Categories
Election 2008 Giuliani Obama Politics The Web and Technology

I love reddit, but some source-checking would do wonders.

[digg-reddit-me]The 17th most popular story on reddit at the moment is this hit piece by the Judicial Watch. The Judicial Watch, as some fact-checking reveals, is funded by rather right-wing sources:

Judicial Watch receives funding from mainly conservative sources. In 2002, Judicial Watch received $1.1 million from The Carthage Foundation and a further $400,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Both foundations are Managed by Richard Mellon Scaife. The year before the Scaife Foundation gave $1.35 million and Carthage $500,000.

In all, between 1997 and 2002 Judicial Watch received $7,069,500 (unadjusted for inflation) in 19 grants from a handful of foundations. The bulk of this funding came from just three foundations – the Sarah Scaife Foundation, The Carthage Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.

The Judicial Watch was also one of the main groups pushing impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky matter, subpoening Linda Tripp, and starting over 15 lawsuits against President Clinton. They are one arm of the Republican noise machine. And reddit is falling for it.

The list they give of the most corrupt officials fits a bit too easily into the Republican agenda. As Huckabee and Giuliani are the two greatest threats to the Republican coalition of evangelicals and everyone else, they are easy to include. Larry Craig is a gay Republican – who has embarrassed Republicans enormously. Finally, Scooter Libby who has been indicted. It’s an easy list. The list of Democrats though seems to be those conservatives fear most – Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, etcetera.

In short, Reddit is currently promoting a right-wing hit piece created by a propaganda organization that was created to promote the Lewinsky affair.  Most important – at least some of the facts included in the piece are wrong.

Defending Obama

I am only defending Obama here, although I am sure most of the other Democrats on the list – Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Conyers, Dianne Feinstain, and even maybe Hillary Clinton – are being unfairly targeted, because I am already aware of the bogus-ness of the charges against Obama. Or at least the flimsiness. And of course – I admit – I’m biased in favor of Obama. It took me a long time to come to see Obama as the best candidate; and although I am still open to another candidate, I’ve examined each of them pretty closely, and his views and temperament seem closest to my own.

Obama has certainly faced criticism for his ties to Antoin “Tony” Rezko who was a big supporter of Obama’s career from the beginning. The senator explained the appearance of impropriety that the reddit submitter referred to thus:

“It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor,” the senator said.

To me, it seems clear that Rezko was trying to do Obama a favor – probably expecting something in return at some point; and Obama should have realized this and rejected the offer. But aside from this lapse in judgment, it does not demonstrate corruption. And as the sale was a transparent process that was revealed as soon as it had occurred, it does not seem intentional on Obama’s part.

The charge relating to the $5,000 worth of stock really has no depth to it.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign Wednesday defended two investments he made right after his election to the Senate, saying he was unaware of the stock purchases at the time and did nothing to directly aid either company in its business before the federal government…

Obama purchased $5,000 in shares for AVI, which was developing a drug to treat avian flu. Two weeks after buying the stock, Obama pushed for more federal funding to fight the disease, but company officials said they never talked to Obama about his work in the area…

The reports found no evidence that any of his actions ended up benefiting either company during the roughly eight months he owned the stocks.

In other words, Obama’s broker (who kept Obama’s money in a blind trust) bought stocks which were related to some hot button issues of the day; and as a Senator, Obama gave a speech pushing for federal funding to fight avian flu.

The amounts of money involved in both transactions are minimal.

As for the final charge: “Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.” I have no idea what the Judicial Watch is talking about. Someone please enlighten me if you do.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics

Obama and the Progressive Netroots

[digg-reddit-me]I am far from convinced by the arguments Andrew Sullivan’s readers have put forth in the excerpts he has posted about both the rift between Obama and the netroots, and how Obama is hurting the netroots. Both of these suggestions indicate that Obama is fundamentally at odd with the progressive blogosphere, which I think is quite untrue.

For example, to speak of the most prominent netroots blogger, Kos actually came out in favor of Obama at one point and seems overall somewhat sympathetic. If nothing else, he seems resigned to an Obama win in Iowa, and concludes:

With all those factors in play, with no obvious gate-crashing people-powered candidate, and with what really is solid field, I’m left firmly in the undecided camp. And I don’t mind being there since, thankfully, I don’t have to cast a vote on Thursday.

