Thursday, November 12, 2009
A theory for why Lou Dobbs quit
Might it be that Univision is nipping at NBC's heels in primetime ratings? They're taking away our TV jobs! Okay, maybe not really, but it is pretty stunning. NBC has gone from being #1 to knocking elbows with the CW and Spanish-language TV in just a few years Then again, it's not hard to see why people aren't tuning in to a jam-packed lineup of Heroes, Trauma and Leno every Monday.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Why I'm no longer a Republican
This is from the American Family Association (via Steve Benen):
It does seem like we're hearing the return of the, "Well, we hear about moderate, peaceful Muslims, but why don't they speak out against the bad ones?" argument, one of my biggest pet peeves. This rhetorical construction exploits the notion that silence implies assent. But it doesn't have to signal assent. It could merely signal indifference. Most Muslims hate al-Qaeda, but they also hate America. They aren't particularly concerned with denouncing their coreligionists for the benefit of making the likes of Michelle Malkin happy. Furthermore, I suspect that few Christians in public life would like to be forced to denounce every single act of Christian intolerance that ever occurs in order to make, say, Michael Moore satisfied. What this rhetorical frame does is to try to insinuate that we shouldn't take moderate Islam at its word. In a world where the Muslim community outnumbers America by 4-to-1, this sort of assumption makes the world a very frightening place indeed. The Right has a clear interest in making the world seem like a scary, dangerous place, so that we just put them in charge and not ask too many questions, for risk of emboldening the enemy. It's what they do. Which is why, barring real evidence that there's something to fear here, that sort of thing can't be inferred, and the burden of proof should, as always, be on the accusers of these sorts of slurs and not on the accused.
It's a lynch mob mentality, basically. I tend to dislike this particular phrase, but considering conservatives' history, it kind of fits: for them, Muslim is the new black. I personally don't know how policymakers should respond to Fort Hood: presumably, enhanced security procedures at military facilities concerning firearms are the best response to this. But that doesn't address the underlying ugliness that is prominently on display here. It's ironic that it was George W. Bush who talked at length about how Islam wasn't our enemy after 9/11--for my money, it is one of the few good parts of Bush's legacy--and it's the one that's been the most rapidly dismantled by the right. I guess he wasn't convincing enough.
Of course, I registered as a Democrat in 2005, so it wasn't this particular press release that made me switch. But it was due to what I was hearing from the right in 2003 and 2004. Basically, I bolted as soon as I started hearing prominent Republicans talking about how prisoner abuse wasn't a big deal, the Constitution only applies to Americans, etc. As Iraq played out, and the abuses of Abu Gharaib became exposed, I slowly came to realize that there was something rotten deep down in the guts of conservatism, as the response from the right was largely to downplay all this stuff. I tended to dismiss lefties that made a big deal of Bush's gaffe about a "crusade" against terror at the time he said it, but as time has gone on I think that it might well have been the most illuminating thing about the issue that George W. Bush ever said. For a lot of these people--and I personally know a few of them--we are fighting some sort of religious war against Islam. A lot of people think the apocalypse is upon us, and that Islam is purely evil. As a Christian but not a fundie, this presents something of a problem to me as my only interest in fighting terrorism is to keep me safe. Period. I have no particular quarrel with Islam, and I imagine that most Muslims are more interested in the "live and let live" idea than fighting an apocalyptic jihad. Some don't, but these aren't the mainstream of public opinion and shouldn't be taken as such.It it [sic] is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. [...]
Of course, most U.S. Muslims don't shoot up their fellow soldiers. Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we'll go back to allowing them to serve. You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you're right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it's used, and we'll welcome you back with open arms.
This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism.
