[digg-reddit-me]There were only two bits worth repeating in last night’s Saturday Night Live – at least for a political junkie like me – both of them on the Weekend Update.
The first was Seth Myer’s take on the Obama, “I screwed up” admission:
The second was a sort of defense of Michael Phelps and put-down of Kellogs. The last “Really…” is of course the best – and the one mainly unexplored part of the story.
[digg-reddit-me]I’ve struggled to figure out how to respond to the stimulus debate – as I think many are struggling. The blogs and the polls are both drawing muddled conclusions. I share TPIP’s reservation about judging Obama’s strategies too quickly:
When it comes to strategy I never like to question Obama (although I have, like on appeasing ungrateful Republicans on the recovery package), because he has proven himself over and over again to be brilliant when it comes to strategy, particularly when it comes to taking the long view, that many often overlook.
Looking at the recent past, Obama’s savvy has been underestimated again and again – and by defending him in these moments, I think this blog has proved itself prescient – for example, before Iowa, when Hillary seemed inevitable, I wrote a post entitled, “Why I Am Confident About Obama.” I wrote at the time – in October 2007:
Clintonian hubris, an Obama strategy to put the pressure on Clinton late, with Iowa in a statistical dead heat, and a ton of other primaries following hard-upon Iowa. It seems to me that Obama has a good chance of winning…
That sounds pretty much right even today. After the surprising New Hampshire loss, I wrote that:
Sometimes, it’s hard to have faith in democracy, in people. The same people who, in their wisdom, elected George W. Bush to a second term…
But:
If this election comes down to the fundamentals – if it comes down to people trying to decide the direction of the country – then Barack wins.
On the night of Palin’s convention speech, I wrote:
Palin can rally the Republican base like few others. But tonight, for all it’s electricity, was disappointing – because if Palin is the future of the Republican party, she has nothing to offer but fear – primarily of Obama, secondarilty of Islamic extremism, and tertiarilty, of taxes…
But that this “will not have the effect the Republicans hope it will” because “she had no vision for America, not sense of what comes next. She refused to acknowlege the tough times we are in.”
After the Sarah Palin bump had everyone scared, I tried to calm people down by posting links to various articles and posting this picture:
The reason I was confident in Obama beating Hillary – even in the worst moments – and in Obama beating McCain – even during the worst moments – is that Obama’s campaign was tapping into the fundamentals of what I believed the electorate was looking for. Whether or not he was winning in any specific moment, whether or not he was winning in any of the daily press wars, his overall strategy was a victorious one. Sun-Tzu advised to “accommodate yourself to the enemy until you can fight a decisive battle.” This seems to have been Obama’s strategy – to allow his campaign to take hits and play defense, sticking to an overall strategy that would gain him a final decisive victory rather than exhausting his staff fighting every daily flair-up. Sometimes, this led to awful weeks – such as the long lack of a complete response to the Rev. Wright fiasco. But Obama ended up winning because, though he lost a thousand daily battles over Rev. Wright, he took the long view and gave a subtle, personal speech about race. He won that war not by fighting back charge after charge but by changing it from a war into a reflective national moment. It’s hard to describe how extraordinary that is – how rarely that has happened in history, and how difficult it was to imagine this was even possible, especially in the frenetic media environment that has existed since 1992.
Similarly, now, Obama’s stimulus bill is being attacked on it’s thousands of small details. By some accountings, it is only 1% or 2% of the funding of the bill that is being directly attacked. Issues entirely tangential to this stimulus are dominating the media coverage – and it certainly seems true that some portion of the opposition of Republicans to this bill comes from political calculation rather than an honest disagreement with the bill. As the AFP described the dynamic at work:
[I]f Obama’s stimulus works and revives the reeling economy, [the Republicans] would be unlikely to get any credit even if they voted for it – by opposing the measure they can at least expect some political gain if it fails.