Yglesias seems to have similar feelings, concluding that “while there’s a lot I like about Barack Obama” he doesn’t want to endorse all of Obama’s tactics in campaigning in Iowa – namely attacking his opponents from the right. I get the same impression reading Ezra Klein. It is disturbing to see Markos put up a story like this one titled “Obama slams Gore”, especially as the article it describes doesn’t back up that point. And then of course there are many hysterics who go nuts on Obama from the left. Overall though, I think the netroots don’t trust Obama, but have no real grudge against him.

Many in the netroots tend to agree with Edwards, Hillary, and Krugman that partisanship is our main tool to get things done – but though I think there are some fundamental misunderstandings about Obama in the netroots, specifically around this issue – I think most are sympathetic.

Obama’s political agnosticism is an essential part of his appeal – and I think most progressive bloggers also feel that appeal, even as it contradicts the lessons they have chosen to take from the past dozen years of politics.

From an old piece in the New Yorker, here’s Obama:

“I’m a Democrat. I’m considered a progressive Democrat. But if a Republican or a Conservative or a libertarian or a free-marketer has a better idea, I am happy to steal ideas from anybody and in that sense I’m agnostic.”

It’s not triangulation; it’s not partisanship; it’s not anger; it’s not wedge issues; it’s not deceit. It is pragmaticism – not just regarding tactics, but also ideas. And it’s why Obama will win, and why he’ll be a better president than anyone else running.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics

The definitive guide to the January 3, 2008 Iowa Democratic Party Caucuses

Iowa flag

Photo by Deckhand

[digg-reddit-me] The New York Times quoted Barack Obama in Guttenberg, Iowa:

“You in Iowa have this extraordinary privilege of choosing who the next president of the United States is going to be. Whoever wins this caucus is likely to win the nomination and is likely to win the presidency.”

There’s a lot of justified criticism of Iowa’s caucus procedures (for example, these recent pieces by Jeff Greenfield and Christopher Hitchens at Slate) – especially for the Democratic procedure, which forgoes the secret ballot in favor of publicly standing for your candidate. Iowa’s caucuses also make the same mockery of the principle of “one citizen, one vote” as the American electoral college – giving those candidates with broad support across every one of Iowa’s 99 precincts an advantage over a candidate whose support is centered in high population urban areas.

Defending the Caucus

On the other hand, Iowa (and New Hampshire) are two of the very few places in the United States where candidates actually get to meet with their prospective commander-in-chief. Justin Webb of the BBC provides the best defense of Iowa’s caucuses (as well as an insight into how the caucus is viewed internationally). Necessarily, Webb’s defense is anecdotal:

I would have more chance of getting an informal off-the-record chat with the Pope than I would with Mitt [Romney].

Unless, that is, I were an Iowan.

Iowans have dozens, literally dozens, of opportunities each week to meet all the candidates and often to talk to them.

They are in diners, in hotel lobbies, in churches, in schools, in hospitals.

Iowa in campaign season is like a single British rural parliamentary constituency – think Ross and Cromarty – with everyone spending all their time campaigning there.

The result is dizzying. A great US political story has two voters chatting about their choices in one of the early voting states – Iowa or New Hampshire, I think.

One asks the other about whether he likes a particular candidate, “Oh I don’t know,” comes the reply, “I’ve only met him twice!”

Regardless of anyone’s studied opinion of what the relevance of Iowa should be, and of what the flaws in the caucus process are, it is clear that the winner of today’s caucus will have a significant advantage in the New Hampshire primary five days later, and that the publicity of an Iowa win will boost his or her campaign numbers nationwide. There is even a substantial chance – as Barack Obama said that, “[w]hoever wins this caucus is likely to win the nomination and is likely to win the presidency.”

How the caucus works

So let’s examine the process. ((Only for the Democratic side. The Republicans have a simpler system that basically just involves writing a name on a piece of paper and stuffing it in a ballot box at one of the Republican precinct stations – a glorified straw poll.))

Iowans go to their local precinct to caucus – Democrats and Republicans have separate caucus centers, although anyone can register or switch registrations at the site itself. The caucus-goers are not actually voting for presidential candidates, or even for delegates who are going to nominate a presidential candidate. They are actually one more step removed from the end result. Each of the nearly 2,000 1,781 precincts elects a fixed number of the 2,500 delegates to one of Iowa’s 99 county conventions. These county conventions in turn select the state delegates to send to the Democratic National Convention to nominate a candidate for president.

