Categories
Barack Obama Criticism Economics Financial Crisis History Morality Political Philosophy Politics The Bush Legacy The Opinionsphere

Must-Reads of the Week: Krugman v. Ferguson, Ted Kennedy again, Hank Paulson, Sedaris, and Phreaking

This week there are quite a few good pieces to take a look at over the long weekend – in between games of beer pong, or BBQs…

Krugman v. Ferguson. Matthew Lynn in the Times of London wrote a feature on the “war” over the response to the economic crisis going on between the American Princeton Professor, New York Times columnist, Nobel-prize winner, and noted liberal Paul Krugman and British Harvard Professor, Financial Times columnist, and noted conservative Niall Ferguson. I had been following it closely already, but this article had a number of more details and conveyed the story arc well. Meanwhile, Krugman released another attack on Ferguson – indirectly though – in which he laid out his vision (as a kind of short intellectual history of economics in the 20th and 21st centuries) of what happened in the most recent crisis, why so many economists got it wrong, and why we’re taking the right steps now:

As I see it, the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth. Until the Great Depression, most economists clung to a vision of capitalism as a perfect or nearly perfect system. That vision wasn’t sustainable in the face of mass unemployment, but as memories of the Depression faded, economists fell back in love with the old, idealized vision of an economy in which rational individuals interact in perfect markets, this time gussied up with fancy equations. The renewed romance with the idealized market was, to be sure, partly a response to shifting political winds, partly a response to financial incentives. But while sabbaticals at the Hoover Institution and job opportunities on Wall Street are nothing to sneeze at, the central cause of the profession’s failure was the desire for an all-encompassing, intellectually elegant approach that also gave economists a chance to show off their mathematical prowess.

The article is missing Krugman’s usual zingers and partisan swipes – and is really quite good. It also reminds you that Ferguson is an historian – not an economist.

Ted Kennedy, leaky vessel. Sam Tanenhaus writes about Senator Ted Kennedy as a kind of magnificent character, capturing him and the movement he led better than most others:

But if the art of governance did not redeem Mr. Kennedy, it irradiated him, and the liberalism he personified. At a time when government itself had fallen into disrepute Mr. Kennedy applied himself diligently to its exacting discipline, and wrested whatever small victories he could from the machinery he had learned to operate so well. Whether or not his compass was finally true, he endured as the battered, leaky vessel through which the legislative arts recovered some of their lost glory.

Hank Paulson. Todd Purdhum of Vanity Fair finally writes his piece about his many conversations with Hank Paulson before and during the financial crisis – a piece notable for the fact that Paulson seemed exceptionally forthcoming as he knew the piece wouldn’t come out until well after he had left public office.

The Wisdom of David Sedaris. A nice story from last week’s New Yorker:

[S]he invited us to picture a four-burner stove.

“Gas or electric?” Hugh asked, and she said that it didn’t matter.

This was not a real stove but a symbolic one, used to prove a point at a management seminar she’d once attended. “One burner represents your family, one is your friends, the third is your health, and the fourth is your work.” The gist, she said, was that in order to be successful you have to cut off one of your burners. And in order to be really successful you have to cut off two.

Pat has her own business, a good one that’s allowing her to retire at fifty-five. She owns three houses, and two cars, but, even without the stuff, she seems like a genuinely happy person. And that alone constitutes success.

I asked which two burners she had cut off, and she said that the first to go had been family. After that, she switched off her health. “How about you?”

I thought for a moment, and said that I’d cut off my friends. “It’s nothing to be proud of, but after meeting Hugh I quit making an effort.”

“And what else?” she asked.

“Health, I guess.”

Hugh’s answer was work.

“And?”

“Just work,” he said.

Phone Phreak. David Kushner in Rolling Stone features the story of a poor, fat, lonely, blind boy who finds a way to be happy as a phone phreaker (a kind of hacker on telephone lines.) The boy – Matthew Weigman – submerges himself in the culture, and due to his unique skillset is able to become an almost cartoon villain, without the manic desire to take over the world. Instead, he unleashes SWAT teams on girls who refuse to have phone sex with him, as he fakes calls from inside their house pretending he is holding them hostage; or ferrets out all the names and biographies of the team tracking him down, which he jovially explains to an FBI agent who comes to recruit him.

