Much of the nation is looking happily at New Orleans today in celebration of the Saints' Super Bowl victory, in no small part as a vindication of that battered city's spirit in the long wake of Hurricane Katrina. But New Orleans experienced another amazing event over the weekend: the landslide victory of Louisiana Lt. Governor Mitch Landrieu in his third bid to become mayor of the Crescent City.

After months of speculation about who, exactly, would face Landrieu in a pre-ordained runoff (Louisiana's "jungle primary" system requires a rare majority vote in a "first primary" of candidates from all parties to avoid a runoff), Mitch, the son of former mayor Moon Landrieu and the brother of Sen. Mary Landrieu, won with two-thirds of the vote (against five serious challengers) and nearly that high a percentage of the African-American vote in this majority African-American city. That's remarkable, given the 2006 mayoral election in which Ray Nagin beat Landrieu in a race-saturated campaign.

Landrieu's huge victory margin and cross-racial voting appeal represent a unity sign for New Orleans that can't match the universal adulation of the Saints, but is nonetheless pretty impressive. He will need the good will in one of the country's toughest jobs.

Link | Comments (0)

If you didn't watch Sarah Palin's speech at the National Tea Party Convention on Saturday night, you should definitely give it a gander. It was in some respects an unprecedented opportunity for her: a prepared text (obviously her best format), but not one scripted by a campaign (unlike her 2008 Republican Convention address), and guaranteed major media attention. As a private citizen, she was in a position to say pretty much whatever she wanted. Yes, the venue was a bit tricky, because of the widespread criticism of the Tea Party Convention itself, but not remotely as perilous as her resignation speech as governor of Alaska.

She used her own Saturday Night Live opportunity to perform four tasks: general cheerleading for the Tea Party Movement (while making it clear the immediate venue and the controversial for-profit organization that sponsored it was a small piece of that Movement); a quick tour d'horizon of global hot spots to begin addressing one of her most glaring weaknesses, a lack of foreign policy chops; an assortment of crowd-pleasing snarky attacks on the Obama adminstration, not very original but pretty well-delivered; and an extremely conventional recitation of time-honored conservative themes, punctuated by ritual invocations of the Holy Name of Ronald Reagan.

Anyone who thinks the Tea Party Movement is vastly at odds with the dominant conservative wing of the Republican Party should observe that this speech could have been delivered at a Lincoln Day dinner pretty much anywhere in the country, and would have received the same rapturous audience reaction.

Indeed, the speech is a good illustration of why Palin creates such dramatically different perceptions among different groups of politically active people. To most progressives, every other line in the speech was something of a howler, thanks to the exceptionally unselfconscious way in which she glides over self-contradictions. She genuflected at the altar of constitutional supremacy even as she mocked the president as a law professor. She called for a radical attack on budget deficits while she demanded more tax cuts, often in the same sentence. She repeatedly assaulted the of lack of transparency in Democratic policy formulation, but failed to offer any policy prescriptions other than minor (and frankly, stupid) conservative pet rocks like interstate health insurance sales or her own well-rehearsed pet rock of expanding fossil-fuel exploration. She redundantly assailed Wall Street bailouts that she endorsed when they were actually happening. And with every breath, she posed as just another citizen-activist fighting against political elites and media persecution, even though she was a professional politician lifted from obscurity by Washington-based Republican political professionals and then made a national celebrity by constant media attention.

But to conservative ideologues, Palin is simply expounding Revealed Truth, in the uncomplicated manner attributed to the sainted Reagan, and her red meat attacks on Democrats, her allusions to persecution by "elites," and her pose of independence from the GOP establishment, are all projections of their own feelings, cultivated over many years.

And that's why having watched Palin's act in Nashville, I disagree more strongly than ever with those who assert she can't possibly launch a viable campaign for the presidency in 2012. No, I don't think she will be elected president, but yes, I think it's possible she could win the Republican nomination.

