This is a democracy. Whether the subject is the budget, or immigration, nobody has the right to "dictate" anything.
And you're welcome to wash that thought down with a nice, cold glass of tap water. Didn't anyone tell you that bottled water is the greatest consumer scam of our time?
Sunday, October 27, 2013
"They Had Robots In The Enlightenment?"
Further proof that no age has a monopoly on innovation or genius. Yes, they did.
Climate Change Is No Longer A Fantasy For McDonald's Customers
Instead, it's a dollars-and-cents issue. Take a look. And know that, whether you eat at McDonald's or not, it's going to get worse until all of you WAKE UP!
Want To Win The Immigration Reform Battle, Mr. President?
Take this person's advice. Stop doing the other side's work for them. Go a little crazy with administrative relief, and give the GOP an incentive to say something better than "no."
A Tale Of Two Websites
And no, neither one of them is the much-maligned Obamacare Web site, which I suspect will be fixed much sooner than anyone suspects, allowing us to go back to focusing on the next potential government shutdown and whether it will waste more than the $24 billion wasted on the one that just ended.
But I digress.
The controversy over the Obamacare site problems made me think about the whole issue of the relative efficiency of the private versus the public sector. To conservatives, of course there is no debate (then again, conservatives don't debate anything anymore, preferring instead to simply believe). The private sector, in their eyes, is always incredibly, relentlessly efficient.
Even when it isn't.
Because the Obamacare site, like nearly all government Web sites, was designed by a private contractor. And, as someone who spent years working with several contractors on the design of a particular Web site, I can assure you that they can be anything but efficient. Speaking personally, I was driven to distraction by being asked the same questions, again and again and again, and giving the same answers each time. If they were trying to demonstrate efficiency, it was very much lost on me and my colleagues.
Ah, you say, but that's just because their client was a government agency, with all of its inefficient complexity and bureaucratic inertia. Surely, if the client is a private concern, none of this would be a problem, right? Surely, the final product would be a model of efficiency.
Wrong again. Consider the case of two Web sites I have recently dealt with.
First, there is the Web site for the Internal Revenue Service. Given how most people feel about the IRS, you would think this one would be the Darth Vader of Web sites, a veritable black hole of aggravating complexity and failure. And nothing could be further from the truth. I work with the site on a regular basis, especially in preparing filings on behalf of non-profit corporations. It's very easily to navigate, has the most up-to-date information on anything you could ask about, and allows you to download and complete savable copies of any form or publication the IRS publishes. I have no idea who designed this site, but whoever did so did a first-rate job. And the IRS is about as complex and intimidating a bureaucracy as there is on the federal level.
On the other hand, there is the Web site for Everhome Mortgage. I recently visited it to obtain a simple for for a client who is attempting to obtain relief from the full amount of a mortgage she is assuming in conjunction with a divorce. A form. That's it. And it took following five separate links to simply get to the link for the form. And, when I got there, I e-mailed it to my client and she discovered that the link doesn't work from an e-mail. I finally ended up downloading it, scanning it and e-mailing it to her. Okay, not exactly the biggest crisis I could have with a client. But not exactly a tribute to whoever designed Everhome's Web site in the first place. Then again, perhaps the point is to make it harder to obtain forgiveness; after all, that's money out of Everhome's well-stuffed pocket.
My scorecard here says: public sector 1, private sector 0. But if you disagree, check both sites out, and see if you think I'm wrong. I'll be surprised if you honestly do.
And I emphasize the word "honestly."
But I digress.
The controversy over the Obamacare site problems made me think about the whole issue of the relative efficiency of the private versus the public sector. To conservatives, of course there is no debate (then again, conservatives don't debate anything anymore, preferring instead to simply believe). The private sector, in their eyes, is always incredibly, relentlessly efficient.
Even when it isn't.
Because the Obamacare site, like nearly all government Web sites, was designed by a private contractor. And, as someone who spent years working with several contractors on the design of a particular Web site, I can assure you that they can be anything but efficient. Speaking personally, I was driven to distraction by being asked the same questions, again and again and again, and giving the same answers each time. If they were trying to demonstrate efficiency, it was very much lost on me and my colleagues.