Some Democratic Senators are criticizing the bill now – and House Democrats are getting pissed. I agree with a number of the criticisms of the bill and certainly see some good reasons for a Congressman or Senator to oppose this massive new public spending.
All of this has contributed to the growing feeling among some voters and most commentators that this whole thing is being poorly managed.
Except…if you look at Obama’s role in this carefully and see the process which he is creating.
He is once again playing the long game. He did not write the bill himself, but allowed Congress to do its job and draft a bill and then fight over the provisions. This is what Congress is supposed to do. Washington pundits – not used to an executive that allows the Congress to deliberate and debate and actually play a role in governing – are criticizing Obama for not putting a stop to this process of debate and deliberation, drafting his own bill, and then forcing Congress to accept it, perhaps allowing them to amend it a bit if the president is feeling generous. That’s not the Washington that Obama wants. He accepts our Constitution and believes Congress has a role to play even in a financial emergency such as this.
At the same time, he is willing to reach out to the Republicans who might oppose him – to obsequiously try to get their buy-in for this needed stimulus, to engage in civil conversation about the issues – to avoid attacking them directly though they continue to try to score political points against him and the Democrats. He can afford to do this because of his commanding position with large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. He knows he can get his way even with strong Republican opposition. But it’s hard to imagine another political figure accepting the number of attacks Obama has without responding in kind. Instead, Obama has reiterated publicly the urgency and seriousness of the crisis – and the need for quick action as he made clear in his comments today:
I hope [the members of Congress] share my sense of urgency and draw the same, unmistakable conclusion: The situation could not be more serious. These numbers demand action. It is inexcusable and irresponsible for any of us to get bogged down in distraction, delay, or politics as usual, while millions of Americans are being put out of work.
Now is the time for Congress to act…
Now, I have repeatedly acknowledged that, given the magnitude and the difficulties of the problem we’re facing, there are no silver bullets and there are no easy answers. The bill that’s emerged from Congress is not perfect, but a bill is absolutely necessary. We can continue to improve and refine both the House and Senate versions of these bills. There may be provisions in there that need to be left out; there may be some provisions that need to be added. But broadly speaking, the package is the right size, it is the right scope, and it has the right priorities…[my emphasis]
According to Obama, this stimulus bill is just the first part of a larger package of reforms and bills that will be part of his response to the financial crisis – the first steps in a Grand Bargain to tackle challenges America’s long-term financial and economic stability.
All of this is why, despite the thousand small attacks and the growing chorus of concern from the pundits, I am still confident in Obama and his plans.
Confident but not complacent.
[digg-reddit-me]I was listening to Governor David Patterson speak at the Council on Foreign Relations podcast of a recent session – and was somewhat favorably impressed with him. His remarks were coherent and interesting and clearly showed that he was an intelligent person gathering information and acting as he saw best. He seemed to have an almost Bushian disregard for the legislature though – and a sense that he – and he alone – knew what was best.
Much more interesting than anything Gov. Patterson said though was moderator and former Massachusetts Governor William Weld’s offhand comment:
There’s no one so brave and wise as the politician who’s not running for office and who’s not going to be…
The remark certainly conveys a certain wisdom in itself – as even prosaic politicians are found to have some real insight once they leave office. It’s an interesting comment on our political system – that bravery and wisdom are seen as detriments to political success and acceptance.
Dahlia Lithwick, who I rarely fail to mention, is one of my favorite writers, had a piece a few days ago on what she wants. In a Supreme Court justice that is. And I lightly paraphrase:
Wonky liberal lawyer seeking a hero, a bomb-throwing, passionate, visionary, liberal Scalia for a seat on the Supreme Court!