To assess this question, you have to appreciate the psychology of movement conservatives at this particular moment of political history. Most of them have believed all along that there is a "hidden majority" of conservatives in America that can only be crystallized by the most rigorous conservative candidates and messages. After 1964, at least, conservatives have attributed every single Republican presidential defeat to a combination of RINO machinations, "moderate" policy prescriptions, and an unwillingness to exploit the opposition's vulnerability by any means necessary--all mistakes imposed by Republican "elites" who contemptuously betray conservative interest groups and causes. These are the kind of people who started showing up at McCain rallies in the autumn of 2008 to upbraid their candidate for failing to talk about Jeremiah Wright and ACORN, and who empathized viscerally with Palin's public frustration about the campaign's unwillingness to "take the gloves off" (a frustration she alluded to in her Nashville speech).

I don't think most progressives fully appreciate how vindicated conservative activists feel right now. Since the 2008 elections, their party has executed the most remarkable turn away from the political center any losing party has probably ever undertaken. RINOs have been intimidated and silenced; Republican Members of Congress have been whipped into highly disciplined submission; policy positions on issues ranging from health care to climate change to foreign policy that were highly respectable in GOP circles just a few years ago are now "socialist" anathema. And in consolidation of earlier conservative victories within the GOP, legalized abortion is now almost universally considered murder; "moral relativism," including homosexuality, is regarded as an abomination inflicted on a suffering "real American" population by decadent elites in Sodom and Gomorrah enclaves on the coasts; and any suggestion that Islamic jihadism is less than an Cold War-level existential threat is treated as "hate-America" semi-treason.

And lo and behold, even as Republicans finally take hard-core conservative advice, their electoral prospects are blossoming. A Tea Party ally has won Ted Kennedy's Senate seat! Even liberal media villains expect a big Republican victory in 2010! With every day, more American are beginning to blame Obama and the Democrats for the economic crisis, and Republican discipline in the Senate ensures he can't do much about it. And moreover, the most vibrant popular political movement in the country, the Tea Party Movement, is pushing Republicans (and perhaps the country) even further to the right, aiding materially not only in the savaging of Obama, but in the ongoing purge of RINOs and "moderate" squishes.

This is the context within which any assessment of Sarah Palin's immediate political future needs to be conducted. It's a context in which vast and largely sympathetic media coverage is devoted to an amateurish, financially-questionable convention in Nashville where people like Tom Tancredo and Roy Moore really don't stand out. It's a context where Sarah Palin is firmly in the mainstream.

So why wouldn't this sudden mega-celebrity, who believes her career is the object of divine favor, and who is surrounded constantly with adulation made even more intense by any mockery of her misteps, run for president? Why not take a chance on completely eclipsing Mike Huckabee and utterly destroying Tim Pawlenty in the Right-to-Life dominated caucuses in Iowa, a state where a new Des Moines Register poll shows one-third of all voters supporting the Tea Party Movement?

That's all a long way off, and a lot could change. 2010 may not after all represent the great gittin' up morning that conservatives expect. At some point, conservative activists may finally get tired of Palin's maddening lack of specificity, or tumble to the fact that Democratic horror of Palin does not actually represent fear of her general-election appeal. Maybe she really doesn't want anything other than her current level of fame or her very manageable political work-load. And perhaps her fans will find a new, or old, champion (her Fox colleague Glenn Beck, for example, seems to think Rick Santorum is The Bomb).

But it's far past time to stop pretending that Palin is just a joke. If her performance in Nashville was taken seriously by the kind of people who tend to dominate the Republican nominating process--and it was--then she's got a political future that she can only enhance by continuing to pose as the personification of grassroots conservative activism, "you betchas" and all.

Link | Comments (0)

Democrats should be encouraged by a new survey conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research in conjunction with McKinnon Media for Common Cause, Change Congress and the Public Campaign Action Fund entitled "Strong Campaign Finance Reform: Good Policy, Good Politics." According to the Executive Summary, The survey, which was conducted 2/2-4, 2010 found that, among 2010 LV's:

Voters, particularly independents, strongly embrace the Fair Elections Now Act, a system that allows candidates who eschew contributions over 100 dollars to receive public matching funds for money they raise from individuals in their own state. Voters support the Fair Elections Now Act by a two-to-one margin (62 to 31 percent). Perhaps more important for congressional incumbents, support for the Fair Elections Now Act offers a significant political boost. By a net of 15 points, voters say they are more likely to support the re-election of their Member of Congress (asked by name) if he or she votes in favor of a reform package that includes the Fair Elections Now Act as well as limits on spending by foreign corporations, even after hearing messaging in opposition to the proposal.