Ah, you say, but that's just because their client was a government agency, with all of its inefficient complexity and bureaucratic inertia. Surely, if the client is a private concern, none of this would be a problem, right? Surely, the final product would be a model of efficiency.
Wrong again. Consider the case of two Web sites I have recently dealt with.
First, there is the Web site for the Internal Revenue Service. Given how most people feel about the IRS, you would think this one would be the Darth Vader of Web sites, a veritable black hole of aggravating complexity and failure. And nothing could be further from the truth. I work with the site on a regular basis, especially in preparing filings on behalf of non-profit corporations. It's very easily to navigate, has the most up-to-date information on anything you could ask about, and allows you to download and complete savable copies of any form or publication the IRS publishes. I have no idea who designed this site, but whoever did so did a first-rate job. And the IRS is about as complex and intimidating a bureaucracy as there is on the federal level.
On the other hand, there is the Web site for Everhome Mortgage. I recently visited it to obtain a simple for for a client who is attempting to obtain relief from the full amount of a mortgage she is assuming in conjunction with a divorce. A form. That's it. And it took following five separate links to simply get to the link for the form. And, when I got there, I e-mailed it to my client and she discovered that the link doesn't work from an e-mail. I finally ended up downloading it, scanning it and e-mailing it to her. Okay, not exactly the biggest crisis I could have with a client. But not exactly a tribute to whoever designed Everhome's Web site in the first place. Then again, perhaps the point is to make it harder to obtain forgiveness; after all, that's money out of Everhome's well-stuffed pocket.
My scorecard here says: public sector 1, private sector 0. But if you disagree, check both sites out, and see if you think I'm wrong. I'll be surprised if you honestly do.
And I emphasize the word "honestly."
Reagan And O'Neill: Bipartisanship Or Seduction?
Over the past several weeks, as the shutdown debacle wore down and the people's government got more or less back to work, we have, as part of the op-ed coverage of these events, been treated to a wave of nostalgia for the good ol' days of the Gipper and the Tipper. Ah, those halcyon days of the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill would go at each other in the press, then knock off at 5:00 p.m., have a beer and negotiate the future of the Republic. Why, oh why, can't things now be more like THAT? After all, it was all good, right?
Wrong.
As a general rule, I try not to speak ill of the dead; after all, by definition, they are not in a position to stand up for themselves. But when the American people are subjected to this level of revisionist history, and it's history I lived through, fidelity to the truth leaves me with no other choice.
Perhaps it was ethnic, in that both men were Irish, and knew more than a little bit about throwing around the blarney. But I am one-half Irish, and I know more than a little bit about not only blarney, but flattery. And Reagan was susceptible to it; after all, that was how he began his journey from New Deal Democrat to Goldwater Republican. His second marriage exposed him to money, and its seductive power.
But O'Neill, for all of the accolades heaped upon him in his lifetime and posthumously, was no better. When he became Speaker of the House in 1977, at the same time Jimmy Carter became President, and operating in a post-Watergate environment where the institution of the Presidency had been weakened and that of Congress had been elevated, O'Neill envisioned a political world where, with the help of Robert Byrd in the Senate, he would be in charge. The buck, he thought, would stop at the Speaker's chair, especially with the White House occupied by Carter, whom he regarded as the proverbial hick from the sticks.
Carter, as it turned out, intended to act as though he had been elected with his own mandate for change and power, whether O'Neill liked it or not. To me, then and now, that was one of Carter's pluses. Unfortunately, he had a minus that more than cancelled out this plus--the giving of flattery was not part of his skill set. Whether for reasons of religion or temperament, Carter was about as adverse to schmoozing as it was possible for a human being to be, especially for a human being who is also a politician. It is the primary reason that his Presidency was in free-fall even before the Iranian hostage crisis and even despite his Camp David successes. Carter refused to flatter in a town that runs on flattery.
And O'Neill treated that failure as the moral equivalent of treason. He and other Congressional Democrats took great delight in sabotaging Carter's initiatives simply because they were his initiatives, and the interests of the country be damned. Had they given Carter one-tenth of the cooperation that they would end up giving to Reagan, it is at least a possibility that Reagan would never have reached the White House. But they ended up with Reagan, who had been given an Electoral College landslide--and who was more than willing to flatter them. What was the result? The beginning of the end of Social Security, union power and progressive taxation, three of the most important linchpins not only of the New Deal, but also of post-war prosperity in America.
