This item is cross-posted from The New Republic.
America has always been a libertarian country–and right now, the suspicion of authority that defines our culture and politics seems particularly strong. By huge margins, Americans say they do not trust the federal government. On both the left and the right, conspiracy theories abound regarding the nefarious designs of power-mad politicians, colluding with the rich and well-connected to steal the freedoms of ordinary individuals.
Yet, as we debate several issues that touch on privacy and disclosure–including the White House’s response to Julian Assange and the rise of airport body-scanners–it’s worth remembering that the American public doesn’t necessarily value individual liberties at the expense of national security. The message sent by the limited public polling on Wikileaks is pretty clear, as illustrated by very recent findings from CBS/New York Times: When asked if there is a public right to know what government does, even in the defense of national security, nearly three-fourths of respondents said they did not have the right to know some things. Despite saturation news coverage of the Wikileaks controversy over an extended period of time, along with impassioned media debates about the implications, 52 percent of respondents said they knew little or nothing about it. And among the minority that had followed the story, by a two-to-one margin respondents were more concerned about the impact on U.S. interests than on individual rights.
The polling on body scanners shows a similar bias toward national security over individual rights. A USA Today/Gallup survey in late November showed respondents by a 71-27 margin accepting a “loss of personal privacy” in exchange for a perceived improvement in the ability to stop terrorists. And the public has consistently opposed, by a 60-39 margin in one March 2010 poll, Obama administration plans to close Guantanamo Bay and try terrorism suspects in civil courts.
Likewise, during the Bush years, few issues aroused the passions of the progressive blogosphere more than the administration’s pursuit of warrantless wiretaps. The public? Not so much. While polling on the subject varied according to the way questions were framed, a January 2006 CBS/New York Times survey was typical. At a time when George W. Bush’s job approval rating was an anemic 42 percent, respondents still favored the warrantless wiretapping program by a 53-46 margin, with only 22 percent saying they were following the story closely.
What explains this curiously illiberal libertarianism? I’d suggest two causes, neither of them things progressives much want to admit about their fellow countrymen.
First, while the concept of a global war on terrorism is treated as mildly ridiculous by most foreign policy wonks, a majority of Americans still seem to believe in it. Polls consistently show that Americans think of terrorism suspects as enemy combatants, and of terrorists as a major threat to the country’s national security. So they do not worry much about the risks of arguably illegal or even unconstitutional steps to fight, interrogate, or punish possible terrorists.
Second, despite a century of liberal efforts to encourage the idea that restraints on government at home and abroad should operate according to principles applied uniformly in all circumstances, many Americans simply don’t buy the idea of universal human rights or the equality of nations and their citizens. Polls about airline security consistently show strong support for passenger profiling; a recent ABC/Washington Post survey found 70 percent favoring the general idea of profiling, with 55 percent supporting profiling based on nationality and 40 percent on race.
You could blame this on simple bigotry, but the truth is probably more complicated: As Walter Russell Mead wrote in a famous 1999 essay, the libertarianism of the American public is not the libertarianism of the ACLU. Instead, it reflects an ambivalent populist tradition that strongly values equality and liberty–but only among those perceived as productive, law-abiding Americans. When faced with security threats from people who appear to be “aliens” or “outsiders,” however, many Americans are likely to favor a remorseless, take-no-prisoners hostility that takes precedent over liberal and libertarian principles. Even if you don’t agree with everything Mead wrote, there is little doubt that this mindset has exerted a strong undertow throughout U.S. history.
Civil libertarians often tend to assume Americans are being brainwashed or turned against their own values on subjects like warrantless wiretapping and military tribunals and Wikileaks. Most of the available evidence, historical and contemporary, suggests otherwise. And when the Obama administration chooses–for example–to hunt down Julian Assange or limit disclosure of sensitive “national security” information, it’s tapping into a very strong tradition which Americans tend to support, even as they say they revere the Bill of Rights.
Ed Kilgore
The manuevering in Washington over the tax agreement negotiated between the White House and Mitch McConnell grew even more complex today, with the House Democratic Caucus agreeing to a resolution to oppose the deal as announced, and the Senate apparently on the brink of approving the deal.