Another quirk of the Democratic caucusing process is that the number of delegates each precinct is assigned is based not on the number of caucus-goers who show up, but on the number of votes for the top Democratic candidates the precinct cast in past general elections. This means that, as happened in 2004, the 500 people who show up at an urban precinct to vote for Howard Dean can be equivalent to the 50 people who show up at a rural precinct to vote for John Edwards. That said, over half of the delegates elected in the precincts will come from the largest 11 counties in Iowa.

Yet another difference between the Democratic caucuses and a primary is the viability rule. Each caucus center requires each candidate’s supporters (and often the undecideds) to stand in a designated section of the center to support their candidate (or to indicate their lack of decision). At this point, the viability of each candidate is assessed.

  • If the precinct has only one delegate to elect, then 50% of the vote is needed for viability.
  • If the precinct has two delegates to elect, then 25% of the vote is needed.
  • If the precinct has three delegates to elect, then 16.67% of the vote is needed.
  • Otherwise, at least 15 % of the vote is needed for viability.

Those caucus-goers whose candidates fail the viability test then have 30 minutes to either draw in enough support to make viability or to choose another candidate to support. As Dan Balz explained in the Washington Post, “That’s when persuasion, hard bargaining, deal-making between candidates’ staffs or even chicanery comes in. Inducements are allowed; bribes are not.”

All in all, the caucus is a long process. The Caucus Guide for the press and caucus leaders lists 36 steps. In the past, campaigns have found it hard to convince new supporters to show up to caucus. For example, Howard Dean – who infamously led in most polls before the caucus – came in a distant third to John Kerry and John Edwards because he was unable to convince many of his supporters to caucus (and because his supporters were centered in urban areas and college towns rather than spread out around the state.)

The strategies

John Edwards is counting on the same strategy that led him to second place in 2004 to bring him a victory in 2008. He has focused his efforts on recruiting diehard caucus-goers who have caucused several times before and show up no matter the weather; Edwards’s second tactic has been to try to secure his place as the second choice of the largest number of people – counting on the viability test to free up more votes for him.

Hillary Clinton has focused on bringing in the demographic that seems most likely to support her: older women (apparently both those from 90-110, and more potently, those 55 and older). Part of Hillary’s grand strategy has been to organize cars to pick-up these women and to distribute shovels to dig them out of their houses in case of a snowstorm. Perhaps most effectively, Clinton is organizing appetizers to draw supporters to the caucus centers before the event is gaveled open at 6:30 pm so her staff can identify who has and has not arrived. Hillary seems to be trying to repeat the success of John Kerry who targeted one specific demographic – in his case, veterans – and by turning this demographic out in significant numbers, won the state.

Barack Obama has an altogether grander and more transformational goal. He plans on increasing the number of caucus-goers by a large margin. Polls show him slightly behind or tied with John Edwards if when the sample is limited to past Democratic caucus-goers. But his Iowa co-chair seems confident in a large turnout today. In fact, he is predicting an increase of over 60% from the 2004 caucuses. The fact that this caucus will occur when colleges are on winter break also has the potential to benefit Obama, as his supporters will be spread out throughout the state in their hometowns rather than centered in the cities where their colleges are. Most recent polls have shown Obama to be leading both in first and second choice among likely caucus-goers.

So far the candidates of both parties are projected to spend $50 million by today, at an average of $200 per vote. All of this to win barely 1% of the 4,366 delegates who will choose the Democratic nominee for 2008.

For live, updated results from the Iowa Democratic party tonight, the Democrats have set up IowaCaucusResults.com. The Republican Party’s live results will be found on the main page of the Iowa Republican’s website.

My prediction

Obama will win by more than 5%, with Hillary and Edwards coming in 2nd and 3rd with virtually no room between them. Edwards will stay in the race until South Carolina, but will no longer have much of a shot to win if he does not win Iowa outright. Hillary will stay in until February 5 but will make her last effective last stand in South Carolina. The closer she feels she is to victory between now and February 5, the more vicious she will be in attacking Obama.

If Edwards is able to beat Hillary by more than 3% in the caucuses today, he has a chance to knock Hillary out in New Hampshire – forcing her to a third place finish there as well. She will stay in the race until February 5, regardless of her placement in the next four contests – but in the extremely unlikely scenario she comes in third in both Iowa and New Hampshire, her campaign will effectively be over.