And Tip O'Neil was right at Ronnie's side, having those beers, making it all happen for the sake of "bipartisanship." All because Reagan knew how, in political terms, to scratch his belly and make him purr.
O'Neill himself wrote in his memoirs that the fact of Reagan's presidency was sinful. Mr. Speaker, no less so was your own leadership of the People's House. For the sake of being loved, you helped your opponents trade away the future of your constituents, your party, and your county. Your partnership was ultimately not one with a President, but with forces of economic darkness that, even now, are only inches away from sealing the Banana Republican fate of the nation. You were not part of a golden era; you were part of one that tarnished everything you allegedly stood for.
God spare us from that kind of bipartisanship, now and in the future. Otherwise, there may be no future at all. And, in the interval, God spare us from the nattering of the professional chattering class, who flatter themselves by viewing Reagan and O'Neill as their creations, and have much invested in giving them the protection that neither deserves.
Wrong.
As a general rule, I try not to speak ill of the dead; after all, by definition, they are not in a position to stand up for themselves. But when the American people are subjected to this level of revisionist history, and it's history I lived through, fidelity to the truth leaves me with no other choice.
Perhaps it was ethnic, in that both men were Irish, and knew more than a little bit about throwing around the blarney. But I am one-half Irish, and I know more than a little bit about not only blarney, but flattery. And Reagan was susceptible to it; after all, that was how he began his journey from New Deal Democrat to Goldwater Republican. His second marriage exposed him to money, and its seductive power.
But O'Neill, for all of the accolades heaped upon him in his lifetime and posthumously, was no better. When he became Speaker of the House in 1977, at the same time Jimmy Carter became President, and operating in a post-Watergate environment where the institution of the Presidency had been weakened and that of Congress had been elevated, O'Neill envisioned a political world where, with the help of Robert Byrd in the Senate, he would be in charge. The buck, he thought, would stop at the Speaker's chair, especially with the White House occupied by Carter, whom he regarded as the proverbial hick from the sticks.
Carter, as it turned out, intended to act as though he had been elected with his own mandate for change and power, whether O'Neill liked it or not. To me, then and now, that was one of Carter's pluses. Unfortunately, he had a minus that more than cancelled out this plus--the giving of flattery was not part of his skill set. Whether for reasons of religion or temperament, Carter was about as adverse to schmoozing as it was possible for a human being to be, especially for a human being who is also a politician. It is the primary reason that his Presidency was in free-fall even before the Iranian hostage crisis and even despite his Camp David successes. Carter refused to flatter in a town that runs on flattery.
And O'Neill treated that failure as the moral equivalent of treason. He and other Congressional Democrats took great delight in sabotaging Carter's initiatives simply because they were his initiatives, and the interests of the country be damned. Had they given Carter one-tenth of the cooperation that they would end up giving to Reagan, it is at least a possibility that Reagan would never have reached the White House. But they ended up with Reagan, who had been given an Electoral College landslide--and who was more than willing to flatter them. What was the result? The beginning of the end of Social Security, union power and progressive taxation, three of the most important linchpins not only of the New Deal, but also of post-war prosperity in America.
And Tip O'Neil was right at Ronnie's side, having those beers, making it all happen for the sake of "bipartisanship." All because Reagan knew how, in political terms, to scratch his belly and make him purr.
O'Neill himself wrote in his memoirs that the fact of Reagan's presidency was sinful. Mr. Speaker, no less so was your own leadership of the People's House. For the sake of being loved, you helped your opponents trade away the future of your constituents, your party, and your county. Your partnership was ultimately not one with a President, but with forces of economic darkness that, even now, are only inches away from sealing the Banana Republican fate of the nation. You were not part of a golden era; you were part of one that tarnished everything you allegedly stood for.