Categories
Humor Politics The Opinionsphere Videos

Glenn Beck: God Is An Atheist!

[digg-reddit-me]Watching this clip from Glenn Beck, I find it hard to understand how his mind works. For some reason, he seems to have attributed the idea of “beating swords into ploughshares” to Communist influence. He clearly knows it is from the Bible – as he reads Bible citation from one of the images (the image actually appears three times in the Bible – in Isaiah, Micah, and Joel.) But the fact that this biblical image inspired a statue that the USSR donated to the United Nations is proof enough to Beck that not only was John Rockefeller a secret Communist, but that as he donated land to the United Nations, the UN must be as well? I think that’s the point he’s making. (Trying to follow Beck’s “reasoning” is like waterboarding my frontal lobe.)

But with that type of association being used as proof, and as the Bible was obviously written by God himself, doesn’t that make God a Communist?

And if God is a Communist, and Communists are atheists, then wouldn’t that mean God is an atheist?

And if God is an atheist, and we are supposed to follow God, shouldn’t we all become atheists as well?

Damn – who would’ve thought that Glenn Beck, darling of the right wing, is actually an atheistic Communist who – it is rumored – raped and murdered a young girl in 1990? I could see some people speculating that he did so because she was a God-fearing Christian who wouldn’t give in to his atheistic advances.

Categories
Barack Obama Health care Politics The Opinionsphere

The Lessons of 1993/1994 (cont.)

[digg-reddit-me]Usually I try to contextualize a writer – for example by saying what publication they write for. Other times, I presume the name conveys enough. But I don’t know Sean Trende from Adam. However, he has an interesting column published in Real Clear Politics about what he calls the “myth circulating in the blogosphere and the punditry.” (He gives Steve Benen, Mark Kleiman, Matt Yglesias, and Senator Jim DeMint as examples; I also made this point.) He says this myth is “threatening the Democrats’ majorities.” He describes it:

It goes like this: In 1994, Democrats failed to pass a healthcare bill, and they lost their majorities. Ergo, if Democrats fail to pass a healthcare bill in 2009, they will be at serious risk of losing their majorities in 2010, so to save their majorities, they should make certain above all else to get something passed.

He parses through the data – read his column for the figures – and concludes:

In other words, the problem for Democrats in 1994 was not that they didn’t support Clinton’s agenda enough. It was that they got too far out in front of their conservative-leaning districts and supported the President too much.

Overall, I found his piece rather persuasive – as Trende styles himself a poor man’s Nate Silver – at least on the narrow question of whether or not a Democrat in a right-leaning district would be hurt by rejecting any controversial measure pushed by Obama. But what he doesn’t deal with is the counterfactual – as there isn’t the data available in the set he is looking for to take this on. (Reading a bit more of Trende, it also seems he isn’t that sympathetic to health care reform or the Democrats – making his adopted pose of concern that a “myth” is “threatening” the Democrats’ power in Washington a bit grating.)  While it’s true that Democrats in right-leaning districts might save their seats by opposing cap-and-trade legislation, the stimulus, and health care reform, the party as a whole will undoubtedly suffer from their failure to advance the issues they were most passionate campaigning on.

Kevin Drum – in a post which is overall worth reading about why he is optimistic about reform – makes this persuasive counterpoint:

[I]f they [the Democrats] cave in to the loons and demonstrate that their convictions were weak all along — they’re probably doomed next year.  Their only hope is to pass a bill and look like winners who get things done.

This is exactly the counterfactual that Trende doesn’t address – and it was the fear of Bill Kristol and many other Republicans in 1994 that this is exactly what would happen if the Democrats passed a successful health care reform. It clearly seems to be the fear many Republican leaders are feeling now – as they seem determined to resist any pressure to work towards a bill they can accept in favor of simply continuing with the unsustainable status quo.

