On the advice of my physician, I do not watch or listen to Glenn Beck, preferring to follow his exploits via the serial bouts of hysteria he inspires in his fans. So it was news to me to learn that he spends a lot of time hawking the works of the late W. Cleon Skousen, an extremely sketchy right-wing character who lived on the far fringes of the conservative movement and of Mormonism.
In a fascinating piece on the subject in Salon today, Alexander Zaitchick explores Beck’s near-apostolic advocacy of Skousen’s work, which serves as a sort of intellectual framework for the highly paranoid worldview of the Tea Party movement that Beck has done so much to promote. In his very colorful career, which earned him a big fat “dangerous extremist” file with his former employers at the FBI, Skousen gained most notice in the early 60s as a fellow traveler and stout defender of the John Birch Society (after Birch founder Robert Welch had been read out of the conservative movement for contending that Dwight D. Eisenhower was a communist).
As Sarah Posner alertly reminds us at TAPPED, Beck’s not the only Skousen fan high in the ranks of contemporary conservatism. Mitt Romney has spoken of the old crank fondly as well, which led to a sort of warning from National Review’s Mark Hemingway back in 2007:

Who is Cleon Skousen you might ask? In answering that question, it’s hard to even know where to begin. Skousen was by turns an FBI employee, the police chief of Salt Lake City, a Brigham Young University professor, consigliore to former secretary of agriculture and Mormon president Ezra Taft Benson and, well, all-around nutjob.
Of course he was also a prolific writer and likely brilliant, but Skousen is not an association a presidential candidate should loudly trumpet.

Thanks to Beck, one of Skousen’s books, The 5,000 Year Leap, has become a runaway bestseller, which suggests that a lot of Tea Party folk have read it and given it to friends and family. Next time someone tells you the Tea Party movement is composed of average Americans who are simply worried at the terrible things Barack Obama’s trying to do to their country, keep in mind they are being influenced by the works of someone who thought America was being plunged into socialist tyranny by the Eisenhower administration.

Back in 1970, my high school held an assembly to listen to pitches on behalf of the various people running for governor of Georgia (the Peach State allowed 18-year-olds to vote well before the enactment of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment). Most of the candidates recruited students from the school to recycle their talking points. But candidate Jimmy Carter was represented by a chubby, funny young man named Jody Powell.
That probably meant that Carter was somewhere close by, because he rarely went anywhere that year, or in his subsequent presidential campaign, without Powell, who started out as the candidate’s driver and soon became his press secretary. The driving gig was actually a step up for Powell, who had not long before been expelled from the Air Force Academy for cheating on an exam. But rarely has a politician enjoyed the services of a more unlikely (Powell liked to smoke and drink) and effective staffer. And Jody Powell soon went on a very wild ride that took Jimmy Carter through the governorship of Georgia to the White House.
It’s part of the institutional history of Washington that the Carter presidency failed because he insisted on bringing all these Georgia rubes to the White House with him, who didn’t know how to deal with the movers-and-shakers of “this town.” (I’d say inheriting an ongoing economic disaster might have been a somewhat larger factor). But Powell never lost a step, and in the most hidebound, boys-club segment of the Capitol, the press corps, this cracker who never went to journalism school or held a reporting job was soon rated one of the best press secretaries in memory. He was one of the few significant members of the Carter administration whose reputation was better going out than coming in, even though he started out pretty well.
On the news of Powell’s sudden death yesterday, ABC’s Jake Tapper made a very sad observation:

Powell and the late Hamilton Jordan, Carter’s chief of staff, were WH “whiz Kids” on a Rolling Stone cover in 1977. I doubt Carter thought he’d outlive both of them.

Jody Powell was a good ol’ boy who did very well in an unlikely life. May he rest in peace.

This item is cross-posted from The New Republic.
In the wake of the display of craziness by Rep. Joe Wilson during the president’s health care speech, and the rather notable reluctance of Republicans to criticize him on substantive (as opposed to protocol) grounds, a perennial question arises: Do these conservative eruptions of extremism actually tilt the national political debate to the Right?
This has long been a concern of progressives. Just last week Michelle Goldberg fretted:

The marginalization of the left has its costs. Political energy tends to concentrate around extremes, and while the Republican Party has been able to draw on the passion of their right flank, there’s a yawning gap between left-wing culture and the Democrats….
Politicians who try to separate themselves from right-wing madness by blaspheming Rush Limbaugh or evangelical leader James Dobson are quickly forced to repent. As a result, the center of the political conversation is pulled steadily rightward. In this sense, legitimatizing more left-wing voices, even those that make liberals uncomfortable, would be a tremendous help to progressivism.