God spare us from that kind of bipartisanship, now and in the future. Otherwise, there may be no future at all. And, in the interval, God spare us from the nattering of the professional chattering class, who flatter themselves by viewing Reagan and O'Neill as their creations, and have much invested in giving them the protection that neither deserves.
This Is What REAL Socialism Looks Like
And guess what? It works, at least in the case of Publix versus Wal-Mart.
Now, more than ever: workers of the world, unite!
Now, more than ever: workers of the world, unite!
And, Speaking Of Carrots ...
... one day, we may be able to grow building materials such as bricks, just like we grow gardens. It may be the best news about the future that I've heard in a long time.
Yes, Virginia, There IS An Energy Future For America
It's hard to believe that, last year, America used less energy than it did in 1973. And yet, that's exactly what we did. And regulation played, and should continue to play a part in this.
All of the forgoing is true. But, it's not enough to say that regulation is the answer alone to ensuring our energy independence. We're human beings. We need carrots, as well as sticks, to shape our behavior. And, as Americans are suckers for new technology, that new technology is the biggest stick of all.
A lot of that energy-saving technology already exists, and a lot more is on the way. Take a look at this, just in case you thought hydrogen cars were dead.
And our efforts to save energy have important, perhaps unexpected, potential with regard to international economics and foreign relations. This might very well revolutionize the way approach foreign aid. And, perhaps it should.
All of the forgoing is true. But, it's not enough to say that regulation is the answer alone to ensuring our energy independence. We're human beings. We need carrots, as well as sticks, to shape our behavior. And, as Americans are suckers for new technology, that new technology is the biggest stick of all.
A lot of that energy-saving technology already exists, and a lot more is on the way. Take a look at this, just in case you thought hydrogen cars were dead.
And our efforts to save energy have important, perhaps unexpected, potential with regard to international economics and foreign relations. This might very well revolutionize the way approach foreign aid. And, perhaps it should.
The Double Tragedy (And Single Lesson) Of 9/11
September 11th marks the date on which we were attacked by foreign agents. But it is also the date on which we ourselves were the foreign agents attacking a legitimately-elected government. As this article shows, the sad legacy of that violation of the sovereign rights of the Chilean people, and the abuse of our own power, lives on in so many ways.
And yet, Osama bin Laden wasn't completely a foreign agent. We trained, financed and armed him to act as our proxy against the Soviets in Afghanistan. In every measurable sense on the ground, he was ours.
The single, real lesson of that terrible date? Imperialism doesn't work. It has never worked for any nation. And it is a grotesque abuse of the concept of American imperialism to think that, somehow, it can work for us. The only way for us to be truly exceptional is to renounce American imperialism. Forever.
And yet, Osama bin Laden wasn't completely a foreign agent. We trained, financed and armed him to act as our proxy against the Soviets in Afghanistan. In every measurable sense on the ground, he was ours.
The single, real lesson of that terrible date? Imperialism doesn't work. It has never worked for any nation. And it is a grotesque abuse of the concept of American imperialism to think that, somehow, it can work for us. The only way for us to be truly exceptional is to renounce American imperialism. Forever.
So Much For Government Not Working
Apparently, somebody forgot to tell Voyager I that, as a government-designed, publicly funded, NASA-launched project, it was supposed to have three strikes against it and be a miserable failure. As a result of listening to everything in the universe but that negativity, it's become the first human-created object to exit the Solar System and keep on working.
I feel certain that somewhere, beyond the final frontier, Gene Roddenberry is smiling. Especially since he predicted something fairly similar in 1979.
I feel certain that somewhere, beyond the final frontier, Gene Roddenberry is smiling. Especially since he predicted something fairly similar in 1979.
"Urban Change To Believe In"
I could write for the rest of my life on the subject of historic preservation, and particularly about its value as a tool in economic value. But I could never make that case more effectively than the way in which it has been made here. For whatever it's worth, I don't think anyone could. But, if you care about the economy of the future, and even if you don't give a fig about preservation, you owe it to yourself to read what Ms. Graz has written. And so do your children.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Two Reasons (Of Many) Why Conservatism Doesn't Work
And, not surprisingly, the primary sources for illustrating those reasons are conservatives themselves; in this case, Charles Krauthammer and Pat Buchanan, weighing in on the same controversy: the use of a racial epithet as a nickname by the Washington, D.C. franchise of the National Football League.