If Obama wins today- and wins big, as both he and Hillary apparently expect to happen – as his campaign has started to build up the importance of today’s caucus and Hillary ordering her staffers to lower expectations – it will be almost impossible for Hillary to beat Obama in New Hampshire – where he already has the edge in a virtual tie.

I don’t want to celebrate too soon – but if Hillary loses Iowa by any significant margin, she needs a game-changer – some scandal, some major gaffe – to get back in the race. And if she hasn’t leaked it already, it’s likely they couldn’t find any scandals worth mentioning.

And so we are on the precipice of an historic moment, as Iowans will go to stand in the corners of their local precincts for their respective candidates and may well determine course of America for years to come.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics

Hillary Clinton – does she think no one is paying attention?

Hillary with Bill and Chelsea

[digg-reddit-me] Earlier today, Senator Clinton made one of those bone-headed gaffes that leave anyone scratching their head, ending her closing arguments in Davenport, Iowa, the day before the caucuses by (without attribution) quoting her main opponent’s signature line:

“We are fired up and we are ready to go.”

I’m praying someone has video of this because that would be priceless.

As if that weren’t enough, she also has just begun to try to use Obama’s main theme, running radio ads labeling her as the candidate of “hope”; and finally, for the moment, one of her main campaign advisers, Howard Wolfson went on Chris Matthews show today and blatantly used another prominent Obama line: that Iowans were getting a chance to “check under the hood…kick the tires.” Chris Matthews, saw the line for what it was, responding: “You stole that line directly from Obama.”

Of course, Obama does not own any of these lines – and everyone else is free to use them. But in a tight political race such as this one, with so many people paying such close attention, does Hillary really think she can get away with repeating Obama’s main lines verbatim?

A side note: Obama’s Iowa co-chair is predicting a turnout of 200,000 up from 124,000 in 2004. Do you think the Clintons might be a wee bit nervous?

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics

Tomorrow’s Day 1

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics

Chris Rock on Hillary: “I think America is ready for a woman president, but does it have to be that woman?”

Chris Rock on Barack Obama

[digg-reddit-me]Chris Rock’s new “No Apologies” tour which began New Year’s Eve at Madison Square Garden includes some 2008 election commentary, including this swipe at Hillary:

One of his best bits involved a sideways reference to his personal life. While discussing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, he mocked the notion that she had presidential experience, explaining that marriage doesn’t confer professional expertise. By way of example, he mentioned his own marriage.

“I’ve been with my wife for 10 years now,” he said. “If she got onstage right now, y’all wouldn’t laugh at all.”

Another great Chris Rock line regarding Hillary:

“I think America is ready for a woman president, but does it have to be that woman?”

He also includes a bit about Barack Obama:

Barack don’t seem like he realize he’s the black candidate sometimes. He’s running like he can win this shit fair and square. That motherfucker’s calm. He’s always talking in measured tones.You got to step this shit up when you the black candidate. When you the only brother playing basketball with a bunch of white guys, they expect you to dunk.

Video of the latter comments after the jump. (A warning on poor quality footage is given though – seems like it was taken with a cameraphone.)

And of course, the obligatory kicking of the dead horse, the current occupant of the White House:

[Bush has] made it hard for a white man to run for president. People are saying, ‘After Bush, I’m not sure we can take another chance on a white guy. He just doesn’t give a fuck about you. In the history of not giving a fuck no one has ever given less of a fuck.

Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 History Obama Political Philosophy Politics

To be partisan

Karl Rove & George Bush

[digg-me]

par·ti·san

noun, [Origin: 1545–55; < MF < Upper It parteźan (Tuscan partigiano), equiv. to part(e) faction, part + -eźan (< VL *-és- -ese + L -iānus -ian)]

1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance; a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance;

2 a: a member of a body of detached light troops making forays and harassing an enemy b: a member of a guerrilla band operating within enemy lines

In the past two weeks, a fight has broken out in the Democratic primaries between John Edwards and Barack Obama (with Paul Krugman and Hillary Clinton playing supporting roles for Edwards) over the best way to effect change. Edwards insists that in order to effect change, we must fight for it and demand it. He argues that those in power, who are benefiting from the current system, will not give up their powers or benefits easily. We, as the people, as the government, need to wrest the power from the powerful and end the corrupt system that does not benefit the majority of Americans. We need to force change upon those in power. As Krugman has put it, seconded by many Edwards supporters, and echoed in her way by Hillary Clinton: we need to be partisan, because partisan force is the only way to effect change. Obama has a different view on how to effect change. He says that lasting change comes from consensus – and that partisanship is one of the biggest obstacles we face in effecting lasting and significant change.

