In recent days an important discussion has emerged among progressives about the proper strategy for the progressive movement. As Bill Scher, the Online Campaign Manager of the Campaign for America’s Future described it:

“The progressive community is somewhat divided between the folks who think Obama is doing everything he can against a broken political system and the folks that think he’s not doing enough, and that we need an independent force to push him…Are we the wingman of the Obama Administration or an outside pressure force?”

This question was expected to generate a spirited debate among progressives at the America’s Future Now conference held in Washington this week but, interestingly, the anticipated conflict did not materialize. Instead, there was a widespread consensus that – regardless of their specific evaluation of Obama – progressives were agreed on the need to build an independent movement capable of both supporting or challenging the administration as any particular case required.
As AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka put it, progressives need to be a “troublesome ally” of Obama. Campaign for America’s future co-director Robert Borosage described it as being willing to go “off the reservation” and organize independently.
The general agreement on the urgent need to build a vastly strengthened, independent progressive movement –regardless of one’s precise view of the Obama administration – reflected an extremely wide general consensus among progressive bloggers, organizational leaders and grass-roots activists across the county. Even progressives who are very firm and enthusiastic supporters of Obama did not see support for an enhanced, independent progressive movement as representing a conflict with their generally positive assessment of the Administration.
Yet, although this support for an independent progressive movement would appear to represent a distancing of progressives from Obama, in two critical respects the movement remains excessively defined — and limited — by the way it relates to him and his administration. The progressive discussion is based on two underlying assumptions– both of which need to be re-examined:
The first assumption is that, in some sense, it is the weaknesses or failures of the Obama administration that have created the urgent need for progressives to build an independent progressive movement. In many commentaries a substantial list of disappointments or compromises by the Administration are offered as the primary evidence that an independent movement is necessary.
There are two problems with this way of framing the issue. First, taken to its logical conclusion, this kind of argument suggests that an independent progressive movement might in some circumstances actually be unnecessary – if Obama had just kept a sufficient number of his campaign promises, progressives would be able to wholeheartedly support him and an independent progressive movement would not be required. Second, it leads both Obama and progressives to become perceived and defined as failures – Obama for not living up to his campaign rhetoric and progressives for not being able to make him do so.
The second assumption is that the agenda of the progressive movement will continue to be defined primarily in relation to Obama’s political and legislative objectives. The progressive position will represent a challenge from the left, but it will still be framed as a response to the administration’s initiatives rather than presented on its own terms and in relation to its own long-range objectives.
This is too narrow an agenda for an independent mass movement – a social movement needs a set of objectives larger than the goals and initiatives of any single administration.
These two assumptions will impede and limit the effectiveness of the effort to build an independent progressive movement. They need to be reconsidered and revised.

Read more…

There is understandable excitement among Republican women this year because they have high-profile women candidates running for state-wide office in CA, NV and SC. Linda Feldman of The Christian Science Monitor even has a feature article entitled “Tuesday primaries: Year of the Republican woman dawning?,” and the hopes of GOP women are high that Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Sharon Angle and Nikki Haley will up the ante when all of the primary votes are counted today.
According to Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), however, the Republicans still have a ways to go before they can make a convincing case that the GOP is the party that speaks to the aspirations of American women. According to CAWP’s most recent tally, for example, here is a breakdown of women office-holders by party:

13 Democratic women U.S. senators, vs. 4 Republicans
56 Democratic women House of Reps. members, vs. 17 Republicans
3 Democratic women Governors, 3 Republican women Governors
4 Democratic women Attorneys General, vs. 0 Republican women A.G.’s
50 Democratic women holding statewide office in the U.S., vs. 21 Republican women
70.5 percent of women state senators are Democrats, vs. 27.2 percent Republicans
70.3 percent of women state legislators are Democrats, vs. 29.4 percent Republicans

It’s an interesting phenomenon. You would think some smart journalist would call out the Republicans and ask them to explain the gap between the two parties. For Dems, however, our goal should be to recruit and elect more women candidates until something resembling gender parity among Democratic office-holders is a reality.