Here’s how the ever-astute Brian Beutler of TPM sought to explain the House Democratic action:
At a private meeting of the Democratic caucus this morning, members overwhelmingly rejected the idea that the plan is inviolable by passing a resolution agreeing not to bring up the tax package without changing it first. However, the White House and Republicans insist that the plan is in stone — and any changes would likely prompt a GOP backlash.
The Senate could adopt the proposal as early as tonight, leaving House Democrats a choice between swallowing it, modifying it, or rejecting it and starting from scratch.
After the meeting, though, members and aides stressed that future steps are unclear, and were unable to say that the White House plan won’t pass the House untouched.
In other words, it’s not at all clear what House Dems are actually trying to accomplish, and it may well be the “no-confidence vote” that passed was designed to appeal to Members with wildly different understandings of what will happen next. It may also transpire that the maneuver was a bluff design to test whether Republicans are willing to make some last-minute concessions that will make Democrats feel less like chumps.
To the extent that the deal’s provisions on the estate tax seem to be feeding a lot of progressive angst, it’s worth noting that this is one area of tax policy where there is a vast, unbridgeable gap between most Democrats and virtually all Republicans. GOPers think of the “death tax” as inherently evil, and thought its demise was sure when the initial legislation phasing it down and out was enacted. Progressive Democrats tend to regard the estate tax as one of the few progressive levies with zero negative macroeconomic effects, and are outraged that concessions benefitting a small handful of the super-rich, with no economic payoff at all, would be considered during these negotiations.
Beyond the dialogue of the deaf on this subject, the prospects for a renegotiation of the tax deal depend on some pretty speculatative ideas about which side might blink first, and also are vulnerable to a reaction in the financial markets. It’s reasonably safe to assume that hardly anyone wants to begin 2011 with higher tax rates on nearly all Americans and big drops in stock prices. But it’s less clear which side could be confident the other side would get the blame if that happens. The most convincing argument among progressives is that the vote on tax extensions should have been held before the midterms. But the future of this dispute remains much murkier than its past.
It’s too early to tell anything definitive just now, but there is definitely a possibility that Democratic and Republican opponents of the deal struck by the White House and GOP congressional leaders can combine forces to kill it.
Progressives avid for this to happen do need to ask themselves a simple question: then what? It’s not like the collapse of the deal is going to place Obama or other Democrats in a time machine where they can start all over in mobilizing public pressure on congressional Republicans to support their own position. Given the strength of conservative opposition to the deal, GOPers are not about to recut it to make it more acceptible to Democrats, particularly if any extension of top end rates and any compromise on the estate tax are off the table. Besides, Republicans are about to take over the House and increase their numbers in the Senate; time is on their side.
If Democrats are considered in media accounts the prime factors in killing the deal, Republicans may well be happy to play a waiting game, refusing to extend unemployment benefits (much less provide additional economic stimulus through a payroll tax holiday or extension of low-income refundable tax credits) and blaming any economic or political fallout on divisions among Democrats. A tax logjam will also provide a convenience excuse for the GOP to continue to obstruct votes on DADT and the START treaty.
So are progressives willing to pay that price for the principle of not extending upper-income tax cuts? I’m asking this question honestly; personally, I consider ever-worsening economic inequality the great undiscussed issue of our time, and think the abolition of estate taxes would be morally obscene. But those who urge a course of action that makes these positions non-negotiable have a responsibility to game-plan this out a bit in terms of real-life consequences. “Fighting” is not a strategy; nor is “drawing a line in the sand.” No rebellion is going to change the Obama administration’s handling of the 2009 stimulus bill or the 2010 health reform bill. And you can’t make the tax issue a no-brainer: yes, Obama did promise to oppose extension of tax cuts keyed to the top bracket, but he also promised, much more vocally, to extend the rest of them, so he’s going to have to break a promise anyway you look at it.