The “energy” argument is a familiar one. But if ideological excess only encourages voters to show up at the polls once, it’s probably irrelevant—except in the closest elections. The discussion about how extremism “tilts the debate” is newer and more interesting.
There are generally two sets of villains in this revisionist take on “extremism.” The first are “centrist” Democratic politicians and pundits who legitimize the other side, however crazy, by their blind support for “bipartisanship” and “compromise.” And the second are the news media, who either (in the case of the openly partisan media like Fox News) create or echo crazy arguments, or (in the case of the mainstream media) adopt a position of presumptive equivalency, blandly reporting crazy talk as one side of a he-said, she-said story. Hence, the debate is “pushed to the Right”—the center-right suddenly seems so much more moderate relative to the loudly broadcast extreme positions.
The solution, this sort of analysis invariably suggests, is to counter right-wing “framing” of arguments with left-wing framing, pulling the debate back to something resembling the actual “center.”
If this approach sounds a bit too cute and cynical, that’s because it assigns roles to various players in politics based on their tactical positioning rather than the validity of what they actually believe. Iif this is a dubious moral proposition, it is also politically risky. Does it really help Barack Obama or the congressional Democratic leadership get anything practical done to perpetually mobilize an army of activists and ideologues who, say, want radical reductions in military spending or a socialist makeover of the economy? Will conservatives stop calling Obama a “socialist” if the genuine article is more visible? I doubt it, but in any event, if I were a Department of Peace enthusiast, I’d soon tire of being asked to shake my fist and howl in order to make regular Democrats look more “centrist” and to “push the debate” towards center-left positions I don’t actually share.
This is not to deny the problem that Goldberg and many others have highlighted. One quickly despairs each time some semi-educated newsreader stares at the camera and talks about “the debate” over “death panels” or the reality of climate change as though these are fully debatable propositions.
But perhaps there’s something to be said after all for truth-telling and reasonableness, not in the pursuit of compromises with the crazy people of the Right, but because a majority of people in this country will ultimately recognize and reject craziness, just as they’ve generally done in the past. Progressives shouldn’t have to cultivate their own cadre of “extremists,” or feign extremism in their own “positioning,” in order to show they are actually trying to solve the country’s many problems. Sometimes it’s best to say what you actually think, with emotional empathy and passion to be sure, but with a little more faith in democracy.

It’s now increasingly clear that big segments of the chattering classes will not rest until President Obama is somehow forced to stop talking about bipartisanship.
That’s been a standard theme for some progressives, going back to the early stages of the 2008 campaign, who have fretted that Obama will needlessly sacrifice progressive principles and constituencies in the vain pursuit of nonexistent Republican support. But now you can add a big MSM source: Politico‘s top honchos Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen, who have published sort of a primal scream on the subject.
Even though VandeHei and Allen acknowledge that the destruction of the moderate wing of the Republican Party, and the happiness of conservatives to remain “the party of No” are the most important factors contributing to polarization, they just can’t resist blaming Obama and Democrats at least as much as the opposition:

President Barack Obama is on the warpath over myths and distortions about health care reform, but he’s spreading one of his own: that there’s any chance of genuinely bipartisan health care legislation reaching his desk this fall.
In truth, Democratic offers to reach across the aisle — and Republican demands that they do so — are largely a charade, performed for the benefit of a huge bloc of practical-minded voters who hunger for the two parties to work together and are mystified that it never seems to happen.

And that’s the bulk of their analysis: independent voters want bipartisanship, so both parties, with equal dishonesty, are pretending to pursue it. He said, she said, and he and she are both lying.
Well, whatever. Allen and VandeHei may think that pursuing bipartisanship in the knowledge that it largely won’t materialize is just dishonest pandering by Obama, or an exercise in finger-pointing, but I beg to differ. Republicans have consciously chosen to systematically oppose health care reform–not just Obama’s version, but any version–and it actually is important for Americans to understand that in terms of what they can expect to happen next if Obama’s initiative is defeated. There is no Plan B for the GOP, or for the country. By “reaching out,” Obama is forcing Republicans to ever-more-explicitly make that choice, and as the latest polling shows, the public is beginning to “get it.”
Moreover, the “wedge” Obama is seeking to create between Republicans and independents is reflected in his formulation–generally ignored by Allen and VandeHei–that he’s trying to utilize “the best ideas of both parties” even when he’s not getting cooperation from the other side. His whole health care scheme relies on a competitive private-insurance-based system for universal coverage. Many of his proposals for “bending the curve” on health care spending and for Medicare reforms were once championed by Republicans. Yes, of course, Republicans quickly abandon and even repudiate these themes once Obama picks them up, but after a while, people begin to notice the pattern. And that’s both real and honest.
In reality, the biggest single problem with Obama’s rhetoric of bipartisanship isn’t that Republicans rise to the bait by refusing to cooperate. It is, instead, the media coverage of the issue which blames both sides equally, dismisses Obama’s outreach as cynical pandering, and recommends that the ignorant public forget about changing the culture of Washington, or either party.