This item is crossposted from The New Republic.
Political junkies rejoice! There are twelve states holding elections today, including ten primaries, one runoff, and one special-election runoff. Among these, the contests that have drawn most national attention are in California, South Carolina, Nevada, Iowa, and Arkansas. The following is an overview of why these primaries matter and what you should look for in the results.
California: Mega-Money Chases Micro-Voter Interest
The Governor’s Race
As I recently explained for TNR, citizens of the Golden State are in a very bad mood, even by the jaundiced national standards of Election 2010. But as much as Californians hate politicians right now, politicians are relentlessly pursuing them. By far the most aggressive of these, in terms of sheer dollars spent, are the two Republican gubernatorial candidates, Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner. Together, they’ve already blown $110 million to win the honor of opposing the famously diffident Democrat Jerry Brown in November. If all you knew about Whitman and Poizner came from each of their attack ads, you’d think the former is a corrupt Goldman Sachs crony who lives for a chance to open the borders to unlimited immigration, while the latter is a baby-killing, tax-loving lefty whose major recent accomplishment was to buy a bunch of souped-up cars for state bureaucrats. Perhaps because she’s outspent Poizner about three to one, Whitman has had the better of this nuclear exchange, and polls show that she overcame a rough patch in May to regain an insurmountable lead going into today’s primary.
Whitman will now have to sort through the wreckage and regroup, in an attempt to pose as an eminently reasonable, middle-of-the-road businesswoman who just wants to straighten out the books in Sacramento. She’s already burned through nearly half of the $150 million of her personal fortune that she vowed to spend in order to obtain one of the worst jobs in America. If you tune in to her victory party tomorrow night, you may be deafened by the grinding of gears as she repositions her Death Star campaign for the general election.
The Senate Race
Whitman’s doppelganger, Carly Fiorina, another (female) corporate executive who parachuted into California Republican politics from a spot on John McCain’s presidential campaign, has smartly managed to position herself for a big statewide primary win tomorrow without spending more than a fraction of Whitman’s loot. Late in the race, Fiorina did scrounge up several million for a well-timed ad blitz that pushed her past the early frontrunner, cash-strapped former congressman Tom Campbell. But it was probably a combination of Campbell’s fatal social liberalism (he’s both pro-choice and pro-gay marriage) and the patent non-viability of teeth-grinding true conservative Chuck DeVore that truly pushed Fiorina to the cusp of the nomination. And while she is, by all accounts, a more personable campaigner than eMeg, she’s also saddled herself with positions on abortion (hard-line pro-life) and immigration (she supports the hated Arizona law) that will hurt her in a general-election contest with Barbara Boxer–who I’m guessing will manage to squeak past the original cranky blogger, Mickey Kaus (identified on the ballot in Spanish as a redactor de blogs), in the Democratic primary. Indeed, Boxer was up nine points over Fiorina in the latest PPIC poll, and six points in the USC/LA Times survey.
The Lieutenant Governor’s Race and Proposition 14
There are plenty of other fascinating contests on the California ballot tomorrow, the best of which will be a glamour match for the Democratic Lieutenant Governor’s nomination between San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, the favorite, and Los Angeles political heavyweight (and sister of the former LA mayor) Janice Hahn. There’s even a major ballot initiative worth watching: yet another effort to fix California’s polarization, via a switch to a “jungle primary” system that forces all candidates to run together, regardless of affiliation and face a runoff if no one wins a majority. The initiative seems to have become Arnold Schwarzenegger’s revenge on both major political parties–his PAC is the major financial force behind Proposition 14–and polls show it is likely to pass.