It does seem like we're hearing the return of the, "Well, we hear about moderate, peaceful Muslims, but why don't they speak out against the bad ones?" argument, one of my biggest pet peeves. This rhetorical construction exploits the notion that silence implies assent. But it doesn't have to signal assent. It could merely signal indifference. Most Muslims hate al-Qaeda, but they also hate America. They aren't particularly concerned with denouncing their coreligionists for the benefit of making the likes of Michelle Malkin happy. Furthermore, I suspect that few Christians in public life would like to be forced to denounce every single act of Christian intolerance that ever occurs in order to make, say, Michael Moore satisfied. What this rhetorical frame does is to try to insinuate that we shouldn't take moderate Islam at its word. In a world where the Muslim community outnumbers America by 4-to-1, this sort of assumption makes the world a very frightening place indeed. The Right has a clear interest in making the world seem like a scary, dangerous place, so that we just put them in charge and not ask too many questions, for risk of emboldening the enemy. It's what they do. Which is why, barring real evidence that there's something to fear here, that sort of thing can't be inferred, and the burden of proof should, as always, be on the accusers of these sorts of slurs and not on the accused.
It's a lynch mob mentality, basically. I tend to dislike this particular phrase, but considering conservatives' history, it kind of fits: for them, Muslim is the new black. I personally don't know how policymakers should respond to Fort Hood: presumably, enhanced security procedures at military facilities concerning firearms are the best response to this. But that doesn't address the underlying ugliness that is prominently on display here. It's ironic that it was George W. Bush who talked at length about how Islam wasn't our enemy after 9/11--for my money, it is one of the few good parts of Bush's legacy--and it's the one that's been the most rapidly dismantled by the right. I guess he wasn't convincing enough.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Good employment news?
Unemployment is now over 10%, but Noam Scheiber is optimistic:
Grant and Gertner argue that the dynamics of the current recovery, in terms of those unemployment peaks, look a lot more the pre-1990 business cycle than the post-1990 business cycle. Which is to say, they resemble the era of "jobful" recoveries rather than the era of jobless recoveries. During the current recession/recovery, the number of people out of work 5-14 weeks peaked the same month as the presumed end of the recession (May, according to Bloomberg), and the number of people out of work 15-26 weeks peaked a month later.
The only real hitch in Grant/Gertner analysis was that final category: people out of work at least 27 weeks. As Grant and Gertner conceded, the number of people out of work that long hadn't yet peaked. In fact, in the last set of data prior to today, the number actually jumped pretty sharply, from 4.988 million to 5.438 million.
Which is why the latest 27-weeks-and-over number is so encouraging. After jumping by 450,000 in September, it only jumped about 150,000 in October, suggesting that the number of very-long-term unemployed could be about to level off. If it does peak in the next month or two, that would really strengthen the Grant/Gertner case that employment growth could come a lot more quickly than we think, since it resembles what we observed before 1990, when "jobless" recovery wasn't yet part of the lexicon.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
This made me laugh
"Erickson said defeating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would 'send a message' and 'hamper Obama' in the second half of his term." -- TPM
I mean, it would be embarrassing to lose the Democrats' leader, but replacing Reid with Chuck Schumer strikes me as a potentially exponential increase in the boldness and ability of the leadership.
I mean, it would be embarrassing to lose the Democrats' leader, but replacing Reid with Chuck Schumer strikes me as a potentially exponential increase in the boldness and ability of the leadership.
Republicans poised to lose to Boxer in 2010
As a Californian, I'm well aware that Sen. Barbara Boxer is not the best conceivable senator the Democrats could hope for. She is a fine progressive, but not the most talented politician in the world and there's certainly a possibility that a fiscally-moderate, socially-liberal Rockefeller Republican could mount a strong contest to her. California is Democratic and liberal, but there is a real strain of mild fiscal conservatism in the state that its most successful politicians are able to tap. Schwarzenegger is as popular as polio in the state right now, but he's the sort that can make a race of it. Carly Fiorina is probably not--I'm guessing she's Rockefellerish, but the political moxy she showed as a stumper for McCain makes me think she's not likely to be able to beat Boxer. But it's not inconceivable to me. Since NY-23 is over, though, it looks like it's time for the teabaggers to meddle in exciting new races, and that means California:
My point is that California Republicans will so totally back DeVore against Fiorina, and while I doubt that they are so deluded as to think that a Jim DeMint-style Republican will win the seat, I guess they'll be able to have some satisfaction that they'll be represented by a very liberal Democrat instead of a moderate Republican. Putting myself in their shoes, that makes no sense to me at all, but I guess it makes sense to them.
