suffer frequent leaks of information that is intended to be kept close. Those leaks are a symptom of both the recognition that the campaign is losing together with weaker management. Was the fact that Obama was winning the key to the few leaks, or was it the better management? That is not clear, because the better management very clearly led to the winning campaign.
It's going to be interesting to see if this winning management carries over into the White House. It probably will. It is a result to a large extent of Obama's personality. The problems in the White House involved in maintaining the same level of control will be greater, but the experience from the campaign should carry over to a great extent.
This Presidential campaign is an interesting study for students of management.
Obama wants people to talk, but he doesn't want to intimidate them. "If you haven't said anything, he'll call on you," says Strautmanis. "He's never said it, but he usually thinks if somebody is very quiet it's because they disagree with what everybody is saying … so Barack will call on you and say, 'You've been awfully quiet'." There are no screamers on Team Obama; one senior Obama aide says he's heard him yell only twice in four years. Obama was explicit from the beginning: there was to be "no drama," he told his aides. "I don't want elbowing or finger-pointing. We're going to rise or fall together." Obama wanted steady, calm, focused leadership; he wanted to keep out the grandstanders and make sure the quiet dissenters spoke up. A good formula for running a campaign—or a presidency.How effective was this management style? Of the three major campaigns - Clinton's, Obama's and McCain's, which is described as disciplined and close to flawless? Obama's. Consider a few examples.
When everyone was complaining to Obama that McCain was gaining ground on him around the time of the Republican national Convention and were asking - demanding - that he respond somehow he stuck it out and prevailed.
When the McCain camp fielded Sarah Palin and was gaining major ground in the media, the Obama camp was quiet. The desperation at the base of the Palin decision soon became obvious as Palin herself became a major liability to McCain.
Consider the period when the financial markets fell out of bed. After a short time McCain decided to "suspend his campaign and fly back to Washington to deal with the problems." Then he got to Washington and accomplished -- nothing. It was a publicity stunt, one adopted by the losing campaign in a fit of desperation. Obama did whatever he did behind the scenes. It was like Aikido. Obama used McCain's own moves to defeat him.
As the last three weeks leading to the election passed it became clear that the Obama campaign was increasing the pressure. The McCain camp had no effective response and the polls shifted towards Obama. The election confirmed the polls.
Then the first Press conference by Barack Obama after the election demonstrated Obama's discipline and preparation.
The three major campaigns demonstrated the difference in their management by their willingness to leak to the Press. Both the Clinton Campaign and the McCain campaign began to leak like sieves during the final weeks before Obama was chosen as the winner. Obama's campaign has yet to suffer frequent leaks of information that is intended to be kept close. Those leaks are a symptom of both the recognition that the campaign is losing together with weaker management. Was the fact that Obama was winning the key to the few leaks, or was it the better management? That is not clear, because the better management very clearly led to the winning campaign.
It's going to be interesting to see if this winning management carries over into the White House. It probably will. It is a result to a large extent of Obama's personality. The problems in the White House involved in maintaining the same level of control will be greater, but the experience from the campaign should carry over to a great extent.
This Presidential campaign is an interesting study for students of management.
Should we bail out the U.S. automobile industry?
This is a question that is already very important. If the answer is anything close to an even balance between bail-out and not bail-out, my bias is for a bail-out. The reason for that is that an economy based nearly entirely on financial work is highly unstable and tends to provide big rewards to a few people and marginal rewards to everyone else. If we want America to remain a middle class nation we need to have a better balance between the financial sector and the productive sectors that actually build things.
Emptywheel discusses the question is a great deal more detail. Go read her discussion.
While you are doing that, consider the fact that much of our military equipment is automotive in nature. What happens to American security when there are no more American automotive companies?
The comments are better than the article and that's saying a lot.
I don't have any answers, and I really don't understand all the questions that should be asked. But the issue is very important.
Emptywheel discusses the question is a great deal more detail. Go read her discussion.
While you are doing that, consider the fact that much of our military equipment is automotive in nature. What happens to American security when there are no more American automotive companies?
The comments are better than the article and that's saying a lot.
I don't have any answers, and I really don't understand all the questions that should be asked. But the issue is very important.
Goldman Sachs thinks the recession will continue to get worse next year and into 2010.
This must be a lot like it feels to be on a submarine that has gone into an uncontrolled crash dive. The economic future looks bleak.
Add also Freedom Bank, Bradenton, FL which failed October 31 and Alpha Bank & Trust, Alpharetta, GA which was closed by the FDIC October 24th, and the total for 2008 on the FDIC failed bank list is 19 banks.
There will be more as the economy worsens.
One other thing to consider. When the economists imply that the economy will turn around in 2010, they are basing that on historical trends, not on any current indicators. But this is already a Recession for which the only appropriate historical trend is the Great Depression. Economists now know this one will get worse all next year. They are guessing when they mention when the Recession will be over. There are no indicators telling when recovery will start.
So how long will the recession last? No one knows. All thewizards magicians wise old men economists can tell us is that it will be getting worse into 2010. The bottom is at this time unknown and unknowable.
Addendum 11/9/08 3:25 pm
Robert Reich provides a good explanation of what is happening to the economy.
And, yes, that is pure Keynesian economics.
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The unemployment rate is expected to rise to 8.5% by the end of next year and inch even higher in early 2010, economists for Goldman Sachs wrote Friday. The cumulative trough-to-peak increase of more than 4 percentage points in the jobless rate would be the most since World War II, they said. [Snip]Paul Krugman pointed out Friday:
"We do not see a resumption of anything close to trend growth before 2010."
Gurk! ZIRP!Add to that the new bank failures announced yesterday
That’s Zero Interest Rate Policy — which is now, in the wake of this morning’s terrible employment report, inevitable. Yes, we’re Japan.
Add to this the news of a retail sales collapse, and we’re looking grim, grim, grim.
Monetary policy obviously isn’t enough. It’s time to raise Keynes: we need big fiscal stimulus, now now now. [Snip]
The unemployment rate has now risen more than 2 percentage points from its pre-recession low. In 1990-1992 the unemployment rate rose 2.6 percentage points. Given what’s happening to retail sales, manufacturing, and so on, it’s now a certainty that unemployment has a lot further to rise. So the “worst recession in 25 years” thing is now baked in. The only question is whether we hit “worst slump since the Great Depression” territory.
Add also Freedom Bank, Bradenton, FL which failed October 31 and Alpha Bank & Trust, Alpharetta, GA which was closed by the FDIC October 24th, and the total for 2008 on the FDIC failed bank list is 19 banks.
There will be more as the economy worsens.
One other thing to consider. When the economists imply that the economy will turn around in 2010, they are basing that on historical trends, not on any current indicators. But this is already a Recession for which the only appropriate historical trend is the Great Depression. Economists now know this one will get worse all next year. They are guessing when they mention when the Recession will be over. There are no indicators telling when recovery will start.
So how long will the recession last? No one knows. All the
Addendum 11/9/08 3:25 pm
Robert Reich provides a good explanation of what is happening to the economy.
The real problem is on the demand side of the economy.Lowering the interest rate and expanding the money supply can do no more than it already has. What is needed is stimulus, and the only player that can do that is government. That means the federal government has to spend borrowed money - a lot of it. Only after that is done will the economy begin to turn around.
Consumers won't or can't borrow because they're at the end of their ropes. Their incomes are dropping (one of the most sobering statistics in Friday's jobs report was the continued erosion of real median earnings), they're deeply in debt, and they're afraid of losing their jobs.
Introductory economic courses explain that aggregate demand is made up of four things, expressed as C+I+G+exports. C is consumers. Consumers are cutting back on everything other than necessities. Because their spending accounts for 70 percent of the nation's economic activity and is the flywheel for the rest of the economy, the precipitous drop in consumer spending is causing the rest of the economy to shut down.
I is investment. Absent consumer spending, businesses are not going to invest.
Exports won't help much because the of the rest of the world is sliding into deep recession, too. (And as foreigners -- as well as Americans -- put their savings in dollars for safe keeping, the value of the dollar will likely continue to rise relative to other currencies. That, in turn, makes everything we might sell to the rest of the world more expensive.)
That leaves G, which, of course, is government. Government is the spender of last resort. Government spending lifted America out of the Great Depression. It may be the only instrument we have for lifting America out of the Mini Depression. Even Fed Chair Ben Bernanke is now calling for a sizable government stimulus. He knows that monetary policy won't work if there's inadequate demand.
So the crucial questions become (1) how much will the government have to spend to get the economy back on track? and (2) what sort of spending will have the biggest impact on jobs and incomes?
The answer to the first question is "a lot." Given the magnitude of the mess and the amount of underutilized capacity in the economy-- people who are or will soon be unemployed, those who are underemployed, factories shuttered, offices empty, trucks and containers idled -- government may have to spend $600 or $700 billion next year to reverse the downward cycle we're in.
The answer to the second question is mostly "infrastructure" -- repairing roads and bridges, levees and ports; investing in light rail, electrical grids, new sources of energy, more energy conservation. Even conservative economists like Harvard's Martin Feldstein are calling for government to stimulate the economy through infrastructure spending. Infrastructure projects like these pack a double-whammy: they create lots of jobs, and they make the economy work better in the future. (Important qualification: To do this correctly and avoid pork, the federal government will need to have a capital budget that lists infrastructure projects in order of priority of public need.)
Government should also spend on health care and child care. These expenditures are also double whammies: they, too, create lots of jobs, and they fulfill vital public needs.
And, yes, that is pure Keynesian economics.