Read more…

On Tuesday, June 8, there will be ten states holding primaries, with a runoff in an eleventh, and a special election runoff in a twelfth. There will be lots to talk about tomorrow morning and night, but it’s worth noting today that several contests which earlier looked very close have now become laughers.
This is most obvious in California, where it appears that the once-torrid Republican gubernatorial and Senate primaries are turning into victory laps for (respectively) Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina.
Whitman appears to have finally spent rival Steve Poizner into submission, and according to every recent poll, Poizner’s obsessive focus on immigration in the stretch drive hasn’t done him much good. Sorry if I seem to keep harping on this, but total spending in this race has gone well over $100 million. Meanwhile, Democrat Jerry Brown didn’t have to campaign to win the Democratic nomination, and has been able to sit back, raise money, and watch Whitman screw up her early “centrist” positioning.
Money was also a factor in Fiorina’s late surge into the lead in the Senate primary: she had enough to run TV ads, while onetime front-runner Tom Cambpell had to put everything into a too-late effort to convince Republicans he had a better chance of beating Barbara Boxer. But Fiorina also benefitted from a consolidation of conservative voters who didn’t want to see Campbell–who is both pro-choice and pro-gay-marriage–win.
Another barburner that seems to have fizzled out is the Iowa Republican gubernatorial primary, which former Governor For Life (a joke: he only served for 16 years) Terry Branstand should win easily over arch-conservative Mike Huckabee surrogate Bob Vander Plaats, if the authoritative Des Moines Register poll is right. Sarah Palin’s late endorsement of Branstad was probably a reflection of that reality more than a contributor to it.
And finally, another race that seems to be generating a runaway winner is creating its very own kind of drama: the SC Republican gubernatorial contest, where Nikki Haley’s surge has continued despite, or perhaps partially because of, poorly documented allegations of marital infidelity against her. At this point, the big questions are whether (1) she can reach the 50% threshold necessary to win without a runoff, and (2) subsequent evidence of infidelity emerges that could, given her vow to give up her candidacy or even resign the governorship in this contingency, blow up her campaign, and the SC GOP, down the road.

Malia Lazu, Mel King Community Fellow at MIT, has a must-read quickie, entitled “Ten Things You Can Do to Win a Political Campaign” up at The Nation. King has some creative ideas and useful links, like in #4, for example:

Don’t blame the voters. Politics is the only industry that blames the consumer for not buying its product. Elections are a one-day sale; it’s your campaign’s job to get people excited enough to vote. The best way to do this is by studying candidates who understand how to build not just campaigns but movements. Check out how Keith Ellison does it in Minnesota and how Chellie Pingree does it in Maine.

Any one of King’s ten tips could pay off in a close election, and progressive campaigns should give it a cip.

In a move that startled Iowa Republicans and may have even come as a surprise to its beneficiary, Sarah Palin endorsed Terry Branstad, the ultimate Establishment Republican, for governor in next Tuesday’s GOP gubernatorial primary.
Palin’s endorsement of the former four-term governor came as a rude shock to supporters of his main rival, social conservative ultra Bob Vander Plaats, who recently harvested an endorsement from James Dobson, and had labored hard to frame the primary as a choice between a “true conservative” and a quasi-RINO.
Many observers immediately framed Palin’s surprise gambit as an insult to the Tea Party Movement, much like her endorsements of Carly Fiorina in California and Vaughan Ward in Idaho.
But I’m one who has always maintained that Palin’s true base (long before there was any such thing as a Tea Party Movement) is social conservatives focused on abortion and gay marriage, and that’s what makes the Branstand endorsement surprising. The religious right in Iowa deeply mistrusts Branstad for choosing a pro-choice Lieutenant Governor (Joy Corning, who served in Branstad’s third and fourth terms), for appointing two of the state Supreme Court judges who legalized same-sex marriage last year, and in general, for not seeming to care about their priorities. One major social conservative group, the Iowa Family PAC, has gone so far as to say it would refuse to support Branstad if he won the Republican nomination.
So what’s Palin up to, particularly if, as it appears, Branstad wasn’t exactly hanging around Wasilla begging for her support?
Nobody knows for sure, but I think Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic‘s entirely logical in guessing that Palin thinks Branstad’s going to win anyway, and would like to have a special friend in Des Moines in case she does decide to run for president in 2012. I might add that Vander Plaats is very closely associated with Mike Huckabee, Palin’s potential rival for the hard-core conservative vote. Moreover, Branstad’s prior Big Dog Republican backer is Mitt Romney, and Palin would probably have some grounds for asking Branstad to stay neutral if both of them are running around Iowa next year.
Never a dull moment for Palin watchers, eh?