As authors Stan Greenberg, Andrew Baumann, Jesse Contario conclude, the study indicates that the likely voters of 2010 are "staunchly opposed to anything that makes it easier for special interests to influence the outcome of elections." This could be a winning issue for Dems looking toward the November elections. For more detail, read the Memo here and the PDF Questionairre here.

Link | Comments (0)

This item by TDS Co-Editor William Galston is crossposted from The New Republic.

Our political debates, our public discourse—on current economic and domestic issues—too often bear little or no relation to the actual problems the United States faces.

The national interest lies in high employment and steady expansion of output, in stable prices and a strong dollar. The declaration of such an objective is easy; their attainment in an intricate and interdependent economy and world is a little more difficult. To attain them, we require not some automatic response but hard thought

--John F. Kennedy, Commencement Address at Yale University, June 11, 1962

We deliberate, not about ends, but about means.

--Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics III. iii

Harvey Mansfield, the well-known conservative professor of political philosophy (and—full disclosure—a longtime friend) has penned a serious and civil critique of what he takes to be the animating impulse of the Obama administration. The nub of his argument is that Obama is a “progressive” whose purported non- (or post-) partisanship is designed to put certain issues “beyond political dispute” so that arguments are about means, not ends. And once the argument is about means, the door is opened wide to “rational administration” and the rule of experts.

Take health care. Mansfield interprets Obama’s statement that "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last" as an effort to take the issue out of politics once and for all—to decide, by side-stepping, the fundamental issue of principle. In his view, that issue is: “Should the government take over health care or should it be left to the private sphere?” The question precedes, and trumps, the myriad technical issues that transform the reform impulse into impenetrable, trust-destroying 2,000-page bills. By pursuing reform without dwelling on that question, he writes, Obama's worldview “wants to put an end to politics. It considers its measures to be progressive, and progress to be irreversible.” The problem with progress, so understood, is that it is at war with political liberty, rightly understood. One cannot seek to place matters of principle beyond politics without wanting “an imposed political solution.” Some human beings—and by implication, political parties—love progress more than they love liberty; others reverse the hierarchy. Mansfield stands with the party of liberty, the republican principle, against the party of progress, the party of rational administration, which is “more suited to monarchy than to republics.”

Where to begin? Mansfield offers an elaborate argument in defense of the proposition that Obamacare represents a government takeover. I disagree and could offer an equally elaborate rebuttal. I could argue, as well, that Obama’s appeal to transcend the division between red and blue America reflects not a desire to end partisan argument, but rather most Americans’ disgust with the contemporary hyper-partisanship that thwarts effective governance and allows problems to fester indefinitely. These are hardly trivial matters. But because they would divert us from the questions Mansfield raises, I shall pursue them no farther.

As Mansfield knows very well, he does Democrats no favor by framing current disputes as conflicts between progress and liberty. In American politics, the defenders of liberty always occupy the rhetorical high ground. If there really were a contradiction between progress and liberty, progress would surely lose—and so would the party of progress. So there are two questions. First, is there such a contradiction? And second, if there isn’t—if what we really have is a dispute between two competing understandings of liberty—which should we prefer?

I can dispose of the first question quickly: There is no inherent contradiction between progress and liberty. Simply put, removing issues from the political agenda—placing them beyond dispute—often promotes liberty. After political contestation and a bloody war, we decided that slavery was impermissible, and we reordered our laws and institutions accordingly. A century later, we made a parallel decision about racial discrimination, with similar consequences.

I suppose we could view these questions as permanently open to debate. But we don’t, and rightly so. In that sense, there is a “progressive” component to our political history: While some questions remain open, others don’t. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Settling questions neither ends politics nor denies liberty.

Mansfield might reply that, while some disputes raise such fundamental issues, most don’t, and it disserves political liberty to place the latter beyond the bounds of ordinary political contestation. Fair enough. So what is Obama actually saying—about health care, for example?