Krugman to Obama - act more boldly than FDR
Paul Krugman points to the data from the 1930s and points out that the setback towards recovery in 1938 was caused because "...in 1937-38 FDR was persuaded to do the “responsible” thing and cut back — and that’s what led to the bad year in 1938". The stimulus itself was also quite small compared to the shortfall of production caused by the Depression. So to properly apply Keynesian stimulus to the economy what is really necessary is to be bolder than FDR was.
Krugman does not add that the economy needs to be restructured so that consumers receive a fair share of the increases in productivity if the economy is to continue growing. To be fair, Krugman merely blogged on the one point above. There's a lot more to be said and done to repair the American economy and get us out of the slump created by the conservatives of the Reagan Revolution.
Addendum 4:20 pm
Krugman also makes a very important point in another of his blog posts.
A household has to operate that way, but the American federal government can borrow money internationally because the dollar is still the global reserve currency and because the American economy is the lynch-pin economy in the global world economy. Economists have recently been talking about the American economy becoming "decoupled" from the rest of the economies of the world, but the way our recession has so rapidly spread worldwide has ended such talk.
What that means is that if the rest of the world thinks that the American government will use the money to keep its economy functioning at higher levels, the rest of the world will continue to loan us money. (That means they will probably NOT loan us money to use for unnecessary wars, or they will loan us at higher interest rates.) It's to their own benefit to lend us the money we need to get out of recession. That's why Barack Obama is not going to be as restricted by lack of funds as so many in the media think he will. The current need for funds is no greater a proportion of the American GDP than was the case in WW II, and we came out of that period with rapid growth because of all the industrial building that had been done by the government during the war.
The Congressional conservatives will not buy this logic, which is strange because they generally buy the same kind of logic when they claim that supply side economics says that tax cuts pay for themselves.
The difference between the two ideas (government stimulating consumption vs. tax cuts for investors) is that economically government stimulus of the economy has been shown to produce a lot of growth per dollar of stimulus, while a dollar of tax cut rarely (and never at current low tax rates) has been shown to return as much as a dollar in revenue. Be that as it may, expect both the Republican conservatives and the blue-dog Democrats to fight deficit spending. Economic research-based facts will not change their conservative ideology. That's where Obama is going to have troubles in acting more boldly than FDR and turning the economy around.
We can count on that. It's part of the conservative anti-intellectuality and their fear of academic "elites."
Addendum 11/9/08 5:52 pm
Fareed Zakaria agrees with Krugman that Obama should not jettison his big plans because of the poor economy. The current situation requires aggressive action to cause the economy to turn around, so it is unlike the situation Clinton faced in 1993 in which borrowing money would raise the interest rate and slow the recovery that had already begun. His other argument involves the international economy.
That's another vote for Obama to act boldly.
Krugman does not add that the economy needs to be restructured so that consumers receive a fair share of the increases in productivity if the economy is to continue growing. To be fair, Krugman merely blogged on the one point above. There's a lot more to be said and done to repair the American economy and get us out of the slump created by the conservatives of the Reagan Revolution.
Addendum 4:20 pm
Krugman also makes a very important point in another of his blog posts.
state and local governments operate under fiscal rules that lead to booming spending and tax cuts when the economy is strong and the reverse when the economy is weak. This is bad governance: services are cut precisely when people need them most. It’s also bad macroeconomics: it exacerbates the business cycle.State and local governments operate under rules that require balancing budgets and not spending more than the immediate revenue permits. That means reducing spending to match reduced revenue during recessions. In government reducing spending means laying people off. That is a process that reduces consumption at the same time that the recession itself is growing worse because of reduced consumption.
Right now, we’re seeing a sharp drop in state revenues, which is going to lead to big cutbacks in spending and tax increases at exactly the wrong time.
Obama mentioned aid to state and local governments in his press conference yesterday. Indeed. This is a very quick form of fiscal stimulus, because it’s not about starting new spending, it’s about sustaining current spending. It should be done immediately.
A household has to operate that way, but the American federal government can borrow money internationally because the dollar is still the global reserve currency and because the American economy is the lynch-pin economy in the global world economy. Economists have recently been talking about the American economy becoming "decoupled" from the rest of the economies of the world, but the way our recession has so rapidly spread worldwide has ended such talk.
What that means is that if the rest of the world thinks that the American government will use the money to keep its economy functioning at higher levels, the rest of the world will continue to loan us money. (That means they will probably NOT loan us money to use for unnecessary wars, or they will loan us at higher interest rates.) It's to their own benefit to lend us the money we need to get out of recession. That's why Barack Obama is not going to be as restricted by lack of funds as so many in the media think he will. The current need for funds is no greater a proportion of the American GDP than was the case in WW II, and we came out of that period with rapid growth because of all the industrial building that had been done by the government during the war.
The Congressional conservatives will not buy this logic, which is strange because they generally buy the same kind of logic when they claim that supply side economics says that tax cuts pay for themselves.
The difference between the two ideas (government stimulating consumption vs. tax cuts for investors) is that economically government stimulus of the economy has been shown to produce a lot of growth per dollar of stimulus, while a dollar of tax cut rarely (and never at current low tax rates) has been shown to return as much as a dollar in revenue. Be that as it may, expect both the Republican conservatives and the blue-dog Democrats to fight deficit spending. Economic research-based facts will not change their conservative ideology. That's where Obama is going to have troubles in acting more boldly than FDR and turning the economy around.
We can count on that. It's part of the conservative anti-intellectuality and their fear of academic "elites."
Addendum 11/9/08 5:52 pm
Fareed Zakaria agrees with Krugman that Obama should not jettison his big plans because of the poor economy. The current situation requires aggressive action to cause the economy to turn around, so it is unlike the situation Clinton faced in 1993 in which borrowing money would raise the interest rate and slow the recovery that had already begun. His other argument involves the international economy.
One reason you worry about deficits is the loss of confidence it might generate abroad. If foreigners lose faith in the federal government's ability to pay its bills, they could dump their dollars and switch to other currencies. But, as Zakaria pointed out, the rest of the world facing the same economic plight we are; they're all going to be running high deficits in the short- to medium-term. A run on the dollar seems extremely unlikely.I concur with the recommendation for both reasons. More important, Kevin Drum considers Zakaria to be a representative of the accepted wisdom of the Washington villagers so that they probably also agree with him. That will make it a lot easier for Obama to go forward full speed.
Smart economists have been making this argument for a while now, but it's taken a while for non-economists to pick it up.
That's another vote for Obama to act boldly.
Republican conservatism is dead. Rove was a key architect of its death.
James Moore has written an open letter to Karl Rove, a key architect of the current set of disasters that afflict America. As a part of that letter, he explains why the conservative philosophy as applied by Rove, Gingrich and Bush is so very wrong. Rove and his crew are all about gaining power, not making government work.
The point is that Rove, together with Bush and Cheney and so many like them, have placed a stake into the heart of Republican conservatism. It is now dead. The election of Barack Obama means the end of conservatism, and the Republicans know it. Why else would the Congressional Republicans ask their constituents for ideas to recreate an effective conservatism for the twenty-first century?
It's time for the media to stop claiming America is a center-right nation. It's not. It's a centrist pragmatist nation that is much to big for the limited ideology of conservatism to deal with, and Karl Rove is a key architect is proving that fact.
See, here's the deal, Karl buddy, government is about service not power. If it doesn't serve the people, they reject it. When Katrina happened, the country saw what you and W had been doing. You used every institution of government to acquire more political power. All of the institutional knowledge from experienced employees and all of the non-believers were kicked out. Government agencies became largely dysfunctional and Katrina was the first time the covers were pulled back to show what you had done. All of that suffering, too, will be your legacy.I'd add one more thing to Moore's letter. The conservatives want more than power. They also want profit, and they see government as a massive source of money from which they can personally profit. Of course, that's easier if you get power over the government and do not recognize that government is about service to the people. That is the Libertarian strand of conservatism.
If you were so smart, you would have seen that politics, politics, politics, and no policy were bound to lead to your destruction. The only policies you and your people instituted were those that eliminated regulation and allowed near chaos to unfold. I'd put your pal Phil Gramm's Commodity Futures Trading Act under that heading.....the law that led to unregulated credit derivative swaps and has, consequently, led us to an economic precipice. I don't want to bring up Enron, but, what the hell? Remember how Gramm got energy futures trading deregulated and all of those people lost their investments but Bush got energy policy advice and campaign cash from Enron CEO Ken Lay and all of the other big dawgs on the bayou?
The truth is, Karl, every damned thing you did was wrong. It was for the wrong reasons and led to the wrong results. And half of what you did was based on lies. You still seem to think that if you lie loudly and long enough you will sound authoritative and people will begin to believe. But now not even Bill O'Reilly is buying your crap any more. Look back at your decisions and then try to tell yourself Bush and you are not responsible for the current crisis that threatens our very republic. It's all yours. We may have the leader now who can turn this around but it will be difficult. At a minimum, you are no longer a meaningful voice in the American political discourse and that gives me more hope.
The point is that Rove, together with Bush and Cheney and so many like them, have placed a stake into the heart of Republican conservatism. It is now dead. The election of Barack Obama means the end of conservatism, and the Republicans know it. Why else would the Congressional Republicans ask their constituents for ideas to recreate an effective conservatism for the twenty-first century?
It's time for the media to stop claiming America is a center-right nation. It's not. It's a centrist pragmatist nation that is much to big for the limited ideology of conservatism to deal with, and Karl Rove is a key architect is proving that fact.