It appears that the Republican Party and the conservative chattering classes are determined to identify Barack Obama with every famous conservative disaster of recent history. BP’s Gulf Oil spill, we are told incessantly, is “Obama’s Katrina,” presumably because of the common geographic location, and now we hear that the silly, contrived “scandal” over alleged job offers to Democratic primary candidates will be “Obama’s Watergate.” What’s next: Obama’s Iraq? Obama’s U.S. Attorney Scandal? Obama’s Plamegate? Obama’s Illegitimate Election? (Oh, sorry, I forgot, Republicans have already used that one!).
In any event, the “Watergate” analogy is insane, unless maybe you are too young or too poorly read to remember what Watergate entailed. As Joe Conason explains at Salon:

“Watergate” was the place where the president’s henchmen staged a “third-rate burglary” of the Democratic National Committee headquarters on a June night in 1972, but its historical definition is the vast gangsterism of the Nixon regime. Watergate involved no political job offers, but a series of burglaries, warrantless domestic wiretaps, illegal spying, campaign dirty tricks, and assorted acts of thuggery by a group of goons whose leaders included G. Gordon Liddy and the late E. Howard Hunt. Watergate meant a coverup of those felonies with more felonies, set up by lawyers and bureaucrats who collected cash payoffs from major corporations and then handed out hush money and secret campaign slush funds. Watergate implicated dozens of perps, from Hunt and Liddy all the way up to the president, his palace guard, and his crooked minions at the highest levels of the Justice Department, the FBI and the CIA.

Theo Anderson’s post, “Just Say What You Want: Will Progressives Ever Pass Political Linguistics 101?” at In These Times covers some familiar ground, but in an interesting way. Anderson’s topic is missed framing opportunities on the left, according to the writings of George Lakoff (and touching on the insights of the right’s framing wizard Frank Luntz). It seems right on time, as the 2010 political season kicks into high gear, and Anderson does a good job of keeping it current in his lede:

It’s easy to imagine Frank Luntz–the baby-faced Republican wordsmith and marketing guru–as a kind of outsize trickster in a political fairy tale. When he comes across words and phrases that don’t pack enough punch, or that pose a threat to conservatism, he waves a magic wand and they become rhetorical winners for the GOP. Oil drilling? Poof. Energy exploration! The estate tax? Poof. The death tax! Healthcare reform? Poof. Government takeover of medicine! Global warming? Poof. Climate change! Government eavesdropping? Poof. Electronic intercepts! Riding roughshod over civil liberties? Poof. Tools to combat terrorism!

Ouch. Did he have to remind us? Anderson provides a video clip of Luntz explaining his theories of effective rally signs to Glen Beck. Not to demonize our adversary, but think of it as Satan instructing his younger, dumber brother. Prompting Anderson to ask his readers:

…So the interesting question is, why can’t two play this game? Why are Democrats still so pitiful at framing public-policy debates? Why are progressives still talking about government “regulations” rather than, say, “fair-play guarantees”? In the healthcare debate, why was reforming the widely despised insurance industry such a hard sell? Why did Republicans hammer away at bureaucratic “death panels” while Democrats talked about the sleep-inducing “public option.”

Anderson answers the question by quoting from a UCBerkeleyNews.com interview with George Lakoff, who explains:

…Conservative foundations give large block grants year after year to their think tanks. They say, ‘Here’s several million dollars, do what you need to do.’ And basically, they build infrastructure, they build TV studios, hire intellectuals, set aside money to buy a lot of books to get them on the best-seller lists, hire research assistants for their intellectuals so they do well on TV, and hire agents to put them on TV. They do all of that. Why? Because the conservative moral system, which I analyzed in “Moral Politics,” has as its highest value preserving and defending the “strict father” system itself. And that means building infrastructure. As businessmen, they know how to do this very well.
Meanwhile, liberals’ conceptual system of the “nurturant parent” has as its highest value helping individuals who need help. The progressive foundations and donors give their money to a variety of grassroots organizations. They say, ‘We’re giving you $25,000, but don’t waste a penny of it. Make sure it all goes to the cause, don’t use it for administration, communication, infrastructure, or career development.’…

Anderson adds “…the fate of Lakoff’s think tank doesn’t bode well for progressives. It folded in 2008 due to–big surprise–a lack of funding. As the Institute’s brief life suggests, progressives haven’t yet gotten the message about the importance of framing.” Anderson sees an upside ahead:

The good news is that there’s plenty of material to work with, if we ever find the money and the will. “Big government” is responsible for so many things that Americans love–parks, libraries, free education through high school, subsidized higher education, roads, Social Security, drinkable water–the list goes on. Why not figure out ways to frame that fact with some political and marketing savvy? It will be difficult after 30 years of aggressive anti-government animus from the right. But it can be done.