As I understand the president’s argument, it goes something like this: Our current health care system’s costs are rising at an unsustainable rate, threatening businesses, households, and our public finances. At the same time, nearly 50 million people go without health insurance—some by choice, to be sure, but most out of necessity. The only way to deal with all these problems effectively is to get nearly everyone into the insurance system, with a mix of subsidies and mandates, while creating a more competitive market among insurance plans. He may be right about this, or he may be wrong. But the key point for my purposes is that he is putting forth his plan as the means to an ensemble of ends—universal insurance coverage in a system that reduces the rate of cost increases—that he takes to be both desirable and essential to the long-term common good.

This is a political argument, pure and simple. The president never intended to side-step politics, and he certainly did not succeed in doing so. He hoped that his articulation of the good to be achieved through his plan would outweigh the objections—such as cost and complexity—that he knew would be arrayed against it.

There are several ways to disagree with the president’s proposal. One is to say that while his ends are defensible, his means are defective. This is the line that Representative Paul Ryan takes, as the president has acknowledged. But note that this debate lies squarely within the arena of deliberation as Aristotle defines it. Nothing apolitical or liberty-denying about that--unless deliberation itself suffers from these defects, which would be an odd contention.

Another way of disagreeing with the president is to say that his ends are less important than he thinks—otherwise put, that we can better serve the public interest by giving priority to competing ends. In this vein, many Republicans contend that because even people without insurance get care when they need it, through emergency rooms or charitable organizations, it is unnecessary to use either legal coercion or public funds to universalize insurance coverage. And many fiscal hawks argue that the mechanisms the president uses to fund his proposal—tax increases and Medicare cuts—should be used instead to reduce the long-term federal budget deficit, which is projected to soar unsustainably. Again, a classic political debate, of the sort Aristotle analyzed in the Rhetoric, and the president has done nothing to short-circuit it.

Mansfield gives short shrift to both these sorts of disagreements, focusing instead on a third, which is (to repeat) whether government or the private sphere should take the lead. He describes this as a question of “principle.” Is it? No doubt this question frames a major disagreement between the two political parties, and among Americans. And, as I’ve argued repeatedly, public mistrust of government has done more than anything else to weaken the president’s health reform effort.

The deeper question concerns not public sentiment, but, rather, the basis on which government may legitimately act under the Constitution. In 1933, FDR argued that that only the powers of government could be adequate to the exigencies of the moment. If so, he said, it could not be the case that our Constitution had disabled us from meeting a grave threat to the general welfare, and potentially to constitutional government itself. He won that argument: We live today in the legacy of his victory, and (I say this at the risk of sounding “progressive”), we’re not going back.

The alternative formulation of the dispute--Mansfield’s, I think--is that the issue isn’t the relation of means and ends, but rather the right of government to act in certain ways. If government doesn’t have the right, then considerations of efficacy are irrelevant. Even if government could bring about a good result by acting ultra vires, doing so would be an invasion of liberty, which is the most fundamental good. Rather than invade liberty, we should be prepared to live with the consequences of government forbearance. (I note for the record that if Abraham Lincoln had accepted this view, we’d probably be presenting passports at the Virginia/Maryland border.)

This brings me to the second question: If the issue is liberty, what is the nature of liberty, rightly understood? And does the Obama health care plan invade liberty, so understood?

To begin, experience gives us no reason to conclude that government is the only, or always the gravest, threat to freedom; clerical institutions and concentrations of unchecked economic power have often vied for that dubious honor. The unchecked market, moreover, regularly produces social outcomes at odds with the moral conditions of a free society. Capitalism does not reliably produce, or reward, the good character a free society needs: Perceptive observers from Charles Dickens to Tom Wolfe have given us ample evidence to the contrary. And, while it may be that long-term dependence on government saps the spirit of self-reliance that liberty requires, there are other forms of dependence---economic, social, and even familial---that often damage character in much the same way.

At the heart of the conservative misunderstanding of liberty is the presumption that government and individual freedom are fundamentally at odds. At the heart of any liberal understanding of freedom is the proposition that public power can advance freedom as well as undermine it.