The election is over. Now the media will try to redefine what it means
Barack Obama has run for President and won by the biggest margin since 1964. As the Republicans repeatedly told us, Obama was the third most liberal member of Senate, his running mate Joe Biden was the most liberal, and the third Senator in the top three is the avowed Socialist Bernie Sanders.
This of course proves that America remains a "center-right" nation. Just ask the media. Jamison Foser presents us some of the warped logic that the top members of the media use to come to that nonsensical conclusion. Go read his article, with the names of the luminaries who make the ridiculous claims.
well?
What are you waiting for? Click that link and read.
This of course proves that America remains a "center-right" nation. Just ask the media. Jamison Foser presents us some of the warped logic that the top members of the media use to come to that nonsensical conclusion. Go read his article, with the names of the luminaries who make the ridiculous claims.
well?
What are you waiting for? Click that link and read.
Remember those Republican threats of "vote fraud?" Nothing happened.
There were many fear expressed by before the election that there was going to be massive vote fraud to elect Barack Obama. The previously mostly unknown community action organization ACORN was declared to be threatening "massive vote fraud" even by John McCain. The election is over now, so what happened?
Remember those allegations by Republicans that there was going to be massive vote fraud in Ohio and Minnesota? From Zachary Roth at TPM Muckrake we get this report:
At least according to reports so far.
Of course, Colorado Secretary of State apparently DID purge an estimated 35,000 voters from Colorado's voter rolls in direct violation of a court order.
Then there's Wisconsin. Wisconsin's Republican Attorney General, Van Hollern, warned of voter fraud before the election. Afterwards he is reported to have said: "'As far as voting, everything seems to be going very smoothly in the state,' Van Hollen told WTMJ radio."
In Pennsylvania, where Republicans filed several lawsuits alleging threatened voter fraud before the election, there were a few problems.
Indiana? Again, expressed fears by Republican of vote fraud came to nothing.
The threats of vote fraud appear themselves to be the fraud. Had the election been closer, no doubt Republican lawyers would today be in court conjuring up further fantasies of phantom voters swinging elections towards Obama. The convincing repudiation of eight years of Republican Presidential rule made that a waste of time, as John McCain himself recognized when he conceded immediately after the polls closed in California.
No doubt the Republicans are placing the scripts they had intended to use back into storage for future elections. It could in other situations be an effective scam.
Remember those allegations by Republicans that there was going to be massive vote fraud in Ohio and Minnesota? From Zachary Roth at TPM Muckrake we get this report:
Ohio secretary of state Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, said in a statement released to TPMmuckraker the night of the election: "We have received no reports of election irregularities in Ohio today - and we have been on the lookout for any hint of illegal voting or voter suppression."So what about that classic of election voting problems, Florida? We get this report from Kate Klonick also at TPM Muckraker:
And her counterpart in Minnesota, Mark Ritchie, also a Democrat, told TPMmuckraker in an interview that his office had received no reports of voter fraud.
"on Nov. 4, there were glitches at individual polling places, but no major problemsSo all the fears expressed by Republicans of "massive vote fraud" were just hot air. So apparently were the Democratic concerns of vote stealing and vote suppression by Republicans.
From the Miami Herald:• The only scanner at Coral Ridge Mall in Fort Lauderdale broke and voters had to put ballots in a bin until it was replaced.
• In the David Park Community Center in Hollywood, the first 20 or so voters were handed misprinted ballots listing Amendment 3 twice.
• A poll worker in Sunny Isles Beach was dismissed for being ``rude and overzealous.''
• Two precincts in Palm Beach County opened late.
Statewide, voting went so smoothly that Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning called Election Day ''almost eerily quiet,'' despite an unofficial record turnout.
''It's been a great day for Florida,'' he said.
At least according to reports so far.
Of course, Colorado Secretary of State apparently DID purge an estimated 35,000 voters from Colorado's voter rolls in direct violation of a court order.
Then there's Wisconsin. Wisconsin's Republican Attorney General, Van Hollern, warned of voter fraud before the election. Afterwards he is reported to have said: "'As far as voting, everything seems to be going very smoothly in the state,' Van Hollen told WTMJ radio."
In Pennsylvania, where Republicans filed several lawsuits alleging threatened voter fraud before the election, there were a few problems.
" Fox News showed footage of a man in Black Panther attire holding a nightstick at the doorway of a polling place. There were long lines at many other locations. And according to voting rights groups, some voters whose names were missing from registration books were sent away without being given provisional ballots, as required. But none of these problems related to voter fraud. "In Nevada, the previously expressed GOP fears of voter fraud fizzled out. Noting happened.
Indiana? Again, expressed fears by Republican of vote fraud came to nothing.
The threats of vote fraud appear themselves to be the fraud. Had the election been closer, no doubt Republican lawyers would today be in court conjuring up further fantasies of phantom voters swinging elections towards Obama. The convincing repudiation of eight years of Republican Presidential rule made that a waste of time, as John McCain himself recognized when he conceded immediately after the polls closed in California.
No doubt the Republicans are placing the scripts they had intended to use back into storage for future elections. It could in other situations be an effective scam.
Friday, November 07, 2008
What makes Republicans afraid of the media?
This is an interesting observation from an exit pollster.
The list is almost endless. I can really see many such people preferring not to talk to pollsters for fear that their opinions will be misrepresented, altered in the report or even laughed at. Most Republicans who believe such things that seem strange to mainstream individuals are not combative people any more than most of us are, so they believe what they believe and prefer not to expose it to others they don't know.
That's my best guess, anyway. As I say, the observation is quite interesting.
Since like forever, people have been wondering why exit polls are so fucked up that they underrepresent Republicans by a little under two percent. Why are Republicans "reluctant?" [Snip]I can see that. Take social conservatives. They are often faith-based religious extremists who ignore and oppose things that most of the mainstream considered settled fact. Evolution is an example. Every time they tell what they really believe they take flack from those with mainstream beliefs. The financial conservatives believe in things like destroying Social Security to improve the economy. They face the same reaction. The Libertarians are highly faith-based, though to tell them that will be to start an argument. And NeoCons simply completely disbelieve in most diplomacy. Troops cause real changes, diplomacy is useless because your enemies will not do what you want/demand unless you hold a gun to their head.
It is very simply because Republicans don't trust the media. When people in my precinct saw network logos on my badge, they refused to participate, in a few cases after they had initially agreed to do so. One even suspected I would change his answers.
Republicans have weird beliefs which lead them to behave strangely. It's an ancient story. But in this case, we don't need an elaborate apparatus of behavioral science to tell us why Republicans won't submit their precious opinions to news orgs: they're afraid they'll be made to seem foolish.
The list is almost endless. I can really see many such people preferring not to talk to pollsters for fear that their opinions will be misrepresented, altered in the report or even laughed at. Most Republicans who believe such things that seem strange to mainstream individuals are not combative people any more than most of us are, so they believe what they believe and prefer not to expose it to others they don't know.
That's my best guess, anyway. As I say, the observation is quite interesting.
Erickson wants to rebuild the Republican Party
Here's his program. If he could make it work it might really turn the Republican Party upside down and create an effective political infrastructure. But Whiskeyfire makes a really good point.
The big thing that came out of the Reagan era was the coalition of conservatives and the Christian coalition. It made the Republican party dominant in national politics for three decades. But the Christian Coalition itself has declined. Ralph Reed left it in the 90's. Pat Robertson has declined as he aged, and Jerry Falwell has died. No one has replaced them. Karl Rove was able to mobilize the evangelicals for the 2004 Presidential election.
The failure of the Republican party to choose a Presidential candidate that appealed to both money conservatives and social conservatives was the demonstration of what is wrong with the Republican Party. The majority of American voters will not vote for the social conservatives, even if they have the ex-beauty queen Sarah Palin on the ticket as a second banana. The money conservatives and their Libertarian brethren have caused the current really severe economic Recession. The two branches of conservatism don't like each other much, but to succeed they had to work in concert.
That's the basis for the failure of John McCain's presidential dreams. That's why he had to bring on Sarah Palin who because a greater liability than an asset.
I don't think that Eric's efforts to get the Republican Party to effectively use the Internet is going to substitute for the close concert of the social conservatives and the money conservatives that came out of the Reagan era, and I don't think those two groups are going to go into another coalition that subordinates the social conservatives. Nor do I think that extremists of the type that characterize the money conservatives and also the social conservatives will be able to operate in the kind of bottom-up structure that the Internet best creates. Now the Libertarian Republicans can use the Internet as they proved when Ron Paul ran for President, but the Libertarians never got significantly more than 10% of the Republican primary voters.
The result is that Eric Erickson's proposal to rebuild the Republican Party will never work until that party recreates itself as a moderate, bottom up organization. Because of the way that redistricting creates Congressional districts filled with like-minded extremists, the surviving Republicans are the most extreme of the extremist Republicans. That's why the Republican civil wars has already started, and it will last for at least the next two elections.
Maybe after that some of Erickson's plan may become feasible. By then the Republicans will look a lot like the Democrats, though. Erickson will hate that.
One of the major issues that the GOP has going forward is that its campaign machinery -- the phone trees, voter lists, GOTV operations, that sort of thing -- that all seems to be entangled with the religious/crazy/bigot faction. The Prop 8 Yes thing, for instance, was hateful, sure, but well organized. The McCain campaign? Not so much.Can the Republicans build a competitive party that is not largely dominated by the social conservatives?
Can the GOP even run a campaign on a practical, logistical, structural level without having to genuflect to its most extreme, Palin-loving wing? It's not like the corporate cons seem to have ever really bothered to build the sort of infrastructure that you need to get folks on the phones and boots on the ground.