Joe Wilson’s little town hall tantrum during the president’s speech the other night has fed an inevitable question: what is it about the conservatives of South Carolina? You got Mark Sanford trying to keep the ctizens of his own state from benefitting from economic stimulus legislation long after it was enacted (but before his own pants-down moment). You got Jim DeMint almost daily embracing every extremist way of looking at government that he can find. And now Wilson’s managing to get himself compared to Preston “Bully” Brooks, the antebellum symbol of southern bellicosity.
Alexander Burns of Poltico examines the question of the Palmetto State’s peculiar taste for conservative extremism, and does come up with this interesting assessment from one of the SC GOP’s First Families:

Carroll Campbell III, the son of the popular late governor and a Republican exploring his own bid for Congress next year, suggested Wilson’s behavior may have resonated with a powerful conservative base frustrated by its minority status.
“I talk to a lot of Republican groups, but most of these individuals are really happy that at least he’s showing some backbone,” said Campbell, whose father served two terms as governor. “Republicans are desperate for, looking for the new face of politics…There’s a sense of satisfaction that at least he can step up and do what he did.”

But there’s clearly a lot more going on than contemporary political feelings. The great southern historian V.O. Key once referrred to South Carolina and Mississippi as “the super-South.” These were the states where slaves represented a very large majority of the population prior to emancipation. SC was famously the state that nearly broke the union during Andrew Jackson’s presidency, and then did break it by firing on Fort Sumter. It was a state where there was virtually no hint of cross-racial class solidarity during the Populist revolt. It was the state where class conflict among white people was best symbolized by the brutal crushing of efforts to unionize the textile mills in the 1930s and 1940s.
South Carolina is the state where the realignment of conservative whites towards the Republican Party was really pioneered, with the defections of Sen. Strom Thurmond and Rep. Albert Watson in 1964 started a long trend throughout the region. And it’s no coincidence that the SC GOP was for many years pretty much the wholly owned subsidiary of the Milliken textile family, among the bitterest economic reactionaries in the country.
So there’s some history there, all right, and enough drama to make the occasional demagogue or South American sexual tourist in the political ranks not terribly conspicuous. It’s a wonderful thing for the embattled ranks of South Cackalacky progressives that the state played an important role in the nomination of Barack Obama as president. But it was indeed a rare occasion.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota has a problem. He wants to be the Republican nominee for president in 2012. But there’s nothing much about him that excites the conservative “base” voters who almost completely control the nominating process. That’s why he was passed over (reportedly at the last minute) by John McCain for the vice presidential nod last year, in favor of the risky proposition of Sarah Palin, whom the Right to Life movement considers its very own St. Joan.
Yes, Pawlenty is himself an anti-abortion absolutist, but that’s a given in GOP circles these days. Yes, he’s a practicing conservative evangelical Christian, but in a 2012 field that will probably include Mike Huckabee, you’d have to personally handle snakes to make a particular impression on that constituency. His record in Minnesota provides little or no red meat. His coinage of the term “Sam’s Club Republicans” is nice, but is getting a little old and meaningless.
But unlike Palin, Pawlenty is, at least until the end of next year, a governor. So he seems to have decided to identify himself with the one crazy right-wing cause that has something vaguely to do with his current gig: the so-called “state sovereignty movement.” As Andy Barr of Politico reports:

Minnesota Republican Tim Pawlenty urged fellow governors on Thursday to more frequently assert state sovereignty over the federal government and suggested that the country may increasingly see states suing the federal government.
Asked by a caller about the option of asserting the Tenth Amendment as a tactic to reject a successful health care overhaul by President Barack Obama during a tele-town hall organized by the Republican Governors Association, Pawlenty said, “that’s a possibility.”
Speaking generally about the tenth amendment, Pawlenty said the country has not had “a proper federalism debate since Ronald Reagan raised the issue in the 1980s.”
“You’re starting to see more governors, me and governor [Rick] Perry from Texas, speaking out on this and asserting our tenth amendment rights,” Pawlenty said on a call listened to by more than 12,000 people.