A California Republican aiming to unseat Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) next year has gotten a boost from conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) [...] "California is ready for a turn back to freedom," DeMint said. He said DeVore has a "record straight up the way mine is" and applauded the candidate for flying to Washington to meet him.DeMint is on the cutting edge of these sorts of things, so look for this to pop up on the wingnut radar soon. The California GOP is one of the most inexplicable entities on the planet--they don't seriously try to gain power, they don't try to help solve peoples' problems, and they mostly just do everything possible to throw a wrench into California's government (which is not exactly hard) and jeer any attempt to fix any mess. There are a few of them who aren't worthless, but one frequently wonders why they even bother to run for office, considering how poorly they frequently acquit themselves.
My point is that California Republicans will so totally back DeVore against Fiorina, and while I doubt that they are so deluded as to think that a Jim DeMint-style Republican will win the seat, I guess they'll be able to have some satisfaction that they'll be represented by a very liberal Democrat instead of a moderate Republican. Putting myself in their shoes, that makes no sense to me at all, but I guess it makes sense to them.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Another glorious triumph for the Club for Growth!
It appears that Bill Owens has won his election in NY-23. Fun facts: the Republicans haven't won a Democratic seat in a special election since 2001. And they have gone 1 for 12 for the past two years. Well, 1 for 13, including Owens's election.
The extent to which these elections had a "message" is debatable. The Republicans turned out to have better candidates than the Democrats in the governor's races tonight. But those candidates also ran issue-oriented campaigns that avoided La Palin and the pitchforks. A Republican Party that debated and campaigned like Bob McDonnell might well be one that can win elections. Perhaps today's results could lead to some rethinking on the right. We'll see.
The extent to which these elections had a "message" is debatable. The Republicans turned out to have better candidates than the Democrats in the governor's races tonight. But those candidates also ran issue-oriented campaigns that avoided La Palin and the pitchforks. A Republican Party that debated and campaigned like Bob McDonnell might well be one that can win elections. Perhaps today's results could lead to some rethinking on the right. We'll see.
Success brings respect
Good point from Matt Yglesias:
But I think the point that needs to be made here is that, while I think Yglesias is correct on this point, this is not the way that things should be. Covering one side more or less favorably based on their electoral success (or perceptions of it) strikes me as reasonable up to a certain point (I don't really think that news outlets need to cover the national convention of the Peace And Freedom Party, for example), but I do think that it is grossly unfair in the way it seems to play out these days. It might be reasonable, say, to cover the town hall healthcare protesters. But it is unreasonable to only cover the town halls that do have protesters (indeed, not all of them did). That is an editorial decision that doesn't convey the full story, and that makes a statement that distorts the reality of the thing. I guess it's a little passe to complain about how the media has lost all of its integrity in pursuing ratings and power, but I think the reason it's passe is because everyone realizes it and nobody wants to admit it.
Realistically, success buys respect in Washington. When the contemporary conservative movement got rolling in the 1960s and 70s, it didn’t have a track-record of success. But ever since 1980 or so the conservative movement has demonstrated, time and again, an ability to build national majorities around candidates who identify themselves with the conservative movement. The case for progressives is much weaker. But recall that Nancy Pelosi first took over as Democratic leader, the conventional wisdom was that the party was doomed. By winning in 2006 and 2008, she’s gained some respect from the press and if the House Democrats stay in power in 2010 she’ll earn more.I think this explains a lot more than Yglesias argues. The media's coverage of conservatives was fairly negative during 2005-2008, probably because they screwed up quite a few things. And the media's coverage of Democratic politics wasn't really too positive during Bush 43's first term, for obvious (and, frankly, not indefensible) reasons. Now, the media is more positive to conservatives because the media perceives that Republicans are gaining momentum with their arguments. It will be interesting to see how that coverage changes if the GOP has an average election night next year. One would imagine that they would be taken about as seriously as Labour was during the Thatcher years in Britain.