The Democratic party, the netroots, the Obama campaign, MoveOn, labor-- these are not really the same groups, but they overlap, and they all have an infrastructure and are able to do, say, GOTV and the other sorts of unglamorous troop-rallying work that you need to win an election. On the GOP side, well, the best voted for Obama, and the worst are full of passionate intensity.
The big thing that came out of the Reagan era was the coalition of conservatives and the Christian coalition. It made the Republican party dominant in national politics for three decades. But the Christian Coalition itself has declined. Ralph Reed left it in the 90's. Pat Robertson has declined as he aged, and Jerry Falwell has died. No one has replaced them. Karl Rove was able to mobilize the evangelicals for the 2004 Presidential election.
The failure of the Republican party to choose a Presidential candidate that appealed to both money conservatives and social conservatives was the demonstration of what is wrong with the Republican Party. The majority of American voters will not vote for the social conservatives, even if they have the ex-beauty queen Sarah Palin on the ticket as a second banana. The money conservatives and their Libertarian brethren have caused the current really severe economic Recession. The two branches of conservatism don't like each other much, but to succeed they had to work in concert.
That's the basis for the failure of John McCain's presidential dreams. That's why he had to bring on Sarah Palin who because a greater liability than an asset.
I don't think that Eric's efforts to get the Republican Party to effectively use the Internet is going to substitute for the close concert of the social conservatives and the money conservatives that came out of the Reagan era, and I don't think those two groups are going to go into another coalition that subordinates the social conservatives. Nor do I think that extremists of the type that characterize the money conservatives and also the social conservatives will be able to operate in the kind of bottom-up structure that the Internet best creates. Now the Libertarian Republicans can use the Internet as they proved when Ron Paul ran for President, but the Libertarians never got significantly more than 10% of the Republican primary voters.
The result is that Eric Erickson's proposal to rebuild the Republican Party will never work until that party recreates itself as a moderate, bottom up organization. Because of the way that redistricting creates Congressional districts filled with like-minded extremists, the surviving Republicans are the most extreme of the extremist Republicans. That's why the Republican civil wars has already started, and it will last for at least the next two elections.
Maybe after that some of Erickson's plan may become feasible. By then the Republicans will look a lot like the Democrats, though. Erickson will hate that.
Reid to Lieberman - you won't keep the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Harry Reid has reportedly told Joe Lieberman that he will not be allowed to keep the Chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. He can have another committee, but not that one.
Senator Lieberman has replied through aides that if he cannot keep that committee he will switch to join the Republican caucus. Unfortunately for Joe, Ryan Grim of Politico writes:
My advice to the Senate Democrats - It's good riddance to bad rubbish. No one can trust Joe Lieberman, and leaving him on a powerful committee is stupid.
Besides, Hillary Clinton doesn't have a committee Chairmanship. She might like that one.
Senator Lieberman has replied through aides that if he cannot keep that committee he will switch to join the Republican caucus. Unfortunately for Joe, Ryan Grim of Politico writes:
A Republican Senate aide said Friday morning that there was little McConnell could offer in terms of high-ranking committee slots, which is why Lieberman is resisting overtures from the Republican side.Steve Benen wonders why Lieberman is so dead set that he has to keep the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, then offers a likely explanation.
This seems to be routinely overlooked, but take a moment to consider what the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs actually does: it's the committee principally responsible for oversight of the executive branch. It's an accountability committee, charged with investigating the conduct of the White House and the president's administration.That would fit with his recent attacks on Obama and his support for McCain.
As chairman of this committee for the last two years, Lieberman decided not to pursue any accusations of wrongdoing against the Bush administration. Lieberman's House counterpart -- Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee -- was a vigilant watchdog, holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and launching multiple investigations. Lieberman preferred to let his committee do no real work at all. It was arguably the most pathetic display of this Congress.
And yet, now Lieberman acts as if keeping this chairmanship is the single most important part of his public life. Why would he be so desperate to keep the gavel of a committee he hasn't used? I'll let you in on a secret: he wants to start using the power of this committee against Obama.
Lieberman didn't want to hold Bush accountable, but he seems exceedingly anxious to keep the committee that would go after Obama with a vengeance, effectively becoming a Waxman-like figure -- holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and launching investigations against the Democratic president.
My advice to the Senate Democrats - It's good riddance to bad rubbish. No one can trust Joe Lieberman, and leaving him on a powerful committee is stupid.
Besides, Hillary Clinton doesn't have a committee Chairmanship. She might like that one.
The economy welcomes Barack Obama with all the conservative failures
Kevin Drum presents a summary of the economy this morning:
This actually is an economy that has turned down and shows no indication that it will even find the bottom any time in the foreseeable future.
The Monetarists suggest that the interest rate be lowered and the money supply be expanded more, but the inflation rate is already higher than the interest rate, meaning that the interest rate is effectively below zero. The credit crisis is all about the banks not lending money, and it is that lending of money that expands the money supply. The Monetarists are out of tricks.
Now it is time for Keynesian solutions. There needs to be a rapid stimulus program that will replace some of the jobs that are being lost. It won't stop the downward arc of the economy very soon, but it may make the bottom a little easier to find.
Politically it is clear that the Republicans who have survived in Congress primarily believe that government has no business trying to prevent economic collapse.
Thanks to the Reagan Revolution we are now headed into the worst economy since the Great Depression.
"The unemployment rate is at its worst in 14 years. October retail sales were the worst in 37 years. The ISM manufacturing index is at its lowest level in 26 years. And the service sector index is at its lowest level ever."This is the economy that John McCain, repeating from George W. Bush, says is "fundamentally sound."
This actually is an economy that has turned down and shows no indication that it will even find the bottom any time in the foreseeable future.
The Monetarists suggest that the interest rate be lowered and the money supply be expanded more, but the inflation rate is already higher than the interest rate, meaning that the interest rate is effectively below zero. The credit crisis is all about the banks not lending money, and it is that lending of money that expands the money supply. The Monetarists are out of tricks.
Now it is time for Keynesian solutions. There needs to be a rapid stimulus program that will replace some of the jobs that are being lost. It won't stop the downward arc of the economy very soon, but it may make the bottom a little easier to find.
Politically it is clear that the Republicans who have survived in Congress primarily believe that government has no business trying to prevent economic collapse.
Thanks to the Reagan Revolution we are now headed into the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Interesting items coming from the Rather lawsuit against CBS
When CBS shut down Dan Rather's investigation of Bush's failure to complete his Air National Guard service back in 2004 they promised Dan that they would conduct an independent investigation of the issue. They did not do so. Instead they hired former attorney general Richard Thornburgh and former Associated Press chief Louis Boccardi - both strong conservatives and Bush family allies - to conduct a white wash of CBS' closing down of Dan Rather's investigation.
Think it was not a CBS whitewash? Look at the list of other names considered for the "independent" investigation:
Dan Rather is correct. CBS management was in the tank for George Bush and the Bush administration.
Jeff Bercovici presents more on the story.
Think it was not a CBS whitewash? Look at the list of other names considered for the "independent" investigation:
CBS’s full list of "others":Kate O'Bierne? Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? William Kristol? If those individuals could conduct an independent investigation of Dan Rather it would be because someone was holding a gun at their heads. Thornburgh and Boccardi are no more objective.
* William Buckley
* Robert Novak
* Kate O’Beirne
* Nicholas Von Hoffman
* Tucker Carlson
* Pat Buchanan
* George Will
* Lou Dobbs
* Matt Drudge
* Robert Barkley
* Robert Kagan
* Fred Barnes
* William Kristol
* John Podhoretz
* David Brooks
* William Safire
* Bernard Goldberg
* Ann Coulter
* Andrew Sullivan
* Christopher Hitchens
* PJ O’Rourke
* Christopher Caldwell
* Elliot Abrams
* Charles Krauthammer
* William Bennett
* Rush Limbaugh
At the very bottom of the list, someone wrote in one more name. "Roger Ailes."
Dan Rather is correct. CBS management was in the tank for George Bush and the Bush administration.
Jeff Bercovici presents more on the story.
Back to cynicism - gasoline prices and the election
Anyone out there agree with me that gas prices at the pump will now start going back up since the election is over?
Supply and demand is the cover, but politics is the first driver of pump prices for gasoline around election time.
Supply and demand is the cover, but politics is the first driver of pump prices for gasoline around election time.
The NY Times approves of the Obama win in glowing terms
Nicholas Kristof describes what he calls "The Obama Dividend." He is talking about the return of the idea of America as a land of hope and opportunity instead of greed. Kristof's final statement is quite memorable:
Obama came in promising change, and it got such a glowing reception that his opponent McCain opportunistically jumped onto the bandwagon with "Me too! I'm also for change!" But what is really important is the reaction of the voters and the American public.
Now we need to see what "change" means. The long election has been interesting, but it's just a prologue to what comes next.
Considering that past, perhaps the most incisive comment on Mr. Obama’s election actually came long ago. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. addressed the Hawaii Legislature in 1959, two years before Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, and declared that the civil rights movement aimed not just to free blacks but “to free the soul of America.”For once Thomas Friedman gets it (mostly) right.
Mr. King ended his Hawaii speech by quoting a prayer from a preacher who had once been a slave, and it’s an apt description of the idea of America today: “Lord, we ain’t what we want to be; we ain’t what we ought to be; we ain’t what we gonna be, but, thank God, we ain’t what we was.”