Let's start with Chuck, as his column has the saving grace of coming down on the right side of the controversy. He claims to do so, however, not because of any amount of so-called hectoring from various members of the liberal elite, but rather on the grounds of "simple decency," conceding that the meaning of words change over time.
Why is it, precisely, that those words change in meaning? Why are some "meanings" considered to be simply decent in one era, and positively indecent in another? If you relied on Krauthammer's column alone, you would think that progress is achieved by some magical process that didn't involve human beings arguing over what it means, in the first instance, to be decent.
There's a reason that the word "progress" is a necessary part of the word "progressive." It is that every "decent" idea, including the idea of democracy itself, came from those who looked at the status quo of their era and concluded that the human race could be doing better than whatever it was doing at that given moment. This is not to say that all progressive ideas are good ideas, nor is it to say that the status quo is completely reprehensible. But it is to acknowledge a simple fact: progress invariably comes from progressive thinking.
And, like most if not all conservatives, Krauthammer is unable to acknowledge that fact in the context of the football nickname. Even worse, he pretends that it is the meaning of the word that has somehow changed, and not the acceptability of using it. Long before it began to be attached to sports teams, the term "redskin" was used as and considered to be a racial slur, one that was meant implicitly to exult the conquerors over the conquered. It has never been considered a "decent" term, and especially not by the people to whom it referred.
What has changed is the willingness of European-descended Americans to recognize the reality and magnitude of the harm that has been done over centuries to Native Americans, and to understand that at least some of that harm is embodied in certain words, "redskin" being among them. And again, Chuck, who is responsible for that change? The "decency" fairy? Nope, it came from the same source that progress always comes from--progressives. Krauthammer's inability to confront that reality, shared by the majority of his right-wing colleagues, is one reason for conservatism's many failures.
As rancid as Krauthammer's reasoning is, it pales (pun intended) compared to the blatant racism of Buchanan, and his "reasoning" for it. Like the skilled bigot that he is, Buchanan knows how to insinuate racial hatred by wrapping it up in nostalgia--in this case, spending the first ten paragraphs pining for a capital city that is "rooted" (hint, hint) and not "cosmopolitan" (nudge, nudge), then segueing into the lyrics of a fight song while remembering to forget the portion that exposes the song's true ethnic intent: "Scalp 'em, swamp 'um/We will take 'um big score/Read 'um, weep 'um, touchdown/We want heap more!" Right on, Patrick. Even that was too obvious for you to use.
All of this, at any rate, to build up to a truly ludicrous argument: we can't erase the past, so we might as well live in it. It's a good thing for Pat that no one has ever successfully made this argument; otherwise, his ancestors would never have left Europe, and would have to look for another ethnic group to feed their undeserved sense of superiority. In fact, the truth about the past is much different: we can't live in it, so we might as we learn from it. And, in order to truly learn, one has to confront the mistakes of the past for what they truly are: mistakes. Ironically, this is what classic conservatism teaches us to do, and what its contemporary counterpart is completely unable to do; witness the recent shutdown fiasco and the fallout in public opinion.
An inability to understand either the true nature of progress, or the value of history as a guide and not a refuge, is what undermines today's conservative moment, and ensures the emergence, at least in the short run, of an era of progressive achievement. Who knows? Maybe, just maybe, we will live to see the Washington NFL franchise come up with a better nickname.
Let's start with Chuck, as his column has the saving grace of coming down on the right side of the controversy. He claims to do so, however, not because of any amount of so-called hectoring from various members of the liberal elite, but rather on the grounds of "simple decency," conceding that the meaning of words change over time.
Why is it, precisely, that those words change in meaning? Why are some "meanings" considered to be simply decent in one era, and positively indecent in another? If you relied on Krauthammer's column alone, you would think that progress is achieved by some magical process that didn't involve human beings arguing over what it means, in the first instance, to be decent.
There's a reason that the word "progress" is a necessary part of the word "progressive." It is that every "decent" idea, including the idea of democracy itself, came from those who looked at the status quo of their era and concluded that the human race could be doing better than whatever it was doing at that given moment. This is not to say that all progressive ideas are good ideas, nor is it to say that the status quo is completely reprehensible. But it is to acknowledge a simple fact: progress invariably comes from progressive thinking.