The “state sovereignty movement” is not, it’s important to understand, just a group of people who think the federal government has too much power. It’s central feature is the crackpot nineteenth century theory, revived most recently to resist civil rights legislation, that states have the inherent right to nullify federal legislation and court rulings that fall outside the enumerated constitutional powers of the federal government. And Pawlenty knows its extremist provenance: that’s why he identified himself with Rick Perry, who’s flirted both with nullification and with secession as part of his high-minded contributions to the “state sovereignty movement.”
Perry, being a Texan and all, knows how to play the game, issuing dog whistles to the people who essentially want to nullify not just every form of federal social or civil rights legislation, but the last presidential election, while making it sound like he’s just offering some observations on constitutional law. I don’t know if Pawlenty, a yankee who didn’t grow up with this particular tradition of double-talk, can pull it off.
But for the time being, this is the car on the crazy train of the contemporary Right that he’s chosen to climb aboard, and it could turn out to be a pretty wild ride. Hope he enjoys the company of his new friends in the “state sovereignty movement,” and can learn to properly whistle “Dixie.”

This item is cross-posted from The New Republic.
I have been a bit outspoken in arguing that the vast expectations building up around the president’s health care reform speech last night were unreasonable, and unnecessary. Congress is closer to enactment of legislation that it’s been all year, or at any time since 1994, and his job was to “reboot” the debate by rebutting the lies that have been circulating about reform, and restating the basic case for action this year.
The president did that abundantly. But he also did some other important things.
His smackdown of lies about health reform (“That is a lie” was a refreshing high point) was deftly combined with shout outs to individual Republicans who have contributed decent ideas in the past, and with a specific pledge to begin action on the pet rock of conservative health care policy, medical malpractice reform. He also bluntly called out Republicans for their incredible hypocrisy in posing as the saviors of Medicare, even as they embrace proposals to privatize it. This will give Republicans a lot to cope with in the days ahead.
He made the moral case for genuinely universal health care, and explained the whole competitive system more clearly than any politician has done, while refusing to make the “public option” a litmus test, treating it as a “means, not an end,” which is exactly how he needed to frame it.
He got wonky now and then, but not as much as he did in his last effort on this subject, the presidential press conference.
Most importantly, he presented a vision of the big themes of health reform that is consistent with what’s happening in the House, what’s likely to happen in the Senate, and what might ultimately emerge from a conference committee. In other words, it was a keeper.
Many observers will focus on the style rather than the substance of the speech: the president was obviously passionate as well as wonky, and very emotional in his wind-up tribute to the late Senator Kennedy. Even though I didn’t think coming in that he had to move public opinion, he may have actually done that. But if nothing else, he’s set the stage for positive action in Congress, laid down the markers he needed to lay down, and in general, regained some serious momentum for health care reform.

The other day J.P. Green published a good summary of initial reactions to Sen. Olympia Snowe’s reported proposal of a “trigger” to resolve the gap between proponents and opponents of a “public option” in a competitive health insurance system. To put it simply, no one much likes it, and there are growing pressures in both parties to rule it out in advance.
But is the “trigger” one of those “centrist” compromises that don’t really make sense, or is something else going on here? In an important post last week, Ezra Klein may have put his finger on the problem:

The concept of a trigger for the public option is actually pretty savvy if the two sides were fighting over the empirical question of “can the health insurance industry control costs and increase competition in a constructive fashion?” If conservatives are right that a restructured market would compel insurers to cut costs and increase competition and generally clean up their behavior, then that’s good enough. But if liberals are proven right that a handful of new regulations isn’t sufficient to create a working insurance market, then the public option would “trigger” into existence and we’d give that solution a try.
The problem is that there’s no real constituency for that compromise: Liberals want a public plan because they want a public plan. Conservatives don’t want a public plan because they don’t want a public plan. Moreover, conservatives don’t just oppose the public plan, but most of them actually oppose passage of a bill. The number of additional votes you can get by making substantive concessions is thus much smaller than the number of additional votes you could get if substantive concessions were actually the sticking point.

Ezra goes on to say that maybe a “constituency of one” is enough to carry the day given Snowe’s pivotal positiion in the Senate (particularly if she can bring along fellow Maine Republican Susan Collins, and provide “cover” to a few Democrats).
But in case the “trigger” does fly, it’s worth noting that the idea is by no means absurd, and could be, if properly designed (a big “if”), entirely consistent with progressive demands for a public option. In the end, the viability of Snowe’s idea will probably come down to a decision among Democrats as to whether they want to cobble together a 60-vote coalition in the Senate and then try to maintain it through a conference committee, or instead go the reconciliation route and hope that Blue Dog defections in the House and a variety of procedural and political obstacles in the Senate don’t doom the legislation. Denunciations of the “trigger” by progressives, mainly in the House, should be understood as an effort to dictate the latter strategy, or perhaps some variation like a full-court press for Senate Democrats who oppose the legislation to vote for cloture and allow a bill to come to the floor. And most Republicans will denounce anything that makes passage of any bill possible.