Categories
Politics The Media The Opinionsphere

A suggestion for Glenn Beck

Since we’re on the subject of Glenn Beck, Eric Boehlert over at Media Matters has a good suggestion for the television host:

Why doesn’t Beck go on TV every day and simply defend his “racist” claim? Why doesn’t Beck stand up for the racist remark and stake his reputation on it? Because right now, the pathetic, squishy approach he’s taking where he limply lashes back while pretending the ad boycott sprang from some mysterious place — where Beck plays the victim and pretends he never made the “racist” smear — is just too lame for words.

The host has never apologized, so it seems logical that he stands behind the claim. (And that’s what he claimed one month ago.) And if he stands behind it, why doesn’t he set aside a few minutes on each program to detail how Obama is a racist? Why doesn’t he educate his viewers? In fact, I’m sure even folks who don’t regularly tune into Beck would be fascinated to know how Obama, whose mother was white and who was raised by his white grandparents, suffers from an abiding hatred of white people and “white culture,” as Beck claimed.

Categories
History

Defending the Use of Reconciliation on Health Care

[digg-reddit-me]A meme among left wing bloggers in recent days (spawned no doubt on JournoList) has been variations on a particular defense of the use of the reconciliation process to achieve health care reform. Here’s Ezra Klein for example (though Matt Yglesias made an almost identical point):

Reconciliation began as a limited way to expedite passage of the budget bill that came at the end of each year. It did this by limiting debate and short-circuiting the filibuster. But year by year, administration by administration, it’s becoming more significant. It was used to pass much of Reagan’s economic agenda. Clinton expanded it to balance the budget, reform welfare and change the tax code. George W. Bush used it for tax cuts, trade authority and drilling in ANWR.

I wasn’t aware of this history when I wrote this earlier post suggesting it wasn’t the best option. But I think the political analysis still stands. Unless there is some hook that makes a certain set of facts stick, it will do nothing to derail the impression that most Americans barely attention get that health care reform was only able to get through a Cognress with a strong Democratic majority by trickery. This is a bad thing – though not worse than no bill at all in my opinion. I suggested:

A show of force whereby Obama pushes the Democrats to forthrightly endorse a bill would be – and play – much better in my opinion. Shenanigans – while legal – can be forgotten in time if the legislation proves popular; but a show of force would be more effective on almost every other level.

Of course, Obama would need to find some leverage to push people like Senator Ben Nelson – and it’s unclear at the moment what that would be. The best rationale though for pushing the reconciliation process is that it will make such a process unnecessary – as Ezra Klein explains:

If Republicans can kill the bill, that’s their first-best outcome. But if they can’t kill the bill, the second-best outcome, at least for some of them, may be to deal on it. If there’s going to be legislation, Snowe and Collins and Voinovich and a few others might want to see their priorities included rather than simply content themselves with a protest vote against the legislation. Reconciliation might actually get you to 60, because it ensures the endgame includes a bill rather than a failure.

[Image by Greg from Cobb Mountain licensed under Creative Commons.]

Categories
Politics The Opinionsphere

Fighting Glenn Beck for a Better World

[digg-reddit-me]For me, Glenn Beck is clearly making the world a worse place. He rants, raves, weeps, goes into hysterics, and spouts lies. He undermines our civil discourse and makes it harder for our society to tackle any serious issues. He polarizes. He provides a platform for such outlandish notions as concentration camps for conservatives to health care as a scam to institute reparations for slavery to the nuclear decimation of an American city as the only means to “save” America from terrorism. He is a fundamentally ridiculous figure – but he is riding some zeitgeist and tapping into and encouraging something real: the worst fears of the far right wing.

I am not exceptional in my desire to try to make the world a better place – and in seeking to stop those people I feel are making the world worse. As stated in such generic terms, that is what most of us do. Yet we are not willing to do so “by any means necessary” – instead seeing a value in the freedom of speech, for example. We see a value in permitting even lies and hysterical attempts to polarize as a matter of right, while at the same time opposing the substance or style of the communication.