In other words, it would be a shame if all this progressive anger at the president is really just retroactive, and about the public option or “card check” or the size of the stimulus or Afghanistan, because the issues bound up in the tax deal are very real and immediate, and by no means symbolic. So they should be part of the discussion, as should any thoughts the president might have about how he intends to regain some political initiative after the big Democratic Congress of the last two years officially becomes a thing of the past.
Michigan was without a doubt one of the states that made the Rust Belt such a disaster for Democrats during the midterms. Republicans picked up two U.S. House seats; gained control of the state House to take over total control of the legislature; and won the governorship by a 58-40 landslide.
It’s interesting, then, that a new PPP poll of Michigan looking ahead to the 2012 presidential election shows Barack Obama beating all the big GOP names, even Michigan homeboy Mitt Romney. Obama leads Palin by 21 points; Gingrich by 15 points, Huckabee by 12 points, and Romney by 4 points. For grins, PPP even tests Obama against newly elected Republic Gov. Rick Snyder, and the president leads that one by 11 points.
Dave Weigel thinks this is probably all about the popularity of the Auto Industry Bailout in Michigan. I’m sure that’s an element of it, but just as importantly is the fact that we are talking about a different electorate voting on a different contest with different candidates in play. Get used to seeing this kind of poll in the future.
This staff post was originally published on December 3, 2010.
Writing in HuffPo, TDS contributor and Board of Advisors member Alan Abramowitz has a compelling rebuttal to the GOP meme that their midterm victories signal a massive rejection of progressive principles and policies. Abramowitz, author of The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy, crunches data from the Gallup News Service Governance Poll, conducted 9/13-16, and explains:
…While Americans often support conservative principles in the abstract, large majorities of Americans continue to support an active role for government in addressing a wide variety of societal needs and problems.
…On matters of principle, Americans in 2010 leaned strongly to the conservative side. For one thing, self-identified conservatives greatly outnumbered self-identified liberals: 43 percent of Gallup’s respondents described themselves as conservatives compared with 37 percent who described themselves as moderates and only 20 percent who described themselves as liberals. In addition, when asked about the role of the federal government in dealing with the nation’s problems, fully 58 percent of Gallup respondents felt that the government was “trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses” while only 37 percent felt that the government “should do more to solve our country’s problems.” Similarly, those who felt that there was too much government regulation of business and industry outnumbered those who felt that there was not enough government regulation by a 50 percent to 28 percent margin. Finally, 59 percent of Gallup’s respondents felt that the federal government had too much power compared with only 33 percent who felt that the federal government had the right amount of power and a miniscule 8 percent who felt that the federal government had too little power.
Then Abramowitz addresses the respondents’ views on “specific societal needs and problems,” and finds,
…94 percent of the public felt that government should have major or total responsibility (4 or 5 on the scale) for “protecting Americans from foreign threats.” National security is one of the few areas of government responsibility that typically receives overwhelming support from Americans of all partisan and ideological stripes.
It is perhaps more surprising, given Americans’ endorsement of broad conservative principles, that 76 percent of Gallup’s respondents felt that government should have major or total responsibility for “protecting consumers from unsafe products” or that 66 percent felt that government should have major or total responsibility for “protecting the environment from human actions that can harm it.” And it is perhaps even more surprising that 67 percent felt that government should have major or total responsibility for “preventing discrimination,” that 57 percent felt that government should have major or total responsibility for “making sure all Americans have adequate healthcare,” that 52 percent felt that government should have major or total responsibility for “making sure all who want jobs have them,” or that 45 percent felt that government should have major or total responsibility for “providing a minimum standard of living for all Americans” (versus only 33 percent who felt that government should have little or no responsibility in this area).
Even a policy as radical by contemporary standards as “reducing income differences between rich and poor” drew the support of 35 percent of Americans (versus 45 percent who did not see this as an appropriate responsibility of government). The only area where the large majority of Americans rejected a substantial role for government was “protecting major U.S. corporations in danger of going out of business” which drew the support of only 19 percent of the public.