One of the main facts revealed in all those recent scholarship of the Rehnquist (O’Connor) court, though, was that Scalia’s brash personality and insulting style actually pushed the moderates to the left – or drove them to be less susceptible to being wooed to Scalia’s side in an argument. Though the Court has indisputably moved far to the right since Scalia entered it, seven of the past nine Supreme Court justices have been appointed by Republican presidents. The two appointed by Clinton were moderates chosen to be confirmed by a Republican Congress. Yet, the Court has only moved slowly towards conservative positions. There are many explanations of this, but for anyone who considers the social dynamics of the Court to be significant – and from her article Dahlia seems to be one who does – then Scalia’s antagonistic approach to O’Connor’s sloppy reasoning and Kennedy’s pomposity certainly must be one factor. A brash, bomb-throwing liberal then is exactly what the Court doesn’t need.
What I think it does need is a libertarian-minded liberal who can forge an alliance with Scalia on certain issues – and perhaps Thomas as well. Both Alito and Roberts seem to be enamored of executive power – and perhaps that was why it was they who were chosen. I consider them lost causes. But Scalia and Thomas are conservatives of an older school – one which a contemporary liberal – such as Lawrence Lessig or even Cass Sunstein – has much in common with.
I think Dahlia would be happy with that though – a Lessig, a Sunstein, and a Lawrence Tribe. Perhaps a Harold Koh and an Elena Kagan. Instead of a bomb-thrower, I think Dahlia just wants a liberal with a vision instead of an incrementalist. On that, I agree.
[digg-reddit-me]Solomon Moore in the New York Times:
For the cartels, “marijuana is the king crop,” said Special Agent Rafael Reyes, the chief of the Mexico and Central America Section of the Drug Enforcement Administration. “It consistently sustains its marketability and profitability.”
Marijuana trafficking continues virtually unabated in the United States, even as intelligence reports suggest the declining availability of heroin, cocaine and other hard drugs that require extensive smuggling operations.
If marijuana is now the main drug that is sustaining the Mexican drug gangs that are causing so much chaos in our neighbor to the south that they could potentially cause it to collapse overnight, mightn’t it make strategic sense to take some steps to bring the marijuana trafficking into the light?
Of course, if marijuana is especially debilitating or toxic or dangerous or addictive, this strategic advantage might not be enough to justify it’s decriminalization. But it is none of those things.
Which just goes to prove my previous thesis – that the War on Drugs is making America less safe.
\
I was happily reading an interesting article on “Abraham Lincoln, The Physical Man” (found via reddit) describing our 16th president’s unique physical characteristics when I came across this disturbing image from William Herndon’s classic biography of his former law partner:
I would say he was a cross between Venus and Hercules.
WTF does that mean?
I have a feeling, if one combined Venus and Hercules it would have a similar effect to this.
[digg-reddit-me]David Segal of The New York Times interviewed a former Wall Street executive who wished to remain anonymous for his article on how “Wall Street” has become a financial epithet. The executive said:
I’d almost rather say I’m a pornographer. At least that’s a business that people understand.
The self-pity is unbecoming – and the lack of an acknowledgement of responsibility is not surprising. After all – it was indecent greed and irresponsibility that got Wall Street into such trouble.
What’s funny is – I think this anonymous executive is right. Whether in New York or Topeka, a pornographer is now held in more esteem than a Wall Street banker.
From a blog post by Timothy Egan last week in the New York Times about Portland’s mayor:
But with the betrayal by Sam Adams, the city now offers an old lesson in timeless and tawdry human weakness. The story of Sam Adams is not about gay predators or gay anything, because Portland has seen this civic morality tale once before, with a heterosexual mayor.
It’s about why voters should never give their hearts over completely to politicians. As a class, they are inherently insecure — a character flaw at the base of all politicians, from Bill Clinton to Bob Packwood. And they lie, with rare exceptions — a hard thing to say at a time when the doors of possibility are open to leaders yet untarnished.
That’s an eternal lesson, though, as with all rules, there are rare exceptions.
Obama has clearly been trying to stay above the fray in this debate over the stimulus bill. He set guidelines as to what he wanted in the bill and let Congress fight over the specifics. He wanted a bill:
But as E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post explained:
The president has been willing to give House and Senate Democrats substantial leeway in crafting their proposals because he knows that both will end up being broadly to his liking. He can influence the final outcome when the two houses work out their differences next month.