Anderson forgets that the progressive left has done a better job of fund-raising in recent years, but his call to invest more in framing resources makes sense. He quotes a challenge from a chapter called “Talking Democracy” in Frances Moore Lappe’s recent book, Getting a Grip 2: Clarity, Creativity and Courage for the World We Really Want :

…”A big piece of the challenge is disciplining ourselves to find and use words that convey a new frame, one that spreads a sense of possibility and helps people see emerging signs of Living Democracy.”…Some of her suggestions for using better words to create this new frame? Empowered citizen instead of activist. Pro-conscience instead of pro-choice. Public protections instead of regulation. Fair-opportunity state instead of welfare state. Corporation-favoring trade instead of free trade. Global corporate control instead of globalization.

Dems do have a lot more to worry about in the months ahead, from the BP spill to high unemployment. But it can’t hurt to give a little more thought to how we project our concerns and the Republicans’ culpability.

This item by TDS Co-Editor William Galston is cross-posted from The New Republic.
As President Obama’s bipartisan fiscal commission gets set to convene, the Greek budget disaster has triggered the predictable flood of cautionary notes about how we’re spending too much and heading toward a debt crisis. Should these concerns illuminate the commission’s work–or are they merely alarmist?
Paul Krugman harbors no doubts: “Despite a chorus of voices claiming otherwise,” he writes, “we aren’t Greece.” But that’s not as encouraging as it sounds, he adds: “We are however, looking more and more like Japan. … [Recent data] suggest that we may be heading for a Japan-style lost decade, trapped in a prolonged period of high unemployment and slow growth.”
This diagnosis of our economic disease has implications for the policy prescription, Krugman argues. “For the past few months, much commentary on the economy … has had one central theme: policy makers are doing too much. Governments need to stop spending, we’re told. … Meanwhile, there are continual warnings that inflation is just around the corner and that the Fed needs to pull back from its efforts to support the economy.”
Krugman will have none of this: “[T]the truth is that policy makers aren’t doing too much; they’re doing too little.” We should enact another stimulus plan, and administration officials would push for one if Congress had not been “spooked by the deficit hawks.” For its part, he adds, the Fed should abandon its groundless fears of inflation and work instead to ward off the threat of deflation–the true cause of Japan’s failure to regain economic vitality.
So is Japan really a better baseline for U.S. policymakers than Greece, and is it close enough to serve as a guide for policy? To be sure, there are some important resemblances. Like the U.S., Japan experienced a sharp run-up in equity and real estate, followed by a collapse. As in the U.S., this reverse weakened the banking system and coincided with a sharp contraction in commercial lending. Like their American counterparts, Japanese policymakers responded with substantial fiscal and monetary stimulus.
These are qualitative similarities. But there are quantitative differences, and they are large enough to warrant caution about direct policy inferences. Stocks in the U.S. are down about 40 percent from their all-time high, versus 75 percent for Japan. While U.S. real estate is down about 30 percent from its peak, Japanese land values are down more than 80 percent. In Tokyo, residential real estate has fallen by more than 90 percent, and commercial real estate in the heart of the financial district sells for 1 percent of its 1989 value. Brookings economist and former CEA director Barry Bosworth estimates that as a share of GDP, the destruction of wealth in Japan from peak to trough was about five times what it has been in the United States. Given the key role of stocks as well as real estate loans in the balance sheets of Japanese banks, it’s reasonable to assume that the Japanese banking system experienced a disruption far worse than ours.
It would stand to reason, then, that restoring Japan’s economy to health would require an even larger policy response than the one we’ve seen in the United States thus far. In some respects, that is what happened. Unfortunately, it hasn’t worked.

Read more…

A new poll from Suffolk of the Nevada Republican Senate primary bears the topline finding that onetime frontrunner Sue “Chickens for Checkups” Lowden has now slipped into third place behind Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle and the more conventional conservative Danny Tarkanian. Since Lowden has continuously performed very well in general election tests against Harry Reid, her falling fortunes in the primary are good news for the embattled incumbent.
But below the toplines, the Suffolk provides an interesting glimpse into the psyches of Nevada Republicans. And two findings are of particular interest. First, there’s this eyebrow-raiser:

The next question concerns the oil leak which has continued to flow into the Gulf of Mexico for the last 7 weeks. Would you support a moratorium on all U.S. offshore drilling until appropriate safety measures have been designed and tested?