And, like most if not all conservatives, Krauthammer is unable to acknowledge that fact in the context of the football nickname. Even worse, he pretends that it is the meaning of the word that has somehow changed, and not the acceptability of using it. Long before it began to be attached to sports teams, the term "redskin" was used as and considered to be a racial slur, one that was meant implicitly to exult the conquerors over the conquered. It has never been considered a "decent" term, and especially not by the people to whom it referred.
What has changed is the willingness of European-descended Americans to recognize the reality and magnitude of the harm that has been done over centuries to Native Americans, and to understand that at least some of that harm is embodied in certain words, "redskin" being among them. And again, Chuck, who is responsible for that change? The "decency" fairy? Nope, it came from the same source that progress always comes from--progressives. Krauthammer's inability to confront that reality, shared by the majority of his right-wing colleagues, is one reason for conservatism's many failures.
As rancid as Krauthammer's reasoning is, it pales (pun intended) compared to the blatant racism of Buchanan, and his "reasoning" for it. Like the skilled bigot that he is, Buchanan knows how to insinuate racial hatred by wrapping it up in nostalgia--in this case, spending the first ten paragraphs pining for a capital city that is "rooted" (hint, hint) and not "cosmopolitan" (nudge, nudge), then segueing into the lyrics of a fight song while remembering to forget the portion that exposes the song's true ethnic intent: "Scalp 'em, swamp 'um/We will take 'um big score/Read 'um, weep 'um, touchdown/We want heap more!" Right on, Patrick. Even that was too obvious for you to use.
All of this, at any rate, to build up to a truly ludicrous argument: we can't erase the past, so we might as well live in it. It's a good thing for Pat that no one has ever successfully made this argument; otherwise, his ancestors would never have left Europe, and would have to look for another ethnic group to feed their undeserved sense of superiority. In fact, the truth about the past is much different: we can't live in it, so we might as we learn from it. And, in order to truly learn, one has to confront the mistakes of the past for what they truly are: mistakes. Ironically, this is what classic conservatism teaches us to do, and what its contemporary counterpart is completely unable to do; witness the recent shutdown fiasco and the fallout in public opinion.
An inability to understand either the true nature of progress, or the value of history as a guide and not a refuge, is what undermines today's conservative moment, and ensures the emergence, at least in the short run, of an era of progressive achievement. Who knows? Maybe, just maybe, we will live to see the Washington NFL franchise come up with a better nickname.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Barack Obama, the Kenny Rogers President
As it turns out, if you want a forward-looking newspaper, you can still turn to The New York Times.
Charles Blow proves it. So does David Leonhardt. Both of them are looking at Barack Obama with very clear eyes. And both of them, whether they realize it or not (I'm voting against not) explain why the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency are going to be the best ones of all.
Mr. Blow correctly identifies the President's decision to highlight immigration reform on his post-GOP-debacle agenda as an attempt to drive a political wedge between his political opponents and immigrant America. Mr. Leonhardt correctly identifies the President's decision to abandon the come-let-us-reason-together tone in his rhetoric as being fundamental to his political approach from this point onward. There is one simple reason behind Barack Obama' willingness to do this, and why this pivot is going to reap enormous dividends for him, his party and his county. Through five years of reaching out to the other side (and nearly getting both of his hands bitten off), combined with his recent resistance to Republican blackmail, the President has shown America that, like Kenny Rogers, he knows when to hold and when to fold.
And that quality, more than anything else, is the one aspect of character Americans of all political stripes rightly deem essential in a national leader.
When it comes to immigration, the President has already shown both flexibility and firmness, as have Democratic and Republican Senators, by supporting a comprehensive approach to immigration reform that balances human rights and national security, and that attracted the votes of more than two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. He is now in a position to ask the badly-gerrymandered House of Representatives to insist on one thing--a simple vote on this bipartisan bill. If they want to approve amendments, he is willing to consider them. If they want to reject it, and vote in favor of something else, he would be willing to take a look at that. But, having already folded on this issue to a degree, he is now in a position to hold. He can tell the GOP that it can no longer be the party of No. And he is guaranteed to win on this issue, no matter the response. Either way, the political outcome will be a fired-up Democratic base or a immigrant voter cohort hostile to Republicans. Either way, the President and his fellow Democrats have reason to smile.