Bush & Co. did not believe that government could be an instrument of the common good. They neutered their cabinet secretaries and appointed hacks to big jobs. For them, pursuit of the common good was all about pursuit of individual self-interest. Voters rebelled against that. But there was also a rebellion against a traditional Democratic version of the common good — that it is simply the sum of all interest groups clamoring for their share.These are not the statements of columnists commenting on the promises of politicians. These are columnists describing what they think the statement from the voters means.
“In this election, the American public rejected these narrow notions of the common good,” argued Sandel. “Most people now accept that unfettered markets don’t serve the public good. Markets generate abundance, but they can also breed excessive insecurity and risk. Even before the financial meltdown, we’ve seen a massive shift of risk from corporations to the individual. Obama will have to reinvent government as an instrument of the common good — to regulate markets, to protect citizens against the risks of unemployment and ill health, to invest in energy independence.”
But a new politics of the common good can’t be only about government and markets. “It must also be about a new patriotism — about what it means to be a citizen,” said Sandel. “This is the deepest chord Obama’s campaign evoked. The biggest applause line in his stump speech was the one that said every American will have a chance to go to college provided he or she performs a period of national service — in the military, in the Peace Corps or in the community. Obama’s campaign tapped a dormant civic idealism, a hunger among Americans to serve a cause greater than themselves, a yearning to be citizens again.”
None of this will be easy. But my gut tells me that of all the changes that will be ushered in by an Obama presidency, breaking with our racial past may turn out to be the least of them. There is just so much work to be done. The Civil War is over. Let reconstruction begin.
Obama came in promising change, and it got such a glowing reception that his opponent McCain opportunistically jumped onto the bandwagon with "Me too! I'm also for change!" But what is really important is the reaction of the voters and the American public.
Now we need to see what "change" means. The long election has been interesting, but it's just a prologue to what comes next.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
McCain created Palin as a national politician; Now his staff wants her destroyed.
The destruction of Sarah Palin as a national Republican politician proceeds. Now that McCain has conceded the election, the McCain staff is really working hard to discredit Sarah Palin. Why not? They knew how she was selected and they have observed her performance closely since the Republican National Convention. She has certainly not covered herself in glory. Did McCain know what he was getting? Frankly I doubt it.
Here is a video description of the Palin mess:
Sarah Palin is now going home to Alaska. She still faces charges that she misused her office to get her ex-brother-in-law fired and her use of Republican credit to buy clothing and stuff from Nieman Marcus and other high-end stores is going to go back with her. She may have local support particularly from evangelical religious groups, but her enemies have been given a lot of ammunition. Since she won the office as a different politician who opposed the entrenched powers, she may not have a lot of clout left to use to go after those people. (I write as an outsider to Alaska politics. I do not know the details. But a maverick who replaces incumbent politicians make a lot of enemies.)
Senator Ted Stevens appears to have been reelected, but the Senate is unlikely to accept him back because of his conviction for being bribed. Alaska law requires a special election when the sitting Senator leaves office. Sarah Palin might try to run for Steven's office. Will the old-line Alaska Republican powers let her have it?
The McCain campaign staff clearly do not like or respect Palin. Their efforts to trash her started on election day. That's going to be hard for her to defeat. But she is a candidate supported by the extremist evangelical right wing, which is why she was initially selected by McCain's staff to be the Vice Presidential candidate. The extremist Evangelical right wing is apparently strong in Alaska. That's Palin's base.
Can the McCain staff destroy Sarah Palin? It's clear they don't like or respect her. Her incompetence may have been the final nail in McCain's coffin. And even if they can destroy her, will it be effective both nationally and in Alaska, or only nationally? I'd bet she is done nationally. Within Alaska she has also made a lot of enemies, but her local support may allow her to survive politically there.
I see three decision points for Sarah Palin. She needs to deal with the ethics challenges immediately. She may try to run for Stevens seat. Then she may run for reelection as governor. If I were the national Democrats I would carefully provide support to her opponents at each of those points. Palin is extremely vulnerable at each of those points.
The efforts of the McCain staff to destroy Palin is a great place to start.
Here is a video description of the Palin mess:
Sarah Palin is now going home to Alaska. She still faces charges that she misused her office to get her ex-brother-in-law fired and her use of Republican credit to buy clothing and stuff from Nieman Marcus and other high-end stores is going to go back with her. She may have local support particularly from evangelical religious groups, but her enemies have been given a lot of ammunition. Since she won the office as a different politician who opposed the entrenched powers, she may not have a lot of clout left to use to go after those people. (I write as an outsider to Alaska politics. I do not know the details. But a maverick who replaces incumbent politicians make a lot of enemies.)
Senator Ted Stevens appears to have been reelected, but the Senate is unlikely to accept him back because of his conviction for being bribed. Alaska law requires a special election when the sitting Senator leaves office. Sarah Palin might try to run for Steven's office. Will the old-line Alaska Republican powers let her have it?
The McCain campaign staff clearly do not like or respect Palin. Their efforts to trash her started on election day. That's going to be hard for her to defeat. But she is a candidate supported by the extremist evangelical right wing, which is why she was initially selected by McCain's staff to be the Vice Presidential candidate. The extremist Evangelical right wing is apparently strong in Alaska. That's Palin's base.
Can the McCain staff destroy Sarah Palin? It's clear they don't like or respect her. Her incompetence may have been the final nail in McCain's coffin. And even if they can destroy her, will it be effective both nationally and in Alaska, or only nationally? I'd bet she is done nationally. Within Alaska she has also made a lot of enemies, but her local support may allow her to survive politically there.
I see three decision points for Sarah Palin. She needs to deal with the ethics challenges immediately. She may try to run for Stevens seat. Then she may run for reelection as governor. If I were the national Democrats I would carefully provide support to her opponents at each of those points. Palin is extremely vulnerable at each of those points.
The efforts of the McCain staff to destroy Palin is a great place to start.
President Obama and the American race problem
One thing about this Presidential campaign is that it did not feature a consideration of race as a central theme. It is my understanding that John McCain did not allow overt race-baiting as part of his campaign, and in my view, he largely succeeded. Obama wisely did not run as a Black candidate, but McCain had the option to try to force him into that role and as I understand it, he refused.
The result, in my opinion, is that the outcome of the Presidential campaign rests on factors other than race. Obama has been elected as the President of the United States, not as the Black President of the United States. To me that is one of the most amazing things in this very amazing Presidential year.
Sure considerations of race came in to it. They had to, since Obama is rather obviously Black even if you are unaware of his history. But that is now a side issue. It's not an unimportant issue, but it was not the central issue of this election.
As important as his race is to so many people, and as important historically it is that an African-American has been elected the American President, it is even more important that he was elected primarily because more voters think he is the better candidate to deal with the immediate problems America faces. Obama was not elected because he is Black, nor was he defeated because of his race. He was elected because out of the gaggle of candidates presented, the majority of voters felt that he was the best individual for the job.
Brown vs. Board of Education occurred while I was in elementary school, so I have lived all my aware life with the Civil Rights movement. The election of Barack Obama as President does not mean that the problems of Civil Rights and race are over, but it is the first time America has ever - as a nation - faced a set of problems and explicitly stated that race was not the first issue to be dealt with when choosing a leader.
That is the real progress we are seeing here.
Mary L. Dudziak has an excellent essay on Obama and the Image of America over at Balkinazition where I first posted this view as a comment. She describes the barrier America's racial problems have been to the American argument that its system of government was a model for the world.
The result, in my opinion, is that the outcome of the Presidential campaign rests on factors other than race. Obama has been elected as the President of the United States, not as the Black President of the United States. To me that is one of the most amazing things in this very amazing Presidential year.
Sure considerations of race came in to it. They had to, since Obama is rather obviously Black even if you are unaware of his history. But that is now a side issue. It's not an unimportant issue, but it was not the central issue of this election.
As important as his race is to so many people, and as important historically it is that an African-American has been elected the American President, it is even more important that he was elected primarily because more voters think he is the better candidate to deal with the immediate problems America faces. Obama was not elected because he is Black, nor was he defeated because of his race. He was elected because out of the gaggle of candidates presented, the majority of voters felt that he was the best individual for the job.
Brown vs. Board of Education occurred while I was in elementary school, so I have lived all my aware life with the Civil Rights movement. The election of Barack Obama as President does not mean that the problems of Civil Rights and race are over, but it is the first time America has ever - as a nation - faced a set of problems and explicitly stated that race was not the first issue to be dealt with when choosing a leader.
That is the real progress we are seeing here.
Mary L. Dudziak has an excellent essay on Obama and the Image of America over at Balkinazition where I first posted this view as a comment. She describes the barrier America's racial problems have been to the American argument that its system of government was a model for the world.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Here's what Barack Obama's win means to me.
I'm age 65. I graduated from an all-white segregated high school and attended Texas A&M as it was integrated. I have believed that there is no American or factual basis for White Supremacy. But I never thought that I would live to see a man with an African Black father and a White mother elected President of the United States.
I haven't seen the polls, but I don't expect that my generation voted for this very amazing man who is Barack Obama. The outcome of this election is a result of our younger Americans.
Modern Americans have done two things. First, they have failed to adopt the racism of their parents. Second, and much more important, they have recognized that the best person who ran for President this year was Barack Obama.
I want to thank the younger voters who I think have come out in unusual numbers to provide American with the wisdom of your individual decisions. You are proving how very important democracy is. A nation does not belong to its leaders. It belongs to its workers and its middle class.
I don't think that most of you younger Americans voted with thoughts or fears of race in your mind. You voted with an understanding that both the understanding of the problems America face and the competence to deal with the problems are what matters in our next President.