The conversation around the web

This back and forth has prompted one of the better public discussions in recent years – both substantial and interesting. Paul Krugman has attacked Obama as the anti-change candidate, for opposing health care mandates, for attacking John Edwards, and for talking about the problems with Social Security. Others have weighed in: the Street Corner Society, Michael Schwartz, Greg Sargent, Richard Baehr, John McCormick, Frank Rich (here, here, and here), David Brooks (here, here, and here) and Sam Sedaei.

The value of partisanship

Paul Krugman illustrates as well as anyone the value of partisanship. For a political minority, partisanship is the key to survival, and the only means of blocking change. Partisanship is, in essence, a defense. The problem with the Democrats from 1994 to 2005, and even with some Democrats today, is that they were trying to be non-partisan in an environment that demands steadfast opposition – that demands partisanship.

There is little doubt that from 1994 until the impeachment of Bill Clinton that the political environment was moving rightward; and after September 11, the country swung rightward again. During this time, Democrats continued to act on the assumptions that had served them well for the past few decades. Confident that the nation was behind them, they attempted to make reasonable compromises. In this, they made two errors: first, they assuming that the nation was still behind them, when on several important issues, it was not; second, they assumed that the people they were dealing with were reasonable. But the Republicans from the class of 1994 were ideologues. Bill Clinton saw this, and saw his presidency imperiled, he started triangulating – trying undercut the conservative agenda by adopting it. It was a brilliant strategy – but it failed in one key area. It left liberal Democrats to fend for themselves and undercut the partisanship that would be needed to effectively oppose and reverse the gains Republicans had made.

To this day, the Democrats have only made minor gains in their effectiveness to oppose Republicans. But, thankfully, the country has turned, and we are now faced with (another) historic moment.

Although as long as President Bush is in power, the Democrats must take a partisan strategy in Washington, those candidates running for President themselves should focus on the future, and on growing the Democratic party.

The flaw of partisanship

If partisanship is the best strategy for a minority party, because, by it’s nature it is biased and divides the population; it is not the best strategy for a majority party. To me, this is one of the key lessons of the past seven years of Rove-Bush. Despite tremendous advantages, Rove failed to turn September 11 into the defining conservative moment he sought because he never ceased to be partisan. By forcing the change they sought through again and again, by marginalizing moderates, by alienating liberals, Rove and Bush set a timer on how long any of the changes they sought would last and destroyed the possibility of a conservative realignment.

Barack Obama makes clear what he wants to do – and what it seems only he can do, based on polling data – to unite the country, to bring in liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and independents in order to face the serious challenges America faces. He wants to forge real change – which requires consensus and the judgment about when to stand firm and when to compromise.

After September 11, America united. George W. Bush, with his relentless partisanship, re-polarized the nation in the aftermath. In 2008, we need a president with the judgment to know when to fight and when to compromise. We need a president who can bring the country together to forge lasting change – not the short-term fixes that fall apart with every change of office. In 2008 we need a president who can bring the country together to face the issues of global climate change, terrorism, runaway executive power, extremism in the Middle East, a declining dollar, tremendous deficits, and escalating entitlement spending.

Partisanship can only take us so far. In 2008, we need Barack Obama.

Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 Obama Politics

Edwards v. Obama: The closing arguments

In the past two weeks, a fight has broken out in the Democratic primaries between John Edwards and Barack Obama (with Paul Krugman and Hillary Clinton playing supporting roles for Edwards) over the best way to effect change.  An excerpt from his closing argument in Iowa:

We need a president who will take these powers on and fight to get you your voice back, and your government back. We need a president who is going to fight every day to make sure that all Americans can find good jobs, save for the future, and be guaranteed health care and retirement security. We need a president who is going to lift up the middle class…

None of this is going to be easy. I hear all these candidates talking about how we’re going to bring about the big, bold change that America needs. And I hear some people saying that they think we can sit at a table with drug companies, oil companies and insurance companies, and they will give their power away. That is a fantasy. We have a fight in front of us. We have a fight for the future of this country. And the change we need will not happen easily. We need someone who is going to step into that arena on your behalf, someone who is ready for that fight. [my italics]

Obviously, Edwards has been emphasizing this time around that he is a fighter. He makes clear that he thinks change comes from fighting – that change must be pushed through and forced upon those who would oppose it. He believes the moment for force and fighting is now – in a rhetorical sense at least. The model he looks to is Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Obama’s closing pitch strikes a very different note:

It’s change that won’t just come from more anger at Washington or turning up the heat on Republicans. There’s no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don’t need more heat. We need more light. I’ve learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That’s the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election.