The distinction here is crucial to keep in mind as we talk about stopping Glenn Beck from making the world a worse place.

I oppose government intervention to stop Glenn Beck from misleading his viewers; I oppose government regulations that would require Beck to air opposing views (as in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine); though even unrelated to this, I even oppose certain forms of campaign finance reform election-related material. I would oppose any attempt by any government agency to intimidate Glenn Beck or otherwise silence him.

But I do believe it is the responsibility of our society to impose some constraints to allow for civil discourse, and of each of us as individuals to take personal responsibility for even the indirect consequences of our actions. The problem with the right wing backlash against the boycott of Glenn Beck by major corporate sponsors is that it is often so uninformed – confusing the freedom of speech and the sponsorship of speech. Right wingers have every right to defend Glenn Beck, no matter the excrement he flings about, simian-like.

But our society suffers from an apathetic failure to take responsibility for systems on which we do not have direct control. As citizens and as consumers, we should take responsibility – and actions such as the boycott of Glenn Beck highlight how effective such action can be.

The debate over health care has highlighted how fundamentally broken our national conversation is – how citizens are less knowledgeable about the health care bills being considered now than they were before the smearing campaign – at how our debate is unhinged from the issues at stake. One goal that conservatives and liberals, progressives and libertarians, right and left wingers should be able to unite around is encouraging a more fair national conversation, less diluted by hype, scandal, and lies. We should encourage – rather than a government-imposed Fairness Doctrine, a citizen-consumer-driven “Fair Shake.”

[Image by The Rocketeer licensed under Creative Commons.]

Categories
National Security Politics The Opinionsphere The War on Terrorism

A World Where 24 Is “Believable” and Orwell Is Misquoted

[digg-reddit-me]I know that defending torture is difficult as well as unconscionable – but just because an editor will publish such trash doesn’t necessary mean they are bad at their job. However, if the evidence from this past weekend is any indication, it seems they are. Pat Buchanan began his piece with a quote that has been famously and erroneously attributed to George Orwell:

Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Buchanan tries to use this quote to defend the Orwellian abuse of language that John Yoo and other Bush administration members used to legally justify the proposition that torture wasn’t “torture.” I have the feeling that Orwell would have appreciated the irony. But more importantly, wouldn’t any editor take a moment to check if the quote was actually by Orwell? A Google search will quickly turn up the fact that it has been misattributed to him. Maybe I’m naive, but I would presume an editor – or someone – would take a moment to double check a citation.

Then of course Amanda Bowman in the Wall Street Journal explains the reason Americans watch 24:

[T]he Obama Administration is going to pay a big political price for indulging the civil libertarians of their party. The American television show 24 is in its 7th season because its portrayal of a life-and-death fight against terrorism in the face of political meddling appears to most Americans—and I would add Britons—both believable and justified. [my emphasis]

I like 24; I still watch it – one of a slowly dwindling number of Americans who still does. But anyone who calls it “believable” clearly isn’t familiar with the show. When Jack Bauer wanted to stop a terrorist in a van, he jumped in front of the van. Jack Bauer once died multiple times in a single episode – and was running around the next. Jack Bauer extracts the truth from his prisoners with surgical precision – whether by shooting them in the leg, electrocuting them, or whatever other means are necessary. (Bauer’s techniques were so ineffective and so unrealistic that the U.S. military actually sent a team to talk to the show’s producers a few years back.) To get people to talk – some of them innocent – Bauer has threatened babies and kidnapped and mock executed children. Every terrorist attack is financed and controlled by some convoluted plot involving nefarious American corporations seeking profits. Bauer manages to never eat or go to the bathroom in the 24-hour period covered by the show. Perhaps most unrealistically, Bauer lives in a world where nuclear weapons have gone off several times on American soil and spectacular terrorists attacks are common – yet the Congress in Bauer’s world insists on holding hearings that are more onerous than any held to this day by our Congresses, despite the respite from attacks in real life.

24 may be many things, but “believable” isn’t one of them.