None of this, however, obscures the harsh reality of the budget battle that lies ahead. And there, I am convinced that, after nearly three years of trying to fold for Republicans (and having Republicans turn him down every time), Barack Obama has only begun to hold. And, frankly, there are a number of ways by which he can do it.
For my part, I would hope that he goes back to the Progressive Caucus Budget proposal to use that as a starting point for negotiation, rather than his own earlier 2011 proposal. Both of them have merits, but the PCB proposal would help to ensure a finished product much closer to what the President's supporters want, as well as what the nation actually needs. And, if he needs empirical evidence to support a much stronger approach, he need only look at California, where it has been tried successfully.
Either way, I feel more confident about Barack Obama as a political card-player than I ever have. The rest of us should feel that way, too. And all of us should look forward to him being, in the last three years of his Presidency, anything but a lame duck.
Charles Blow proves it. So does David Leonhardt. Both of them are looking at Barack Obama with very clear eyes. And both of them, whether they realize it or not (I'm voting against not) explain why the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency are going to be the best ones of all.
Mr. Blow correctly identifies the President's decision to highlight immigration reform on his post-GOP-debacle agenda as an attempt to drive a political wedge between his political opponents and immigrant America. Mr. Leonhardt correctly identifies the President's decision to abandon the come-let-us-reason-together tone in his rhetoric as being fundamental to his political approach from this point onward. There is one simple reason behind Barack Obama' willingness to do this, and why this pivot is going to reap enormous dividends for him, his party and his county. Through five years of reaching out to the other side (and nearly getting both of his hands bitten off), combined with his recent resistance to Republican blackmail, the President has shown America that, like Kenny Rogers, he knows when to hold and when to fold.
And that quality, more than anything else, is the one aspect of character Americans of all political stripes rightly deem essential in a national leader.
When it comes to immigration, the President has already shown both flexibility and firmness, as have Democratic and Republican Senators, by supporting a comprehensive approach to immigration reform that balances human rights and national security, and that attracted the votes of more than two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. He is now in a position to ask the badly-gerrymandered House of Representatives to insist on one thing--a simple vote on this bipartisan bill. If they want to approve amendments, he is willing to consider them. If they want to reject it, and vote in favor of something else, he would be willing to take a look at that. But, having already folded on this issue to a degree, he is now in a position to hold. He can tell the GOP that it can no longer be the party of No. And he is guaranteed to win on this issue, no matter the response. Either way, the political outcome will be a fired-up Democratic base or a immigrant voter cohort hostile to Republicans. Either way, the President and his fellow Democrats have reason to smile.
None of this, however, obscures the harsh reality of the budget battle that lies ahead. And there, I am convinced that, after nearly three years of trying to fold for Republicans (and having Republicans turn him down every time), Barack Obama has only begun to hold. And, frankly, there are a number of ways by which he can do it.
For my part, I would hope that he goes back to the Progressive Caucus Budget proposal to use that as a starting point for negotiation, rather than his own earlier 2011 proposal. Both of them have merits, but the PCB proposal would help to ensure a finished product much closer to what the President's supporters want, as well as what the nation actually needs. And, if he needs empirical evidence to support a much stronger approach, he need only look at California, where it has been tried successfully.
Either way, I feel more confident about Barack Obama as a political card-player than I ever have. The rest of us should feel that way, too. And all of us should look forward to him being, in the last three years of his Presidency, anything but a lame duck.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
And, Finally (For Now), Remember Syria?
Apparently, the President's critics don't want to do so. Perhaps this is why. And perhaps, his handling of Syria should have, for his critics, foreshadowed the resolution of the manufactured budget crisis.
He's the President, folks. You're not going to out-think him, out-tough him, or impeach him. Deal with it.
He's the President, folks. You're not going to out-think him, out-tough him, or impeach him. Deal with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)