For the first time in a long time, we have the chance to build a new majority of not just Democrats, but Independents and Republicans who’ve lost faith in their Washington leaders but want to believe again – who desperately want something new…

n the end, the argument we are having between the candidates in the last seven days is not just about the meaning of change. It’s about the meaning of hope. Some of my opponents appear scornful of the word; they think it speaks of naivete, passivity, and wishful thinking.

But that’s not what hope is. Hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task before us or the roadblocks that stand in our path. Yes, the lobbyists will fight us. Yes, the Republican attack dogs will go after us in the general election. Yes, the problems of poverty and climate change and failing schools will resist easy repair. I know – I’ve been on the streets, I’ve been in the courts. I’ve watched legislation die because the powerful held sway and good intentions weren’t fortified by political will, and I’ve watched a nation get mislead into war because no one had the judgment or the courage to ask the hard questions before we sent our troops to fight.

But I also know this. I know that hope has been the guiding force behind the most improbable changes this country has ever made. In the face of tyranny, it’s what led a band of colonists to rise up against an Empire. In the face of slavery, it’s what fueled the resistance of the slave and the abolitionist, and what allowed a President to chart a treacherous course to ensure that the nation would not continue half slave and half free. In the face of war and Depression, it’s what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation. In the face of oppression, it’s what led young men and women to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through the streets of Selma and Montgomery for freedom’s cause. That’s the power of hope – to imagine, and then work for, what had seemed impossible before.

That’s the change we seek. And that’s the change you can stand for in seven days.

It’s a longer excerpt because Obama’s idea is more complex, more subtle. It is to Edwards’s credit that he is able to take complex ideas and boil them down into a simple formula – and it is how he won so many court cases. Obama prefers to make his audience rise to the rhetoric, to make them work to understand him. And it has been a surprisingly effective formula so far.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics

Frank Rich v. Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman v. Frank Rich

[digg-reddit-me]I admit that I’m biased. I used to think that Frank Rich’s columns – in the period before he went behind the Time Select wall – were hysterical and often shrill. Though I generally would agree with the fundamental point he was making, I would find his style distasteful. I preferred Krugman’s polemicism to Rich’s because, while Krugman could also often be shrill, Krugman seemed to take strategic positions that I could appreciate while Rich was attempting to get at the cultural relevance of the matters at hand.

Each columnist positioned himself differently in the debate. Paul Krugman considered himself a gladiator in the arena fighting to advance his cause. His column was not supposed to be read as a means of understanding the news, but as a means of making the strongest arguments against Republican policies. Frank Rich was trying to analyze the news and the cultural moment and to inform his readers while writing partisan screeds against the current administration. ((My objection here is not to a columnist writing to inform also offered his opinion, but to the tone of Rich’s opinions.)) In the end, this is why I found Krugman’s partisanship more palatable than Krugman’s.

But times have changed. Now Krugman reserves almost as much bile for fellow Democrat Barack Obama as for the Republicans; and Frank Rich, while continuing to blast Republicans, has focused more on the analysis and moderated his tone. ((He has also written a number of columns very supportive of Obama.))

In the end, the disagreements between the two colleagues is not about a particular candidate but about each person’s approach to politics. Krugman is a partisan, through and through. He believes political gain comes from sticking with your base, attacking your enemies, destroying their positions, and forcing your way through. His approach is the perfect approach for a political minority trying to protect its interests, and it mirrors the Republican approach to governance since 1994 and especially during Bush’s time as president. No matter how many votes they received, the Republicans continued to govern as a minority party – purging dissidents within their ranks, refusing to compromise, obfuscating their true agenda, focusing more on talking points than on policy.  A strong majority party – such as the Democrats between 1932 and 1972 or the Republicans between 1980 and 2000 has a “big tent”, pulling in moderates and independents. A strong party focuses less on the weaknesses of the opposition and more on the strengths of its own positions, feeling confident that a majority of the country supports their honest positions. A strong party (because it already holds significant power and because it’s members, having won, are now faced with running matters) is more focused on governance than a minority party, which is focused on stopping what it opposes.  A strong majority party’s positions become more nuanced.  There is a place for the type of partisanship that Krugman venerates – and Krugman demonstrated the value of such partisanship from Bush’s election in 2000 until 2006. Krugman was the voice of opposition.