All in all, hardly the slam dunk preference for conservative polices McConnell, Boehner and other Republican leaders say most Americans embrace. Further,
It wasn’t just liberals who supported governmental activism. Even self-identified conservatives frequently endorsed governmental activism on specific issues. For example, 63 percent of conservatives, along with 84 percent of moderates and 87 percent of liberals, supported a substantial role for government in the area of consumer protection. And despite strong opposition to recent healthcare reform legislation by conservative pundits and politicians, 33 percent of conservatives, along with 71 percent of moderates and 81 percent of liberals, supported a substantial role for government in ensuring access to healthcare.
Abramowitz devises an interesting scale depicting support for government activism among various demographic groups as indicated by the poll, and concludes,
Despite the dramatic gains made by the Republican Party in the 2010 midterm elections, support for activist government remains very strong in the American public. Evidence from the recent Gallup News Service Governance Poll shows that today, just as in the 1960s, Americans tend to be ideological conservatives but operational liberals. They endorse conservative principles in the abstract, but support efforts by government to address specific societal needs and problems. These findings suggest that attempts by congressional Republicans to weaken or eliminate government programs in areas such as consumer rights, health care, income security, and environmental protection would be politically risky. While such policies might appeal to the conservative base of the Republican Party, they would almost certainly be unpopular with a majority of the American public.
Abramowitz makes the point that Ideological Conservative Operational Liberal (ICOLs?) voters have been a significant segment of the electorate for decades — which, come to think of it, may help explain why Republicans seem to prefer broad brush liberal-bashing to analyzing opinion data issue by issue.
This item by Ed Kilgore is cross-posted from The New Republic, where it was originally published on December 3, 2010.
It’s time to smack down, once and for all, the idea that President Obama will face a serious primary challenger in 2012. This trope has been popping up ever since the 2008 general election, when horserace-hungry pundits speculated that Hillary Clinton would try to knock off the Democratic nominee four years down the road. And it’s only gotten worse with the rise of the “angry left,” which thinks Obama has been too eager to compromise with Wall Street and the Republicans, and considers itself the representative of the Democratic base.
Now, in the aftermath of this month’s “shellacking,” mischief-making pundits have seized on a couple of polls to burnish their narrative: One is from AP/KN in late October, showing that 47 percent of Democrats want the president to be challenged by another Democrat in 2012 (with 51 percent opposed); and one came from McClatchey/Marist just before Thanksgiving, showing 45 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents favoring a primary challenge (with 46 percent opposed).
Sounds pretty dangerous for Obama, right? Well no. For a substantive primary challenge to occur, a coherent bloc of Democratic voters–whether liberal or moderate–would have to sour on Obama and coalesce behind another candidate in such a way that threatens the president’s hold over his base. There’s just no sign of that happening. For instance, the very same AP/KN poll shows that three-quarters of Democrats want to see the president re-elected; i.e., they’re not really discontented with Obama and they just like the idea of a primary that gives them options. Likewise, the McClatchy/Marist survey doesn’t show a single bloc fed up with Obama and preparing to bolt for a latter-day Howard Dean: Given a choice of hypothetical challenges, 39 percent of Democrats and leaners preferred a candidate from the left of the president, and 40 percent a candidate from the right.
What’s more, Obama’s straight approval ratings among rank-and-file Democrats are very high. According to Gallup’s latest weekly tracking poll, 81 percent of self-identified Democrats give Obama a positive job approval rating. Among liberal Democrats, who are supposedly the most likely to rebel, the number rises to 85 percent. Let’s compare that to the last three Democratic presidents, two of whom faced serious primary challenges: At equivalent points in their presidencies, Bill Clinton had a positive job rating among Democrats of 74 percent; Jimmy Carter’s rating was 63 percent; and Lyndon Johnson had a rating of 66 percent. And Carter’s and LBJ’s numbers had to fall by ten or twenty more points before either attracted another contender.