America today faces problems, in both in national security and in the economy, which are more threatening that any faced by Americans in two generations. Today we face those problems under the leadership of a man more capable of dealing with them than any other national leader we have had for generations.
Like so many American leaders from the past, Barak Obama comes from outside any significant American family. He has come literally from nowhere to become President elect of America.
I predict that he is going to become one of the most important American Presidents, first because the problems he faces are so very difficult and second because he is clearly so very competent that he can face those problems. As a side effect, he will also help to end the sad American history of racism and white supremacy.
America has once again demonstrated its ability to deal with major problems and adjustments by choosing better leaders. This isn't going to give Obama a walk as President. There isn't any real consensus regarding what problems America faces, and clearly no consensus about what to do about them. But in Barack Obama America now has a President who can often recognize the problems and their solutions. He also has enemies who will do everything possible to keep his from succeeding.
The American people have given Barack Obama strong support to deal with the problems faced by America. But strong opponents remain out there for him to deal with.
No pressure, Barack.
It's going to be an interesting time in the near future.
I haven't seen the polls, but I don't expect that my generation voted for this very amazing man who is Barack Obama. The outcome of this election is a result of our younger Americans.
Modern Americans have done two things. First, they have failed to adopt the racism of their parents. Second, and much more important, they have recognized that the best person who ran for President this year was Barack Obama.
I want to thank the younger voters who I think have come out in unusual numbers to provide American with the wisdom of your individual decisions. You are proving how very important democracy is. A nation does not belong to its leaders. It belongs to its workers and its middle class.
I don't think that most of you younger Americans voted with thoughts or fears of race in your mind. You voted with an understanding that both the understanding of the problems America face and the competence to deal with the problems are what matters in our next President.
America today faces problems, in both in national security and in the economy, which are more threatening that any faced by Americans in two generations. Today we face those problems under the leadership of a man more capable of dealing with them than any other national leader we have had for generations.
Like so many American leaders from the past, Barak Obama comes from outside any significant American family. He has come literally from nowhere to become President elect of America.
I predict that he is going to become one of the most important American Presidents, first because the problems he faces are so very difficult and second because he is clearly so very competent that he can face those problems. As a side effect, he will also help to end the sad American history of racism and white supremacy.
America has once again demonstrated its ability to deal with major problems and adjustments by choosing better leaders. This isn't going to give Obama a walk as President. There isn't any real consensus regarding what problems America faces, and clearly no consensus about what to do about them. But in Barack Obama America now has a President who can often recognize the problems and their solutions. He also has enemies who will do everything possible to keep his from succeeding.
The American people have given Barack Obama strong support to deal with the problems faced by America. But strong opponents remain out there for him to deal with.
No pressure, Barack.
It's going to be an interesting time in the near future.
Obama will be the 44th President!
California closed a few minutes ago, and the projections became 275 electoral votes for Obama out of a required 270.
In 1961 I graduated from an all-White segregated high school in Texas. Segregation, racism and White Supremacy never made sense to me, so I have always favored desegregation. But I never thought that I would live to see an African-American U.S. President. Now I have seen a man who is racially half White and half Black but more important than that who is amazingly competent elected U.S. President.
Obama's race is relatively unimportant. He is a superbly competent individual. Not perfect, but there is probably not another national politician who would be as capable of dealing with the economic collapse the conservatives have left to America as he is. That said, he will not remove the stain that slavery and racism have placed on America. But he has already in many ways redeemed America from the White Supremacist past just by becoming the Democratic nominee for President and now the American President-elect.
John McCain is right now conceding the election. He has begun by discussing the unique achievement of an African-American being elected President. As important as that is in so many ways, what really matters is that no one else who might have run for President is as competent and capable of performing as President in the economic and security conditions faced by our country.
I have supported and voted for Barack Obama for President. I did not do that because of his race. I did it because he is one of the most amazing individuals I have ever observed in national politics. I felt and still feel that Obama is a better candidate than was the very amazing Hillary Clinton. He is also a much, much better candidate than any Republican or conservative, including John McCain. John McCain really was the very best candidate the Republicans could have chosen, but he, his party and especially the conservatives and Neocons are simply not up to the challenges that face the next President of the United States.
In so many ways today has been an amazing day. Barack Obama will now be the 44th President.
In 1961 I graduated from an all-White segregated high school in Texas. Segregation, racism and White Supremacy never made sense to me, so I have always favored desegregation. But I never thought that I would live to see an African-American U.S. President. Now I have seen a man who is racially half White and half Black but more important than that who is amazingly competent elected U.S. President.
Obama's race is relatively unimportant. He is a superbly competent individual. Not perfect, but there is probably not another national politician who would be as capable of dealing with the economic collapse the conservatives have left to America as he is. That said, he will not remove the stain that slavery and racism have placed on America. But he has already in many ways redeemed America from the White Supremacist past just by becoming the Democratic nominee for President and now the American President-elect.
John McCain is right now conceding the election. He has begun by discussing the unique achievement of an African-American being elected President. As important as that is in so many ways, what really matters is that no one else who might have run for President is as competent and capable of performing as President in the economic and security conditions faced by our country.
I have supported and voted for Barack Obama for President. I did not do that because of his race. I did it because he is one of the most amazing individuals I have ever observed in national politics. I felt and still feel that Obama is a better candidate than was the very amazing Hillary Clinton. He is also a much, much better candidate than any Republican or conservative, including John McCain. John McCain really was the very best candidate the Republicans could have chosen, but he, his party and especially the conservatives and Neocons are simply not up to the challenges that face the next President of the United States.
In so many ways today has been an amazing day. Barack Obama will now be the 44th President.
It's a good Democratic night!
With Ohio going for Obama, if the remaining states who went for Kerry go for Obama he has the Presidency in a walk-away. Pennsylvania has also been projected for Obama, and the numbers look grim for McCain in Florida. Florida's voting problems are probably the reason why it has not already been called for Obama.
It's the Senate races that now become interesting. Sadly, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky appears to have won reelection, but he was not a likely loss.
The Democrats have gained five Senate seats.
So as of right now the Senate has jumped from 50 - 50 to 55 Democratic and 45 Republican, with many weak Republican Senate seats still to be determined. There will also be a Democratic Vice President in case of Senate ties.
In five minutes California polls close and they kick Obama to 275 of the 270 required electoral votes for President.
Addendum November 6, 2008 6:50 am CDT
The Oregonian has projected that Democrat Jeff Merkley has defeated Republican incumbent Senator Gordon Smith. (From TMP Election Central.)
That makes the gain six Democratic Senators.
It's the Senate races that now become interesting. Sadly, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky appears to have won reelection, but he was not a likely loss.
The Democrats have gained five Senate seats.
- Mark Udall has won the senate race in Colorado.
- Tom Udall has won the senate race in New Mexico.
- Jeanne Shaheen has won the Senate race in New Hampshire against John Sununu.
- Hagan has won the North Carolina Senate Race over Elizabeth Dole.
- Mark Warner has just one the senate race in Virginia.
So as of right now the Senate has jumped from 50 - 50 to 55 Democratic and 45 Republican, with many weak Republican Senate seats still to be determined. There will also be a Democratic Vice President in case of Senate ties.
In five minutes California polls close and they kick Obama to 275 of the 270 required electoral votes for President.
Addendum November 6, 2008 6:50 am CDT
The Oregonian has projected that Democrat Jeff Merkley has defeated Republican incumbent Senator Gordon Smith. (From TMP Election Central.)
That makes the gain six Democratic Senators.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Here is the immediate future for the Republican Party
What will defeat do to the Republicans?That's what Paul Krugman thinks, and the eight-year-long temper trantrum ending by the ridiculous impeachment of Clinton thrown by Congressional Republicans when Clinton won the Presidency in 1992 makes it appear very likely. He continues:
You might think, perhaps hope, that Republicans will engage in some soul-searching, that they’ll ask themselves whether and how they lost touch with the national mainstream. But my prediction is that this won’t happen any time soon.
Instead, the Republican rump, the party that’s left after the election, will be the party that attends Sarah Palin’s rallies, where crowds chant “Vote McCain, not Hussein!” It will be the party of Saxby Chambliss, the senator from Georgia, who, observing large-scale early voting by African-Americans, warns his supporters that “the other folks are voting.” It will be the party that harbors menacing fantasies about Barack Obama’s Marxist — or was that Islamic? — roots.
Why will the G.O.P. become more, not less, extreme? For one thing, projections suggest that this election will drive many of the remaining Republican moderates out of Congress, while leaving the hard right in place.
Republicans will still be in a position to block some Democratic initiatives, especially if the Democrats fail to achieve a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.Steve Benen points out that
And that blocking ability will ensure that the G.O.P. continues to receive plenty of corporate dollars: this year the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has poured money into the campaigns of Senate Republicans like Minnesota’s Norm Coleman, precisely in the hope of denying Democrats a majority large enough to pass pro-labor legislation.
But the G.O.P.’s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat.
...the [Republican] party's base has already staked its claim -- conservatives firmly believe that Republicans lost in 2006 and have struggled in 2008 because the party just isn't reactionary enough. Indeed, the party's activists are out for blood: "Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as 'cocktail party conservatives' who 'give aid and comfort to the enemy'. He told The Sunday Telegraph: 'There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party.'"America is entering the worst economic period since the Depression, and it is going to be saddled with a super reactionary angry right wing party who refuses to admit they caused much of the economic crisis. They will also attempt to block any effective efforts to resolve the economic problems they have left after Bush/Cheney leaves office.