The administration did intervene, however, to chip away at a few small but politically troublesome expenditures…
Dionne is referring to the items the Republicans voiced displeasure over (with press releases and coordinated apperances on cable news shows). Obama pressed the Democrats in Congress to remove the items (including state funding for contraception and STD prevention and a museum of the mob in Las Vegas). The Republicans wanted tax cuts – and Obama obliged with over 35% of the cost of the stimulus going to tax cuts. A number of other Republican proposals have been incorporated into the bill from Chuck Grassley’s Alternative Minimum Tax fix to Arlen Specter’s additional funding for the National Institute of Health to Eric Cantor’s proposal to place the bill on the internet.
The Republicans who have been criticizing the bill have praised the popular President Obama’s outreach and tried to place the blame on the unpopular House Democrats. The talking point is that Obama is too timid to stand up to the House Democrats who are foisting this awful bill upon us. This seems to me to be a misleading interpretation of the above events designed to undercut Obama politically. From what I can see and from what I read – the Democrats, and especially Obama, are making a good faith effort to make sure this bill has bipartisan support. They are incorporating Republican suggestions and principles; they are involving them in some, though not all discussions of the bill. Even if there is truth to the complaints of House Republicans that they are being frozen out of the House’s deliberations, their input is clearly being taken into account by Obama who has presssed the House Democrats to make changes suggested by the House Republicans. The Senate bill seems to be even more reflective of Republican concerns, with 78% of it’s spending projected to be done by 2010.
Which is why the unanimous opposition of the House Republicans is disappointing. It is best explained, it seems, by politics, as the AFP described the dynamic at work:
[I]f Obama’s stimulus works and revives the reeling economy, they would be unlikely to get any credit even if they voted for it – by opposing the measure they can at least expect some political gain if it fails.
But the battle of whether the Republicans are being true to their ideals or merely obstructionist hasn’t yet been resolved. The Republicans have been dominating the media coverage while the Democrats have hung back. They have been expressing their criticism of the stimulus plan in partisan terms – bringing up culture war issues related to sexual morality, calling the bill a mere sop to Democratic interest groups, and failing to acknowledge the significant concessions that have been made. Rush Limbaugh – as part of his continuing quest to hijack the Republican Party – wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal full of his usual misinformation: exaggerating the cost of the bill; downplaying the tax cuts within the bill (when his real objection is to who these tax cuts are going to); and most of all claiming that it was an example of Democratic policies being forced down the throat of an America who wants a bipartisan approach – like the one Rush Limbaugh is offering.
There are major changes that should be made to this bill – the most pragmatic and popular one being to eliminate the portions of the bill extending past 2010 and keeping those provisions for other legislation. But by necessity, out of a need for quick action, this bill will be far from perfect – utilizing existing programs rather than creating more appropriate and effective ones. Obama should ensure that the Senate Democrats make this change to the bill, which is already an improvement over the House bill in that 78% of it’s monies will be disbursed within two years.
But regardless of whether this bill is the right bill or not, Obama will soon face a choice. The Republicans seem to be interpreting Obama’s civility and openness to dialogue as weakness. They do not seem to realize where they are headed. Voting against tax cuts. Voting against a stimulus measure. Obstructing the government from acting in the midst of a crisis. Obama will likely continue to reach out for the rest of this week, making obsequious efforts to woo Senate Republicans to his side. Given the dynamics that are dominating in Washington, I find it difficult to believe they will give in, although some might. (The question would become, did Obama get enough Republicans.) As described above, most Republicans have far more to gain by being obstructionist – especially if they are misinterpreting Obama’s attempts at biparisanship as weakness – and think there will be no consequences.