The racial politics of the Democratic Party also make a serious primary challenge less likely. Sure, some progressives have been raging at Obama as of late. But anyone credibly threatening to topple Obama would have to pry away a significant chunk of Obama’s support among African Americans–and in case you haven’t noticed, Obama is the first black president. His job approval rating among African Americans is currently 89 percent, and it has not gone below 85 percent at any point of his presidency. Can you conceive of a left-wing revolt that runs directly counter to the manifest wishes of the largest and most loyal segment of the Democratic base? Imagine Hillary Clinton launching her 2008 candidacy without any of the goodwill that her husband’s presidency had engendered among African Americans.
Above all, primary challenges to incumbent presidents require a galvanizing issue. It’s very doubtful that the grab-bag of complaints floated by the Democratic electorate–Obama’s legislative strategy during the health care fight; his relative friendliness to Wall Street; gay rights; human rights; his refusal to prosecute Bush administration figures for war crimes or privacy violations–would be enough to spur a serious challenge. And while Afghanistan is an increasing source of Democratic discontent, it’s hardly Vietnam, and Obama has promised to reduce troop levels sharply by 2012.
Most importantly, who would run? Hillary Clinton has ruled it out categorically. Al Gore’s electioneering days appear to be long over. There’s been talk of Russ Feingold running (mainly based on a misunderstanding of an “I’ll be back” statement he made on election night which seems to have referred to a future Senate race). Dean would win headlines, but has a poor reputation in Iowa, where any progressive challenge would have to be launched. There are no guaranteed primary vote-getters out there like Estes Kefauver in 1952, and certainly no one close to the stature of Ted Kennedy. And there’s a reason no incumbent president has actually been defeated for re-nomination since the nineteenth century.
So that’s it. What we are likely to see is a marginal opponent: a Dennis Kucinich, or a Harold Ford, or some celebrity who hasn’t held office but is willing to spend some money. More serious comers will be chased away by the hard, cold reality of what it would take to mount a presidential campaign against the White House in places like Iowa and Nevada and New Hampshire and South Carolina. And President Obama will be left facing challengers similar to Pete McCloskey or John Ashbrook, who came at Richard Nixon from the left and right, respectively, in 1972. To the extent that these candidates are remembered at all, it’s as roadkill on the way to Nixon’s renomination.
This TDS Strategy Memo by Ed Kilgore, James Vega and J.P. Green was originally published on November 30, 2010.
In a recent Washington Monthly commentary titled “None Dare Call it Sabotage,” Steve Benen gave voice to a growing and profoundly disturbing concern among Democrats – that Republicans may actually plan to embrace policies designed to deny Obama not only political victories but also the maximum possible economic growth during his term in order weaken Democratic prospects in the 2012 elections.
The debate quickly devolved into an argument over the inflammatory word “sabotage” and the extent to which the clearly and passionately expressed Republican desire to see Obama “fail” will actually lead them to deliberately choose economic and other policies that are most conducive to achieving that result.
But, among Democrats themselves, this particular question is actually just one particular component of a much broader and deeper concern — a very real and authentic sense of alarm that there is something both genuinely unprecedented and also profoundly dangerous in the intense “take no prisoners” political extremism of the current Republican Party. There is a deep apprehension that fundamental American standards of proper political conduct and ethical political behavior are increasingly being violated.
The key feature that distinguishes the increasingly extremist perspective of today’s Republican Party from the standards of political behavior we have traditionally considered proper in America is the view that politics is — quite literally, and not metaphorically – a kind of warfare and political opponents are literally “enemies”
This “politics as warfare” perspective has historically been the hallmark of many extremist political parties of both the ideological left and ideological right – parties ranging from the American Communist Party to the French National Front.
Historically, these political parties display a series of common features – features that follow logically and inescapably from the basic premise of politics as warfare:
I. Strategy:
• In the politics as warfare perspective the political party’s objective is defined as the conquest and seizure of power and not sincere participation in democratic governance. The party is viewed as a combat organization whose goal is to defeat an enemy, not an organization whose job is to faithfully represent the people who voted for it.
• In the politics as warfare perspective extralegal measures, up to and including violence, are tacitly endorsed as a legitimate means to achieve a party’s political aims if democratic means are insufficient to obtain its objectives. To obscure the profoundly undemocratic nature of this view, the “enemy” government–even when it is freely elected — is described as actually being illegitimate and dictatorial, thus justifying the use of violence as a necessary response to “tyranny”.