But I think the point that needs to be made here is that, while I think Yglesias is correct on this point, this is not the way that things should be. Covering one side more or less favorably based on their electoral success (or perceptions of it) strikes me as reasonable up to a certain point (I don't really think that news outlets need to cover the national convention of the Peace And Freedom Party, for example), but I do think that it is grossly unfair in the way it seems to play out these days. It might be reasonable, say, to cover the town hall healthcare protesters. But it is unreasonable to only cover the town halls that do have protesters (indeed, not all of them did). That is an editorial decision that doesn't convey the full story, and that makes a statement that distorts the reality of the thing. I guess it's a little passe to complain about how the media has lost all of its integrity in pursuing ratings and power, but I think the reason it's passe is because everyone realizes it and nobody wants to admit it.
The essential insanity of the Hoffman strategy
Farbeit for me, a Ned Lamont donor back in the day, to say that parties can never conduct ideological purges. But what surprises me about the Hoffman race is that conservatives spent so much time and money to finish "as expected" (assuming, of course, that he wins today). One would figure that an enfeebled minority would want all the help they could get, but evidently Republicans thought they could be choosers in addition to being beggars. Very well.
The crazy thing is that the millions of dollars spent by Republicans in this race could have gone to, say, contest the seat of freshman Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH). Or to defend the very marginal seat of Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA). These are areas where the Republicans stand to either gain or lose strength in the House. As a Democrat I'm pleased as punch to see the GOP wasting money replacing a moderately conservative, libertarian-type candidate with one that's all-around conservative, because that money won't be used against other Democrats. But don't Republican donors want to get the most bang for their buck? It's not like the Republican Party at an elite level is infested with moderates.
The answer, as we all know, is that the incentives for all the groups here are not the same. The Club for Growth, in particular, is making its play for power within the GOP. They have silently reorganized themselves as the financial arm of the Tea Party Movement, and if Hoffman wins they'll have a real scalp on their wall, and their power will increase. Being as the Club's record is pretty terrible anywhere outside than hard-right districts, it will be interesting to see what races they try to intervene in. Considering that they carried a great deal of blame for unseating Sen. Lincoln Chafee a few years back, I think it's safe to say that no moderate Republican will be safe.
The crazy thing is that the millions of dollars spent by Republicans in this race could have gone to, say, contest the seat of freshman Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH). Or to defend the very marginal seat of Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA). These are areas where the Republicans stand to either gain or lose strength in the House. As a Democrat I'm pleased as punch to see the GOP wasting money replacing a moderately conservative, libertarian-type candidate with one that's all-around conservative, because that money won't be used against other Democrats. But don't Republican donors want to get the most bang for their buck? It's not like the Republican Party at an elite level is infested with moderates.
The answer, as we all know, is that the incentives for all the groups here are not the same. The Club for Growth, in particular, is making its play for power within the GOP. They have silently reorganized themselves as the financial arm of the Tea Party Movement, and if Hoffman wins they'll have a real scalp on their wall, and their power will increase. Being as the Club's record is pretty terrible anywhere outside than hard-right districts, it will be interesting to see what races they try to intervene in. Considering that they carried a great deal of blame for unseating Sen. Lincoln Chafee a few years back, I think it's safe to say that no moderate Republican will be safe.
Californiafication
I might be expected to agree with this, but I don't. It is true that the Federal Government and the California Government are looking similar in terms of being both Democrat-dominated and gridlocked by supermajorities, but there's a big difference here.