It's tough enough to fix a bad mess when things break down anyway,but it's a lot harder when someone slaps you every time you try to pick up a tool to fix the mess and tells you "It'll fix itself!" That's the future of the Republican Party, though. Slapping anyone who tries to fix the disaster they left behind them.
Will a win by Obama result in both parties moving to the right?
Kevin Drum suggests that an Obama win Tuesday is going to push both the Republican Party and the Democratic party more to the right. The political losses for the Republicans will be among the more moderate Republicans, leaving the extremist right survivors in safe seats, while the Democratic wins in previously Republican districts are going to bring in more
Blue Dog” or conservative right-wing Democrats.
Which "right" will the Republicans move towards? There are at least two major directions the Republican right are moving, and they don't get along with each other well.
One direction is the small government - no regulation right, and the other is the religious right. It was the alliance of these two groups into the Reagan coalition that has given the conservatives political dominance since the Reagan era. At that time the Goldwater conservatives joined with the Christian Coalition to dominate national politics.
But what we saw in the 2007 - 2008 Republican presidential primaries was that those two groups no longer support the same candidates. Romney couldn't get the support of the religious right, Huckabee couldn't get anyone but the religious right, and the Ron Paul libertarians (a consistent 10%) couldn't accept either group.
In the meantime the traditional good-government pro-civil-rights Republicans no longer have political representation through the Republican Party. They disappeared with Lincoln Chaffee; Olympia Snowe and Chris Dodd linger on. Their descendants make up the Northeastern Democratic Party now.
The shorthand "moving to the Right" has become quite meaningless ideologically as the conservative Republican Party has fractionated into different groups of extremists. About the only thing the various groups making up the Republican Party have in common now is an extremist willingness to use authoritarian powers of government to get their own way and the willingness to spend government money corruptly to gain and maintain power.
Kevin’s analysis is a logical conclusion based on the older model of a left - right linear continuum which does not, in fact, exist. It was an artifact of the Cold War, and as a model explained the differences between American democracy and Socialists authoritarianism to some extent. But today the left – right model is as imaginary as the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It no longer explains significant political and economic realities because the Cold War is over and the institutions based on that bipolar world are gone. That means that Kevin’s analysis doesn’t work.
The older stability will be replaced by a new one when new institutions are created that reflect the new political and economic realities. Obama’s anticipated win is clearly being driven to a great extent by his ground game and his broad-based fundraising. His fundraising has permitted the development of a nationwide political organization, one which represents the moderate views of average people. This contrasts with the conservative think tanks which represent wealthy extremists and gives average people a way to effectively block those extremists.
After the election Obama’s organization is going to shrink, but it is not going away. Too many people have been trained, mobilized and motivated, and winning causes people to do the same thing that led to winning. Since the organization is funded primarily by a broad group of small donors it will be a moderate organization which will contrast to the narrow extremist organizations that make up the rightwing think tanks have been created since the Reagan era by wealthy donors. The Obama organization is the framework for a new institutional basis for American politics.
The Republicans and Democrats are not likely to both move “to the right” nationally as a result of this election. What is much more likely is that both parties are going to reorganize themselves. The Democrats are going to establish new institutions that allow them to effectively represent the majority of moderate voters, while the Republicans are going to continue to break up into competing extremist and generally authoritarian groups which will decline in political importance. After about two elections there will be Democrats who disagree with the dominant Democratic positions and who will break away to form new competing parties. Some will move over to the surviving Republican organizations which will become more moderate after the continued losses they are going to experience.
At least that’s what I think is most likely to happen. That’s on a national basis. Locally, of course, remnants of the older party structures will remain for at least a decade, probably longer. The development of a new political stability is going to take a while, and the Recession is going to last a number of years to scramble that development.
Blue Dog” or conservative right-wing Democrats.
Which "right" will the Republicans move towards? There are at least two major directions the Republican right are moving, and they don't get along with each other well.
One direction is the small government - no regulation right, and the other is the religious right. It was the alliance of these two groups into the Reagan coalition that has given the conservatives political dominance since the Reagan era. At that time the Goldwater conservatives joined with the Christian Coalition to dominate national politics.
But what we saw in the 2007 - 2008 Republican presidential primaries was that those two groups no longer support the same candidates. Romney couldn't get the support of the religious right, Huckabee couldn't get anyone but the religious right, and the Ron Paul libertarians (a consistent 10%) couldn't accept either group.
In the meantime the traditional good-government pro-civil-rights Republicans no longer have political representation through the Republican Party. They disappeared with Lincoln Chaffee; Olympia Snowe and Chris Dodd linger on. Their descendants make up the Northeastern Democratic Party now.
The shorthand "moving to the Right" has become quite meaningless ideologically as the conservative Republican Party has fractionated into different groups of extremists. About the only thing the various groups making up the Republican Party have in common now is an extremist willingness to use authoritarian powers of government to get their own way and the willingness to spend government money corruptly to gain and maintain power.
Kevin’s analysis is a logical conclusion based on the older model of a left - right linear continuum which does not, in fact, exist. It was an artifact of the Cold War, and as a model explained the differences between American democracy and Socialists authoritarianism to some extent. But today the left – right model is as imaginary as the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It no longer explains significant political and economic realities because the Cold War is over and the institutions based on that bipolar world are gone. That means that Kevin’s analysis doesn’t work.
The older stability will be replaced by a new one when new institutions are created that reflect the new political and economic realities. Obama’s anticipated win is clearly being driven to a great extent by his ground game and his broad-based fundraising. His fundraising has permitted the development of a nationwide political organization, one which represents the moderate views of average people. This contrasts with the conservative think tanks which represent wealthy extremists and gives average people a way to effectively block those extremists.
After the election Obama’s organization is going to shrink, but it is not going away. Too many people have been trained, mobilized and motivated, and winning causes people to do the same thing that led to winning. Since the organization is funded primarily by a broad group of small donors it will be a moderate organization which will contrast to the narrow extremist organizations that make up the rightwing think tanks have been created since the Reagan era by wealthy donors. The Obama organization is the framework for a new institutional basis for American politics.
The Republicans and Democrats are not likely to both move “to the right” nationally as a result of this election. What is much more likely is that both parties are going to reorganize themselves. The Democrats are going to establish new institutions that allow them to effectively represent the majority of moderate voters, while the Republicans are going to continue to break up into competing extremist and generally authoritarian groups which will decline in political importance. After about two elections there will be Democrats who disagree with the dominant Democratic positions and who will break away to form new competing parties. Some will move over to the surviving Republican organizations which will become more moderate after the continued losses they are going to experience.
At least that’s what I think is most likely to happen. That’s on a national basis. Locally, of course, remnants of the older party structures will remain for at least a decade, probably longer. The development of a new political stability is going to take a while, and the Recession is going to last a number of years to scramble that development.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Is Sarah Palin working to create an American Theocracy?
Is Sarah Palin a part of C. Peter Wagner's global religious effort to impose theocracies around the world? Bruce Wilson thinks so.
That certainly would explain why the Social Conservatives are so excited to have her on the Republican ticket with the elderly McCain. It would also explain why she is so absolutely self confident that she is ready to take over the Presidency if anything happens to McCain. That's part of God's plan, and she has nothing to worry about.
Here's Wilson's article. He also connects Palin to Katherine Harris.
That certainly would explain why the Social Conservatives are so excited to have her on the Republican ticket with the elderly McCain. It would also explain why she is so absolutely self confident that she is ready to take over the Presidency if anything happens to McCain. That's part of God's plan, and she has nothing to worry about.
Here's Wilson's article. He also connects Palin to Katherine Harris.
How Dick Cheney created the key policies of the eight-year Bush administration
Dick Cheney is known to be far and away the most powerful Vice President America has ever had. There is not even any debate on this subject. The obvious question is “How did he become so powerful?” It's not a new question.
This question is generally answered briefly, and pretty much everyone who knows about the issue answers it much the same way. The first response is to point to his experience in government. They will always point to Cheney’s experience in the White House as Ford’s chief of staff, his time in Congress during which he was Republican Whip, then his time as Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush. The second thing normally mentioned is George W. Bush’s dislike of the mechanics of governance, usually associated with a brief statement that as the first MBA President, “W” delegates his work to his subordinates. Both facts are true, but “W” has brought a lot of experienced people into government and delegated work to them. No one else has ever placed their own agenda into action in the way that defines the Bush Presidency. What has made Dick Cheney such a unique individual in “W’s” White House?
At last Barton Gellman explains how Cheney accomplished his task of setting so very much of the White House agenda in his excellent book Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency. There is a lot in the book, but what has not been clear until now has been what tools Cheney has used to manipulate government and set it to the tasks that forwarded his agenda. His agenda included the economic issues, the security issues and the energy issues.
Cheney was brought in as a defense – foreign policy expert to educate then Governor George W. Bush as he prepared to run for election as President. His broad experience in the federal government and his wide network of personal contacts made him a logical person to task with finding a Vice Presidential candidate to join with Bush. Cheney’s control of that process provided him with the background on potential candidates and at the same time to frame what characteristics the Vice President should have. Cheney defined the requirements such that he himself was the best candidate, convinced Bush that he met the requirements for Vice President, and with his knowledge of the other candidates’ deepest secrets he was able to present them to W in such a way that they were not selected. In the end, candidate George W. Bush was presented with a single clear candidate who met the requirements Cheney had established – Cheney himself.
Cheney was not selected the assist in electing Bush. He was selected in part because he would not run for President himself, so he would not become an opponent within the White House fighting Bush’s policies. So Cheney was chosen to assist Bush govern when he was elected without becoming a threat to Bush.