• In the politics as warfare perspective all major social problems are caused by the deliberate, malevolent acts of powerful elites with nefarious motives. An evil “them” is the cause of all society’s ills.
• In the politics as warfare perspective the political party’s philosophy and basic strategy is inerrant – it cannot be wrong. The result is the creation of a closed system of ideologically controlled “news” that creates an alternative reality.
II. Tactics:
• In the politics as warfare perspective standard norms of honesty are irrelevant. Lying and the use of false propaganda are considered necessary and acceptable. The “truth” is what serves to advance the party’s objectives.
• In the politics as warfare perspective the political party accepts no responsibility for stability – engineering the fall of the existing government is absolutely paramount and any negative consequences that may occur in the process represent a kind of “collateral damage” that is inevitable in warfare
• In the politics as warfare perspective the creation of contrived “incidents” or deliberate provocations are acceptable. Because the adherent of this view “knows” that his or her opponents are fundamentally evil, even concocted or staged incidents are still morally and ethically “true.” The distinction between facts and distortions disappears.
• In the politics as warfare perspective compromise represents both betrayal and capitulation. Destruction of the enemy is the only acceptable objective. People who advocate compromise are themselves enemies.
These various components all form part of an integrated whole. Seen as a coherent package they make it clear that politics as warfare is simply not an acceptable philosophy for an American political party. It is profoundly and unambiguously wrong.
It is easy to see examples of the various politics as warfare– based views and tactics listed above directly reflected in the statements and actions of the extreme wing of Republican coalition – they range from Michelle Bachmann and Sharon Angle’s winking at violence with references to “second amendment remedies” to Andrew Breitbart’s deliberate editing of a video to smear Shirley Sherrod, Glen Beck’s suggesting that George Soros was a Nazi collaborator, Fox News’ tolerating attacks on Obama as equivalent to Hitler and airing repeated suggestions that the miniscule New Black Panthers present a real and genuine national threat of stolen elections and Grover Norquist’s endorsement of a government shutdown over extending the debt limit, despite the genuine dangers this poses to international financial stability.
The list can be continued with many other examples from Eric Erickson’s RedState, Rush Limbaugh’s radio show and organizations like Freedomworks. An entire book has been written containing nothing but examples of recognized right-wing spokesmen subtly and not so subtly endorsing and encouraging the use of violence against liberals and Democrats.
And this politics as warfare perspective is not confined to the “fringes” of the Republican Party.
Now that the president has cut a deal with congressional Republican leaders on the extension of Bush tax cuts and related matters, it will be helpful for progressives to keep some perspective on how they react.
The objection heard most often before and once the deal was struck was mainly about tactics and psychology: why wasn’t the White House willing to hang tougher in negotiations, creating the credible threat of all the Bush tax cuts expiring? Was the president letting Republicans bully him? Will he ever learn? etc., etc.
There’s actually been less focus on the deal itself than about its existence and timing. There are not actually that many Democratic politicians who would have been happy (or would have admitted to being happy) about the total expiration of the tax cuts, which without any doubt would have been unpopular, and would have been indelibly identified with any future downturn in the economy. “Deficit hawks” are the only cheerleaders for a general increase in tax rates at the moment, and they’re not the ones angry at the president today.
What the deal did achieve is probably the maximum degree of short-term economic stimulus available in the current political environment, thanks to the inclusion of one of the very few stimulus measures popular on both the left and right, a payroll tax “holiday.”
As for the principle of the high-end Bush tax cuts being vindicated by this deal, it’s worth noting that Obama was able to maintain some of the increases in refundable tax credits (the EITC and the Child Tax Credit) that were in the 2009 stimulus legislation. Refundable tax credits have rapidly become a major demon-figure in conservative ideology of late, so it’s significant these items stayed in.
The total costs and benefits of this deal actually can’t be measured until we see if it cleared the way for action during the lame-duck session on DADT and Start, and also assess its impact on the economy.