Continue reading "TDS Co-Editor William Galston: Freedom Agenda" »

Link | Comments (0)

If you get bored with pre-Super Bowl hype today or tomorrow, you should check out media reports from the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville. The controversial (but still sold-out) event did not get off to a very smooth start, according to the Washington Post:

The convention's first day lacked the orchestrated staging of most modern political events. The convention host delivered a meandering welcome speech without notes, saying he misplaced them. Former congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) offered a fiery defense of Judeo-Christian faith and traditional American values, but there was no prayer or Pledge of Allegiance to open the convention -- nor was there an American flag in the convention hall. ([Tea Party Nation spokesman] Skoda blamed the oversight on the hotel staff.

With earlier big names Michele Bachman and Marsha Blackburn pulling out of the event, citing congressional ethics concerns over its sponsorship by the for-profit group Tea Party Nation, delegates were instead treated to opening remarks by one of the loonier tunes on the national political scene, former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, the apostle of twenty-first century nativism. Tancerdo fired up the crowd with a peroration lashing the American people for their ignorance in electing the "committed socialist ideologue...Barack Hussein Obama," suggesting it wouldn't have happened if the country had civics and literacy tests for voting. He also blasted John McCain, who is of course a Tancredo bete noir thanks to his one-time support for immigration reform legislation.

Though it's well-known that anti-immigrant sentiment is very strong in Tea Party circles, it's still debatable whether the convention did itself any favors by featuring Tancredo, a man whose 2008 presidential campaign disappeared without a trace, and whose political sense was perhaps best illustrated by his attack on Pope Benedict XVI for favoring good treatment of U.S. immigrants in order to boost Catholic church attendence.

The best news is that the Washington Independent's Dave Weigel is now on the scene in Nashville, and should have some interesting dispatches over the weekend. And then Saturday night comes the long-awaited televised speech by Sarah Palin, during a dinner where those who paid the pricey registration fee will reportedly dine on that hearty populist fare, steak and lobster.

Speaking of those fees, Tea Party Nation spokesman Mark Skoka had the best line so far in response to perpetual complaints from Tea Party activists about the for-profit nature of the event:

Convention spokesman Mark Skoda acknowledged Wednesday that [Judson] Phillips and his wife, Sherry Phillips, founders of the for-profit Tea Party Nation Inc., will "make a few bucks" on the event. But Skoda questioned why that should be anyone's concern.

"Have we gone so far in the Obama-socialist view of the nation that 'profit' is a bad word -- in particular, if we're using it to advance the conservative cause?" Skoda asked.

Selah.

Link | Comments (0)

While virtually all national attention has been focused on the difficult straits of the higher-visibility items of the Obama administration's legislative agenda (and even there, according to the Brookings Institution's Thomas Mann, his record has been vastly underappreciated), on the domestic matters that a president actually has some control over, the federal government's regulatory apparatus, the administration has quietly un-done many years of Republican mischief.

That's the message of an important piece by John Judis that appeared in The New Republic earlier this week.

Judis places Obama's accomplishments on the regulatory front into three main categories. First he's appointed (where Republicans in the Senate have allowed him) officials who actually believe in the missions of the agencies they work for, and are qualified for their jobs.

Given the habits of Republican administrations, that's no small thing:

Reagan chose Thorne Auchter, the vice president of a construction firm, to head OSHA. Bush appointed a mining company executive to head the Mine Safety and Health Administration and a trucking company executive to head the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. To lead OSHA, he named Edwin G. Foulke Jr., a longtime foe of the agency who had advised companies on how to block union organization.

Some of the Republican appointees weren’t business types, but ideologues or hacks who were utterly unqualified for their positions. Anne Gorsuch, whom Reagan nominated to head the EPA, was a rising member of the Colorado House of Representatives, where she was part of a conservative group known as the “House crazies.” Michael Brown, whom Bush appointed to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), had previously been commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association.

Obama’s approach, says Judis, couldn't be more different:

[T]he flow of expertise into the federal bureaucracy over the past year has been reminiscent of what took place at the start of the New Deal.