Categories
Humor Libertarianism Politics The Bush Legacy The Opinionsphere

Are You A Libertarian If…

DarkSyde at the Daily Kos lists the “Top 10 Signs You Might Not Be A Libertarian.” It captures the silliness of the claims some people make – especially those who only fled the label “Republican” as George W. Bush became less popular:

[I]f you think government should stay the hell out of people’s private business — except when kidnapping citizens and rendering them to secret overseas torture prisons, snooping around the bedrooms of consenting adults, policing a woman’s uterus, or conducting warrantless wire taps, you are no Libertarian.

Check it out. Funny, yet true – the best combination.

Categories
Health care Politics

Health Care Lie #494: Health Insurance Companies and Their Allies Are Blocking Reform

[digg-reddit-me]I’ve come to see it as a sign of dishonesty – of political manipulation – to portray the insurance companies as the primary villains in the problems with health care. As for example in this editorial in the Washington Post from the weekend:

[T]he campaign must focus attention on the insurance companies that are primarily responsible for the health-care mess. This means organizing public events across the country that can articulate Americans’ frustrations with the current health insurance system and polarize public opinion against the insurance companies and their allies. [my emphasis]

Of course – as those paying attention to the fight over reform know – the insurance companies stand to benefit from many of the provisions in the plan – if not from others such as the public option – and they seem to have realized in advance that they needed to get behind reform so they could shape it. Perhaps behind the scenes, they are trying to block it – but I haven’t actually seen any indication of it. (And neither has Ezra Klein who has been following this more closely and for much longer than I have.)

Health insurance companies are such an easy target though – as they seem to add little real value. Their secondary purpose – aside from spreading the impact of health risks – is to restrain costs – and in this they have failed miserably. Their aggressive culling from their rolls of all those who actually need the service they provide have undermined their primary purpose. They have adopted horrendous practices and seem to treat their customers in bad faith as a matter of course. They are such easy targets that they knew they needed to get behind reform early – and remain behind it though they are being made the public villain by the reformers. In a lot of ways, they should be: they are profiting from a faulty system that is hurting many Americans and is unsustainable; as prices skyrocket, their profits do as well. Statistics such as the medical loss ratio demonstrate that these companies are trying to do everything possible to avoid providing the service they are in business to provide. But I’m not sure you can make the case that spiraling health care costs are the fault of health insurance companies (though they have contributed in various ways.) And health insurance companies aren’t behind the various lies – from the allegations of a government takeover of the economy to death panels. They may be trying to scuttle the public option, but they stand to benefit from much of the plan – and it’s better for them to reduce the uncertainty and deal with legislation passed than to continue with an unsustainable system.

In other words, in this reform effort – which is mostly about health insurance reform – health insurers aren’t the primary obstacle.

[Image by Steve Rhodes licensed under Creative Commons.]

Categories
The Bush Legacy The Opinionsphere

Andrew Sullivan: “American evangelicals are much more pro-torture in this respect than many Iranian Muslims”

Andrew Sullivan – still theoretically not blogging during his August sabbatical to work on articles for The Atlantic – had to chime in last week when further torture documents were released:

American evangelicals are much more pro-torture in this respect than many Iranian Muslims.

This is what Bush and Cheney truly achieved in their tragic response to 9/11: two terribly failed, brutally expensive wars, the revival of sectarian warfare and genocide in the Middle East, the end of America’s global moral authority, the empowerment of Iran’s and North Korea’s dictatorships, and the nightmares of Gitmo and Bagram still haunting the new administration.

But what they did to the culture – how they systematically dismantled core American values like the prohibition on torture and respect for the rule of law – is the worst and most enduring of the legacies.

One political party in this country is now explicitly pro-torture, and wants to restore a torture regime if it regains power.

Last summer, I actually wrote a piece coming to almost the exact same conclusion. I wrote that Bush had made things “just bad enough” that we would be able to reverse course and start down a better path – that his presidency had served as a kind of innoculation against certain tyrannical elements. This proved to be true on a political level – but I missed the cultural transformation that has led so many people to defend the indefensible. This is perhaps the most damning legacy Bush of Bush’s presidency.