But if a deal had to be struck–and I understand some progressives thought any deal was too high a price to pay–then I’m with Ezra Klein, this one doesn’t look that bad.
For some reason, Politico today did a big feature on Mike Huckabee’s interest in a 2012 presidential run, said to be a 50/50 proposition. The only real downside involves money. Huck woud have to give up his Fox show and his paid speaking gigs to run, and he’s not a very rich man by Republican standards. Just as importantly, given his infamous inability in 2008, to raise enough money to rub two quarters together, he does not appear to be spending a lot of time hanging out with the kind of people who could raise him some serious jack or dump tons of money into “independent” ads on his behalf.
If he does run, Huckabee has some very serious advantages that would not only give him a chance, but would create strategic headaches for his primary opponents. He would be the early frontrunner in Iowa, where he won last time despite being vastly outspent by Mitt Romney He also did well in South Carolina, and has boosted his odds (already bright if he again gets the support of Senator-Elect Marco Rubio) in Florida by moving there. And he has a guaranteed national base in the Christian Right.
How should Democrats feel about Huck? He has a surprising reservoir of good will from many progressives in part because he’s not a snarler, and in part because he was the rare Republican who didn’t routinely defend Wall Street or pretend the economy was just great in 2008 (qualities that alienated him from the GOP’s Economic Royalist wing). But look a little deeper, and Huckabee shares every obnoxious position Republicans have taken since they lurched heavilty to the right after 2008, in addition to his better-known hard-core stand on cultural issues like abortion and gay rights. There’s also reportedly a rich lode of crazy stuff in his large library of sermons, which presumably oppo research types are plumbing as we speak.
Huck’s been doing relatively well in trial heats against Obama, but it’s not clear the public really knows that much about him beyond his genial personality and his weight-loss saga. In the meantime, his threat to enter the race has got to be maddening to those conservative poobahs looking for some oxygen for a dark horse like Daniels or Thune or Pence. Even if Huckabee doesn’t do that well, he will soak up votes wherever he runs, and showed in 2008 that he’s got the stamina to run a campaign on fumes. I wouldn’t count him out, particularly if he gets another clear shot to beat Mitt Romney in Iowa.
Those who think it’s some sort of partisan exaggeration to say that today’s Republican Party has moved into some pretty extreme ideological territory should pay some attention to the latest conservative craze in state capitols and even in Washington: the so-called Repeal Amendment.
The bright idea here is to amend the U.S. Constitution–if necessary by a state-called Constitutional Convention–to allow two-thirds of state legislatures to nullify federal legislation whenever it pleases them.
Here’s how Dahlia Lithwick and Jeff Sesol of Slate characterize the Repeal Amendment:
There is so much wrong with the Repeal Amendment that it’s difficult to know how to begin to respond. The Constitution is–by design–a nationalist document. It is also–again by design–an anti-democratic document. American history reveals precisely what happens when state or regional interests are allowed to trump national ones, and the Constitution has been at its best (for example, the Reconstruction Amendments) when it has addressed (and, better yet, resolved) that tension.
They don’t even get into the potential issues with a constitutional convention, which according to some scholars, cannot be limited to any one issue and could fundamentally rewrite the Constitution.
But crazy as it is, the Repeal Amendment is getting some real momentum, not least because it’s been embraced by the number two Republican in the U.S. House, Eric Cantor:
[J]ust two months after the proposal was a twinkle in a Virginia legislator’s eye, the leadership of nine states is showing interest, and the popularity of the amendment’s Web site (they have them nowadays) has “mushroomed.” And this week, completing the proposal’s rapid march from the margins to the mainstream, Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah introduced the amendment in the U.S. House of Representatives, pledging to put “an arrow in the quiver of states.” The soon-to-be House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, said this week that “the Repeal Amendment would provide a check on the ever-expanding federal government, protect against Congressional overreach, and get the government working for the people again, not the other way around.” Fawning editorials in the Wall Street Journal and chest-heaving Fox News interviews quickly followed.
This is just nuts, and defenders of the sweet reasonableness of the GOP need to acknowledge it.
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