For instance, as a replacement for Foulke at OSHA, Obama chose David Michaels, a professor of occupational and environmental health at George Washington University. In 2008, Michaels published a book, Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, detailing how businesses had delayed regulations by “manufacturing uncertainty” about scientific findings.

To manage the EPA, Obama appointed a slew of highly experienced state environmental officials. (As Bill Becker of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies explains, state officials are ideally suited for the EPA because they have firsthand experience in how regulations are enforced and how they work.) Obama’s choice to run the agency was Lisa Jackson, a chemical engineer who led the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Her deputies include the former secretary of the environment in Maryland, as well as the former heads of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, the Massachusetts Bureau of Resource Protection, and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

Meanwhile, Obama chose as his Food and Drug Administration (FDA) chief Margaret Hamburg, who achieved renown during the 1990s as health commissioner of New York City, where she developed a program for controlling tuberculosis that led to a sharp decline in the disease. Her number two is a former Baltimore health commissioner who, in 2008, was named a public official of the year by Governing magazine.

Second, says Judis, Obama has decisively reversed the Reagan-Bush 43 habit of undermining regulatory agencies by starving them of administrative funds and personnel:

Even in the face of the recession, he proposed and got funding increases for numerous regulatory agencies--some of them dramatic. He asked for $10.5 billion for the EPA for 2010--a 34 percent jump over 2009, and the first time in eight years that the budget had increased. He also requested a 19 percent increase in the FDA’s budget, the largest in its history; a 10 percent increase for OSHA, which will allow it to hire 130 new inspectors; and increases of 5 percent, 7 percent, and 9 percent for the Federal Trade Commission, the SEC, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Finally, Obama has ended the application by Republican administrations of a skewed approach to cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations that makes short-term costs to businesses an overriding consideration. His most important step was probably appointing progressive law professor Cass Sunstein to head up the White House "super-agency" that reviews federal regulations, which under Bush became a major obstacle to the ability of regulatory agencies to do their work.

Judis warns that continued progress on this front is one of the little-appreciated stakes involved in this November's elections:

In 1993, Clinton, too, attempted to revive the regulatory agencies by appointing well-qualified personnel and increasing funding. But, after Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, they managed to cut Clinton’s budget proposals and delay or block the implementation of regulations. If Democrats lose Congress this November, the same thing could happen again.

That's something for progressives "de-energized" by the events of the last year, and inclined to sit on their hands this election cycle, to keep in mind.

Link | Comments (0)

Sara Robinson's post, "State of the Union: A Status Report on the Far Right " at the Blog for Our Future helps to put the big Tea Party confab in interesting perspective. After collecting and crunching all of the data, Robinson called up Chip Berlet, one of the leading authorities on America's hard right, and asked the money question, "...How many far-right wingers are there in the United States?" Berlet responded:

Ten percent of the population....It's been the same number for most of our history, and it doesn't change much.

Robinson adds, "How many really hardcore conservatives are we dealing with here?" It's thirty million people, give or take."

Many progressives might find the ten percent figure encouragingly low, although it's scant comfort that thirty million paranoid, sometimes violence-prone reactionaries are out there. Robinson paraphrases Berlet, however, in cautioning that there is another group on the far right, "who are conservative by temperament, but don't live full-time in that same overwrought, hyper-vigilant, paranoid space that the ultra-right wing authoritarian 10 percent do." This group is capable of a hard right turn in times of economic and /or social stress, like, well now.

This group is a key base element of the Tea Party movement, according to Robinson and Berlet, and is is "actively decoupling itself from the center-right position of the GOP's mainstream, and forming stronger alliances with the ultra-right 10-percenters—creating a super-right-wing faction that includes upwards of 25-30 percent of the country."