Frank Rich struggled during this time – because he could not seem to quite reconcile his position as an analyst and his outrage at the conduct of the current administration. He could see the cultural and political trends going against him, and tried to balance his opposition to the zeitgeist of his time with an analysis of the way things were headed.

But today, Krugman seems intent on ensuring that the Democratic party stays a minority party – eschewing the “big tent” politics that creates lasting political movements in favor of small-time, talking-point wins.

Categories
Election 2008 History Libertarianism Politics

It Can’t Happen Here

[digg-reddit-me]Following the Ron Paul quote (quoting Sinclair Lewis), which I had heard before but never looked into, I came across Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel, It Can’t Happen Here. (The quote doesn’t appear to be in the book which is part of Project Gutenberg. But it clearly is related to the book which illustrates the concept.)

The title comes from a character in the novel who, upon being told that one of the Senators running for president would impose a “real Fascist dictatorship”, exclaims:

“Nonsense! Nonsense!” snorted Tasbrough. “That couldn’t happen here in America, not possibly! We’re a country of freemen.”

Lewis’s novel tells the story of anti-intellectual, populist Southern politician (loosely based on Huey Long, who also inspired the Governor in Robert Penn Warren’s All the King’s Men) called Berzelius Noel Weinacht Windrip, or Buzz Windrip. Windrip rides to power on Christian values and patriotic fervor. One character observes of the charismatic politician:

“I don’t know whether he’s more of a crook or an hysterical religious fanatic.”

Lewis observes that the candidate speaks with soaring rhetoric, but few specifics:

He slid into a rhapsody of general ideas – a mishmash of polite regards to Justice, Freedom, Equality, Order, Prosperity, Patriotism, and any number of other noble but slippery abstractions.

In a review, the Boston Globe noted that Buzz Windrip wins because of:

his easy-going personality…massive cash donations from Big Business; disorganization in the liberal opposition; a stuffy, aloof opponent; and support from religious fanatics who feel they’ve been unfairly marginalized

After being elected, President Windrip opens large detention centers – Guantanamo on a larger scale ((or if we were to stay closer to the period, like the Japanese internment camps)) – for enemies of the state, which is his label for supporters of the Constitution and traditional liberal democracy. He also creates a system of military tribunals to try these enemies of the state.

In another passage in the book, Lewis channeled today’s radicals – and John Edwards – in assailing the corporate political parties:

[T]he President, with something of his former good-humor [said]: “There are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don’t belong to any party at all, and so, to use a common phrase, are just out of luck!” The idea of the Corporate or Corporative State, Secretary [of State] Sarason had more or less taken from Italy.

I’m sure there are quite a few gems in this eerily prophetic work, but this is my favorite as the President Windrip explains why civil liberties, democracy, and the rest should be put aside for a time while the current Crisis is dealt with:

President Windrip’s first extended proclamation to the country was a pretty piece of literature and of tenderness. He explained that powerful and secret enemies of American principles – one rather gathered that they were a combination of Wall Street and Soviet Russia–upon discovering, to their fury, that he, Berzelius, was going to be President, had planned their last charge. Everything would be tranquil in a few months, but meantime there was a Crisis, during which the country must “bear with him.”

He recalled the military dictatorship of Lincoln and Stanton during the Civil War, when civilian suspects were arrested without warrant. He hinted how delightful everything was going to be – right away now – just a moment – just a moment’s patience – when he had things in hand; and he wound up with a comparison of the Crisis to the urgency of a fireman rescuing a pretty girl from a “conflagration,” and carrying her down a ladder, for her own sake, whether she liked it or not, and no matter how appealingly she might kick her pretty ankles.

The whole country laughed.

Looking at the book both through today’s Crisis, and the Crisis of 1935 – Great Depression and the opening rumblings of World War II – and comparing what this fictional Christianist Fascist did to what happened during both crises, one senses how easily republics can fail, and how fragile democracy is.