National Republicans are doing what they're doing as an electoral strategy to win more votes. It's been partially successful--the Democrats' favorability has gone down a bit--though at the cost of making the GOP more hated than it's ever been. It's entirely possible they'll be able to scare voters into voting for them to prevent President Obama from enslaving them from the Soviet Gulag that is insuring people without health insurance, but that vote won't be because they started liking Republicans.
California Republicans (I should say their representatives) are a small, corrupt group of mostly assholes who don't care about the state's problems and who have no desire to wield actual power. California has one of the most far-right Republican Parties in the country--even more conservative than Oklahoma's!--and most of them are completely embittered that the state that gave rise to Nixon and Reagan is now one of the more liberal states in the country. They have no desire to engage the center, and while the state is still winnable for Rockefeller Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republicans in the state seem more willing to lose with a winger than win with a moderate. Arnie never had any leverage or clout with the state's GOP legislators, and despite the Governator's decidedly rightist ideas for clearing out the state's deficit he could secure no Republican support. They are like the Enron guys who cheered the Southern California fires back in 2000. They're petty, angry, and all they can do is to gum up the works and screw over everyone who receives services from the government. I don't have a very high opinion of national Republicans, but they aren't nearly that bad, though there is certainly room for growth...
So, basically, I tend to think that California Republican representatives are suffering some sort of bitter derangement, while national Republican representatives are merely running a strategy. In the end, if the Democrats pass healthcare and the economy starts to rebound, perceptions of the Democrats will rise and you'll be dealing with a fairly popular Democratic Party and a toxically unpopular Republican Party, and it will be interesting to see how Republicans from Obama-won states react to this--they could be Hoffmanned if they move too far to the center, or be tossed out by voters for being too Republican. This is why I think that the GOP is at its peak right now in the election cycle. Obama has hit his floor of support, and the economy is beginning to turn around. Toss in the end of our Iraq adventure and some real legislative accomplishments, and I think there's still reason for Republicans to worry.
National Republicans are doing what they're doing as an electoral strategy to win more votes. It's been partially successful--the Democrats' favorability has gone down a bit--though at the cost of making the GOP more hated than it's ever been. It's entirely possible they'll be able to scare voters into voting for them to prevent President Obama from enslaving them from the Soviet Gulag that is insuring people without health insurance, but that vote won't be because they started liking Republicans.
California Republicans (I should say their representatives) are a small, corrupt group of mostly assholes who don't care about the state's problems and who have no desire to wield actual power. California has one of the most far-right Republican Parties in the country--even more conservative than Oklahoma's!--and most of them are completely embittered that the state that gave rise to Nixon and Reagan is now one of the more liberal states in the country. They have no desire to engage the center, and while the state is still winnable for Rockefeller Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republicans in the state seem more willing to lose with a winger than win with a moderate. Arnie never had any leverage or clout with the state's GOP legislators, and despite the Governator's decidedly rightist ideas for clearing out the state's deficit he could secure no Republican support. They are like the Enron guys who cheered the Southern California fires back in 2000. They're petty, angry, and all they can do is to gum up the works and screw over everyone who receives services from the government. I don't have a very high opinion of national Republicans, but they aren't nearly that bad, though there is certainly room for growth...
So, basically, I tend to think that California Republican representatives are suffering some sort of bitter derangement, while national Republican representatives are merely running a strategy. In the end, if the Democrats pass healthcare and the economy starts to rebound, perceptions of the Democrats will rise and you'll be dealing with a fairly popular Democratic Party and a toxically unpopular Republican Party, and it will be interesting to see how Republicans from Obama-won states react to this--they could be Hoffmanned if they move too far to the center, or be tossed out by voters for being too Republican. This is why I think that the GOP is at its peak right now in the election cycle. Obama has hit his floor of support, and the economy is beginning to turn around. Toss in the end of our Iraq adventure and some real legislative accomplishments, and I think there's still reason for Republicans to worry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)