My bet – and my advice if it were needed – would be for Obama to make a final private plea for Republican support later this week. Then, if it fails, to schedule a speech this coming weekend in one of his more vulnerable opponents’ states. He should make clear that this bill is not perfect – but that decisive action in the midst of this crisis is important. He should make clear that bipartisanship is not unilateral disarmament. He can only work with those who will unclench their partisan fists and are willing to get down to the work of governing. He should make it clear that this bill is not our only response to the crisis – that we will likely need to do more – to reform the banking and mortgage industries; to continue to create liquidity in the credit markets. He should make clear that this stimulus bill is only one part of his overall plan. Shortly after this speech, he should sent out an email to his supporters asking them to write their Congressmen and Senators and ask the Obama movement to prove it’s continued political worth.
In short, he should give a brief demonstration of the consequences of crossing Obama – he must show his opponents the back of his hand. It may not be civil – but politics cannot be civil without respect. Perhaps it is time for Obama to demonstrate his ability to change the debate in Washington – and in the country.
[digg-reddit-me]Aside from the partisan power play that seems to be motivating most of the Republican opposition to the stimulus plan, there are a number of fair-minded criticisms.
First, the plan lacks the Obama touch – the deft promise to cut those programs that don’t work and to make sure the ones that are around still do work, the libertarian paternalistic designs of Cass Sunstein, the nimble government program that does not coerce but merely offers opportunity. Of course, there is a sensible reason for this. The stimulus is needed right now – and it will take time to design new programs with this balancing between libertarian principles and liberal ends in mind. So, Obama has decided that this stimulus package must work within existing programs – which Republicans have used as an excuse to attack those programs.
Second, there is not a clear exit strategy. Many of these spending measures and tax breaks are supposed to be emergency measures that the government will only maintain during this crisis – but new spending and cuts in taxes both are hard to roll back. The idea that taxes are hard to raise is, of course, the basis of the “Starve the Beast” strategy that conservatives adopted (as described by George Will):
For years, many conservatives advocated a “starve the beast” approach to limiting government. They supported any tax cut, of any size, at any time, for any purpose, assuming that, deprived of revenue, government spending would stop growing.
But they found out that spending was also hard to cut:
But spending continued, and government borrowing encouraged government’s growth by making big government cheap: People were given $1 worth of government but were charged less than that, the balance being shifted, through debt, to future generations.
Obama’s stimulus plan involves both increasing spending and cutting taxes. The question is – can we then raise taxes and cut spending after this is over? Obama has clearly indicated he intends to – and to shore up America’s long-term fiscal solvency by dealing with entitlement spending too. If he is able to pull off this Grand Bargain, then he will belong in the rank of the best presidents. If he is not, then this temporary increase could have disasterous effects.
Third, by trying to act so quickly, there will inevitably be unintended consequences. To avoid as many of these as possible, the bill should be cleaner and its provisions should work faster.
Fourth, as Robert Samuelson wrote in the Washington Post:
As it turns out, President Obama didn’t make the tough choices on the stimulus package. He could have either used the program mainly (a) to bolster the economy or (b) to advance a larger political agenda, from energy efficiency to school renovation…There were tough choices to be made – and Obama ducked them.
This bill is something of a muddle so far, in part because of the need for speed, and in part because Obama has let the House and Senate Democrats craft the bill, waiting to give his input until the conference in which the bills passed by the House and Senate will be reconciled.
Fifth, the bill offers both short term stimulus measures and downpayments on longer term (and worthy) projects. A stimulus bill should only include spending in the short term. The 75% goal Obama has set is too low. Every dime in the stimulus package should be out by the end of 2010. Kay Bailey Hutchinson ably stuck to this point in her Meet the Press appearance this past Sunday. Her confident demeanor and obvious grasp of policy made me wonder what had led John McCain to bypass her in choosing his Vice Presidential nominee.
In short, most of the bills problems seem to come from the speed with which it is being forced out. This is a tradeoff Obama seems to be willing to make – as this bill is intended primarily to demonstrate that stimulus is coming and the problem is being taken seriously.