Cheney started organizing the executive office even as the battle for the Florida votes was being fought by Jim Baker. At that point Cheney took over the staffing of the federal government for the incoming administration. He asked Bush for the role and Bush gave it to him. He knew what positions needed to be filled, what individuals in those positions could do for him or to him, and he had his wide network of contacts and friends available to fill those jobs. He also had a Republican Senate to work with, so that his appointees could be quickly confirmed.
The network that Cheney set up is quit interesting. First he brought “Scooter” Libby and David Addington into his own office. These were people he had long worked with. He then arranged for everything in the White House to run through his office. In addition, he had Libby assigned as Assistant to the President, the highest rank in the White House so that he outranked almost everyone in Bush’s office. Several other members of Cheney’s staff also held the same rank as individuals doing the same job for the President. Mary Matalin, Cheney’s Counselor, shared rank and office space with Karen Hughes who was Counselor for Bush. In previous White Houses the members of the Vice Presidents’ office held rank one level below that of the equivalent person on the President’s staff.
Then Cheney chose individuals for the policy positions. Cheney placed Condoleezza Rice as National Security Advisor (she had previously worked for him) and backed her up with Steven J. Hadley who had also worked for Cheney at the Department of Defense. Then he placed Colin Powell, who he had previously promoted to Chief of Staff when he was Secretary of Defense, at Secretary of State . Donald Rumsfeld, who went to Secretary of Defense, had been Cheney’s mentor and closest friend since they worked together under Nixon. Paul O’Neil, who went to Secretary of Treasury, had worked closely with Cheney when Cheney was Ford’s chief of staff. Cheney chose John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Ashcroft had embarrassingly just lost a Senate race to a man who had died three weeks before the election, and was grateful to Cheney for the position.
Cheney was not working just to get control of the top of the major departments. He also knew that a lot of issues that came to the top for decisions had been selected and framed by individuals at levels below Department Secretary, so he suggested that trusted acolytes be appointed positions at lower levels in the bureaucracy. One example is John Bolton who went to the State Department to keep Colin Powell from going off Cheney’s defined reservation. These appointments gave Cheney control or awareness of new issues as they moved up the bureaucracy and gave him a major advantage over other players of bureaucratic politics since he was generally prepared for new issues before they were.
The foreign policy team consists of The Attorney General, The central intelligence director and the secretaries of state, defense and treasury. When the Foreign policy team meets, it is called the Principals Committee, except when the President is attending. Then it is called the National Security Council. The normal job of the National Security Adviser is to chair meetings of the Principals Committee. Chairing the committee means to set the agenda and to coordinate activities the committee directs. Cheney chose to join the committee, making him the highest ranking member when the President was absent. Richard Haas, director of policy planning in the State Department, later described Cheney’s role as getting “Three bites at the apple,” on every decision. Cheney got his information from the deputies, then from the Principal’s committee, and then had his influence on Bush when the two of them were alone.
This wasn’t all that Cheney was involved in. As Vice President he had an office with the Senate. He also had regular meetings with Senator Arlen Specter and a few other senior Republican Senators. He also went to his old friend Bill Thomas, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and asked for an office in the House. He got one right off the floor. This was important because all tax bills originate in the House.
With this structure in the executive branch and congress as well as his web of contacts throughout the government Cheney was in position to be aware of and able to influence major issues from their inception to the point at which George W. Bush finally decided what to do with them. This was possible because Bush himself was disinterested in most of what Cheney was doing .
It appears to me that the hard right-wing turn of the Bush administration in Bush’s first term was largely dictated by Cheney’s agenda. It was permitted by Bush because he trusted Cheney. Cheney immediately followed any direction given by Bush and so kept that trust, but in many cases Bush simply did not make a decision, letting issues grow and fester in the bureaucracy. In those cases Cheney felt free to use his own power to implement the elements of his own agenda.
Barton Gellman describes this process in much greater depth and carries it on well past its initiation. The book is worth buying and reading.
This question is generally answered briefly, and pretty much everyone who knows about the issue answers it much the same way. The first response is to point to his experience in government. They will always point to Cheney’s experience in the White House as Ford’s chief of staff, his time in Congress during which he was Republican Whip, then his time as Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush. The second thing normally mentioned is George W. Bush’s dislike of the mechanics of governance, usually associated with a brief statement that as the first MBA President, “W” delegates his work to his subordinates. Both facts are true, but “W” has brought a lot of experienced people into government and delegated work to them. No one else has ever placed their own agenda into action in the way that defines the Bush Presidency. What has made Dick Cheney such a unique individual in “W’s” White House?
At last Barton Gellman explains how Cheney accomplished his task of setting so very much of the White House agenda in his excellent book Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency. There is a lot in the book, but what has not been clear until now has been what tools Cheney has used to manipulate government and set it to the tasks that forwarded his agenda. His agenda included the economic issues, the security issues and the energy issues.
Cheney was brought in as a defense – foreign policy expert to educate then Governor George W. Bush as he prepared to run for election as President. His broad experience in the federal government and his wide network of personal contacts made him a logical person to task with finding a Vice Presidential candidate to join with Bush. Cheney’s control of that process provided him with the background on potential candidates and at the same time to frame what characteristics the Vice President should have. Cheney defined the requirements such that he himself was the best candidate, convinced Bush that he met the requirements for Vice President, and with his knowledge of the other candidates’ deepest secrets he was able to present them to W in such a way that they were not selected. In the end, candidate George W. Bush was presented with a single clear candidate who met the requirements Cheney had established – Cheney himself.
Cheney was not selected the assist in electing Bush. He was selected in part because he would not run for President himself, so he would not become an opponent within the White House fighting Bush’s policies. So Cheney was chosen to assist Bush govern when he was elected without becoming a threat to Bush.
Cheney started organizing the executive office even as the battle for the Florida votes was being fought by Jim Baker. At that point Cheney took over the staffing of the federal government for the incoming administration. He asked Bush for the role and Bush gave it to him. He knew what positions needed to be filled, what individuals in those positions could do for him or to him, and he had his wide network of contacts and friends available to fill those jobs. He also had a Republican Senate to work with, so that his appointees could be quickly confirmed.
The network that Cheney set up is quit interesting. First he brought “Scooter” Libby and David Addington into his own office. These were people he had long worked with. He then arranged for everything in the White House to run through his office. In addition, he had Libby assigned as Assistant to the President, the highest rank in the White House so that he outranked almost everyone in Bush’s office. Several other members of Cheney’s staff also held the same rank as individuals doing the same job for the President. Mary Matalin, Cheney’s Counselor, shared rank and office space with Karen Hughes who was Counselor for Bush. In previous White Houses the members of the Vice Presidents’ office held rank one level below that of the equivalent person on the President’s staff.
Then Cheney chose individuals for the policy positions. Cheney placed Condoleezza Rice as National Security Advisor (she had previously worked for him) and backed her up with Steven J. Hadley who had also worked for Cheney at the Department of Defense. Then he placed Colin Powell, who he had previously promoted to Chief of Staff when he was Secretary of Defense, at Secretary of State . Donald Rumsfeld, who went to Secretary of Defense, had been Cheney’s mentor and closest friend since they worked together under Nixon. Paul O’Neil, who went to Secretary of Treasury, had worked closely with Cheney when Cheney was Ford’s chief of staff. Cheney chose John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Ashcroft had embarrassingly just lost a Senate race to a man who had died three weeks before the election, and was grateful to Cheney for the position.
Cheney was not working just to get control of the top of the major departments. He also knew that a lot of issues that came to the top for decisions had been selected and framed by individuals at levels below Department Secretary, so he suggested that trusted acolytes be appointed positions at lower levels in the bureaucracy. One example is John Bolton who went to the State Department to keep Colin Powell from going off Cheney’s defined reservation. These appointments gave Cheney control or awareness of new issues as they moved up the bureaucracy and gave him a major advantage over other players of bureaucratic politics since he was generally prepared for new issues before they were.
The foreign policy team consists of The Attorney General, The central intelligence director and the secretaries of state, defense and treasury. When the Foreign policy team meets, it is called the Principals Committee, except when the President is attending. Then it is called the National Security Council. The normal job of the National Security Adviser is to chair meetings of the Principals Committee. Chairing the committee means to set the agenda and to coordinate activities the committee directs. Cheney chose to join the committee, making him the highest ranking member when the President was absent. Richard Haas, director of policy planning in the State Department, later described Cheney’s role as getting “Three bites at the apple,” on every decision. Cheney got his information from the deputies, then from the Principal’s committee, and then had his influence on Bush when the two of them were alone.
This wasn’t all that Cheney was involved in. As Vice President he had an office with the Senate. He also had regular meetings with Senator Arlen Specter and a few other senior Republican Senators. He also went to his old friend Bill Thomas, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and asked for an office in the House. He got one right off the floor. This was important because all tax bills originate in the House.
With this structure in the executive branch and congress as well as his web of contacts throughout the government Cheney was in position to be aware of and able to influence major issues from their inception to the point at which George W. Bush finally decided what to do with them. This was possible because Bush himself was disinterested in most of what Cheney was doing .
It appears to me that the hard right-wing turn of the Bush administration in Bush’s first term was largely dictated by Cheney’s agenda. It was permitted by Bush because he trusted Cheney. Cheney immediately followed any direction given by Bush and so kept that trust, but in many cases Bush simply did not make a decision, letting issues grow and fester in the bureaucracy. In those cases Cheney felt free to use his own power to implement the elements of his own agenda.
Barton Gellman describes this process in much greater depth and carries it on well past its initiation. The book is worth buying and reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)