It's a scary prospect, almost a third of the electorate hardening their political views in a rightward direction, including flirtations with racism and anti-semitism, according to Robinson. She continues:

And it's the combination of the two that's worrisome. On their own, the far-right wingnuts can't elect a dogcatcher (and even trying to do that much would no doubt cause a schism that would wind out for years in court. It's just how they are.) But controlling 25 to 30 percent of the American electorate -- while not enough to take over the country in straight numeric terms -- is enough for the combined group to win limited but serious victories here and there. And, of course, their power is further magnified by the vagaries of the electoral college and the way we choose senators. In real terms, the system is set up so that this 30 percent can wield the political clout of 50 percent. That's where we are now -- and it's one reason we're running into so much gridlock in trying to govern the country.

Robinson notes that Fox News feeds this toxic mix at a time when independent daily newspapers are shrinking and disappearing. She has some harsh words for Democratic leadership:

Another driver is the Democrats' continued fecklessness in clearly communicating the coherent moral values at the heart of the progressive worldview; and their extreme reluctance to support any kind of progressive populist agenda. Everybody knows now that there's a rising populist tide in America. Average Americans, left and right, are uniting behind an implacable fury at the big banks -- and at Congress and Obama, who seem determined to enable criminal behavior rather than make any serious attempt to control it.

You don't need me to tell you that the tide is rising. We're seeing the signs of political climate change all around us. But most of the Village still regards any kind of populism as a dangerous (and avoidable) impulse. "Responsible" consultants are cautioning Democrats not to get out front of that wave and ride it. In 20 years, historians will record this as a mistake on the same magnitude as the one they made in 1972 when they started backing away from the unions...

Robinson sees a remedy, but one that requires new focus and commitment from progressive Democrats:

Any progressive strategy to weaken the right should begin by finding a way to peel the second slice back off from the ultra-right, and bring it back toward the center. That alliance is the keystone on which the entire strength of the conservative movement is resting right now; pull that stone, and the rest of it crumbles. Reviving a vital progressive populism is the best wedge and sledge we've got right now...

I'm sure Robinson is right that such a wedge strategy could be efffective. Theresa Poulos has a post, "Five Ways It Could Fail" at the National Journal Online, which could help flesh out the specifics of an effective wedge strategy. Poulos's post is less an article than a collection of five interesting video clips highlighting weaknesses in the Tea Party movement. The videos address: political infighting in the Tea Party Movement; exploiting the political inexperience of Tea Party participants; the difficulty of GOP attempts to absorb the movement, which includes a Independents; social issue schisms; and the possibility of an improving economy.

The Republicans hope to mimimize the internal disagreements within the Tea Party Movement and portray it as a monolithic anti-Obama/Democrat juggernaut. If we fail to challenge this meme, the blame will be ours.

Link | Comments (0)

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has done a very irresponsible thing that nonetheless offers Democrats a classic "teachable moment" about the true fidelity of Republicans to fiscal discipline. Shelby put a hold on all presidential appointments (70 are pending at present ) until he gets his way on a couple of big projects--one involving a Shelby appropriations "earmark"--benefiting Alabama.

Some may recall that during the 2008 presidential campaign, Republicans talked as though earmarks were the primary cause of the federal government's budget problems. And here's one of their own gumming up the entire executive branch over one of them, while also trying to control the exact language of a federal contract on another project to steer money to his own state.

Shelby's action could also help draw attention to the disgraceful pattern of Republican obstruction of presidential appointments, which has left dozens of federal agencies without key personnel.

"Holds" by senators are an atavistic tradition in the first place. Democrats should not let Shelby get away with the unprecedented step of a "blanket" hold, in order to shake down the administration for earmarked money, even as his party demagogues endlessly about runaway spending. Congressional Republicans should finally begin to pay a political price for their hypocrisy and cynicism on fiscal issues.

UPDATE: Ezra Klein provides a clear explanation of what a senatorial "hold" involves, and also explains why Shelby's gambit should backfire, comparing it to Ben Nelson's infamous health care "deal":

The reason holds work is that they're small enough, and rare enough, that they never rise to the level of something the majority can't live with. Shelby, in putting a hold on all pending nominations, just made holds very big indeed. And he did it for the most pathetic and parochial of reasons: pork for his state. If the Democrats have any sense at all, Shelby's hold is about to become as famous as Nelson's deal.

Link | Comments (0)

It's never a good sign when a news report on your freshly-annointed statewide candidate appears on a network "true crime" site. Nor is it helpful when the report contains the words "criminal charges," "pawnbroker," "domestic battery," "knife," "prostitute," and "massage parlor.":

But that's the reality facing Illinois Democrats today--a day that was supposed to feature a concession by Dan Hynes that he had narrowly lost the gubernatorial nomination to Pat Quinn, followed no doubt by unity gestures.

Instead, the big political news (broken by the Chicago Tribune) is that Scott Lee Cohen, a previously obscure Chicago pawnbroker who won the nomination for Lieutenant Governor over a scattered field in a low-turnout primary this week (after running millions of dollars in ads touting his support for Job Fairs), got arrested in 2005 for allegedly attacking his girl friend with a knife. The charges were dropped when the alleged victim failed to show up in court, but that hardly matters politically. Cohen admits they had a drunken fight (though without knifeplay), and while he protests he didn't know the girl friend had earlier been arrested for prostitution in connection with her work at a massage parlor (he said he thought she was a "massage therapist"), the whole thing is obviously maximum tabloid-and-talk-show bait of the worst sort.

The sad thing is that the job Cohen's running for is largely ceremonial, and few people care who occupies it so long as the governor is hale and hearty. But even though candidates for governor and lieutenant governor run independently in the primary, the nominees form a joint ticket (i.e., if you vote for Pat Quinn, you automatically vote for Cohen as well).

Politically aware people over a certain age were immediately reminded of the disaster that struck Illinois Democrats back in 1986, when low-turnout primaries for Lt. Governor and Secretary of State were won by Lyndon Larouche disciples. Gubernatorial nominee Adlai Stevenson III, who started the year as the favorite to win the office, spent much of his campaign trying to disassociate himself from his deranged ticket-mates, and what should have been a great Democratic year turned out very poorly.

Word on the street is that Gov. Pat Quinn is moving immediately to organize Democratic elected officials to pressure Cohen into dropping out of the campaign. If he succeeds quickly, he should convince all Illinois Democrats that he has the chops to manage the publicity surrounding the upcoming trial of his predecessor, Rod Blagojevich, and get through a tough political year.

Link | Comments (0)

Not to pile on with the bad news, but Robert Parry has a must-read bummer at Alternet, "The Right-Wing Media Machine Has Arrived on the Internet." The title will come as no surprise to political internet junkies, who have noticed over the last year or so a distinct increase in conservative and wingnut web pages that don't look quite so cheesy as before.

This doesn't mean that the right has websites as widely-read as HuffPo or Daily Kos. They don't. And there is still a noticable gap in writing quality favoring the left, at least among the middle-brow political websites. But amplifying Jerry Markon's WaPo post on the topic, Parry does a good job of explaining why the pro-Republican right's superior message discipline is providing the GOP blogosphere with a growing edge:

...The Right’s Web attacks on Democrats, progressives and mainstream journalists had much greater resonance because those hostile stories got picked up and amplified by the Right’s talk-radio programs, by Fox News and by print outlets, such as Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times...the Right is now fully “wired” to disseminate a potent political message via the Internet, as demonstrated by the Tea Party assaults on President Barack Obama in his first year and by the Internet-savvy upset win by Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race.

Worse, conservatives have not been shy in tapping corporate resources to nurture and support their blogosphere, in painful contrast to the woefully underfunded left, in which most bloggers work other jobs to support their postings. Parry adds,

Some right-wing bloggers have found their endeavors richly rewarded as right-wing institutes create “fellowships” for bloggers; other bloggers have become influential TV personalities, the likes of Michelle Malkin; and still others, like RedState’s Erick Erickson, wield outsized political influence because their commentaries resonate through the Right’s echo chamber.

It was a hollow conceit to assume that the progressive blogosphere would have a perpetual edge over the right. It was always a question of 'when,' not 'if' coporate resources would empower the right to level the field. But as the integration of streaming internet audio-visual content with television, telephones and even radio in cars becomes more seamless, perhaps there will be a more permanent democratization of media access. It won't happen automatically, and it will certainly require an energetic effort from progressives to put in place. The alternative would be even more disturbing than Parry's post.

Link | Comments (0)