Apparently, the GOP has morphed from the party of "no" into the party of "say what?" Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky is staging a one-man show to hold up unemployment and healthcare benefits and several roads projects that provide jobs for needy workers. Now, Senator John Kyl of Arizona has stated that unemployment benefits provide incentives for people not to find a job. What a crock, Kyl.
First of all, people are usually eligible for unemployment insurance only if they are laid off -- not simply because they do not have a job. With unemployment hovering around 10% and Republicans complaining daily that nothing is getting done about it, Kyl's analysis is especially disturbing. The unemployment rate is dangerously high, but apparently, we can explain it away because people are not trying to fill the abundance of jobs that are screaming for warm bodies. Instead, these silly laid-off workers would rather live off of the pittance called unemployment insurance. Give all of us a break, Senator Kyl.
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Proposed "Purity" Pledge for GOP: Hypocritical and Internally Inconsistent
Members of the Republican Party have circulated a proposed resolution that lists 10 conservative principles that GOP candidates should embrace. Candidates who opposed 3 or more of the listed principles would forfeit financial and political support from the Republican National Committee.
The list, which New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney describes as a "purity" resolution, could stoke divisions among Republicans concerning the ideological direction of the party. Many Republicans believe that the party must embrace more moderate positions in order to achieve political success, while others believe that it should rally around conservatism.
Here is a list of the principles stated in the proposed resolution:
The resolution cites the "stimulus" legislation passed during the Obama administration as an example of wasteful government spending. The $700 billion bailout for financial institutions, however, is noticeably absent from the list. Perhaps this is because the Bush administration proposed the bailout, and many Republicans, including John McCain, voted for it. Sara "the Barracuda" Palin praised McCain for his vote.
Although many conservatives have argued that Bush did not represent conservative values, "conservative" members of Congress almost uniformly voted for tax cuts and to authorize military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, while conservatives spend a lot of time talking about fiscal restraint, their behavior in the last 8 years did not exhibit restraint at all.
The proposed resolution also denounces "Obama-style government run health care." The hypocrisy in this statement is blatant. Although Republicans continue to condemn government-run health plans, they support government-run programs for the elderly (Medicare) and for military personnel and veterans (TRICARE).
The list is also internally inconsistent. Although the resolution praises "smaller government," it endorses governmental intrusions into deeply private decisions such as marriage and reproduction; it also endorses an expensive troop surge in Afghanistan. And while the proposed resolution condemns "health care rationing," it favors excluding coverage of abortion-related services from government-run health plans.
The proposed resolution would send the GOP scrambling for candidates.
The list, which New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney describes as a "purity" resolution, could stoke divisions among Republicans concerning the ideological direction of the party. Many Republicans believe that the party must embrace more moderate positions in order to achieve political success, while others believe that it should rally around conservatism.
Here is a list of the principles stated in the proposed resolution:
Although supporters of the resolution believe that the 10-point list specifies conservative values, many Republicans have taken positions that contradict the principles that the resolution espouses. For example, during the Bush presidency, Republicans overwhelmingly voted to cut taxes and to increase government spending, particularly by launching 2 expensive wars. The size of the federal government increased during the Bush presidency, and Republican policies helped to transform a federal budget surplus into an enormous deficit.(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
The resolution cites the "stimulus" legislation passed during the Obama administration as an example of wasteful government spending. The $700 billion bailout for financial institutions, however, is noticeably absent from the list. Perhaps this is because the Bush administration proposed the bailout, and many Republicans, including John McCain, voted for it. Sara "the Barracuda" Palin praised McCain for his vote.
Although many conservatives have argued that Bush did not represent conservative values, "conservative" members of Congress almost uniformly voted for tax cuts and to authorize military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, while conservatives spend a lot of time talking about fiscal restraint, their behavior in the last 8 years did not exhibit restraint at all.
The proposed resolution also denounces "Obama-style government run health care." The hypocrisy in this statement is blatant. Although Republicans continue to condemn government-run health plans, they support government-run programs for the elderly (Medicare) and for military personnel and veterans (TRICARE).
The list is also internally inconsistent. Although the resolution praises "smaller government," it endorses governmental intrusions into deeply private decisions such as marriage and reproduction; it also endorses an expensive troop surge in Afghanistan. And while the proposed resolution condemns "health care rationing," it favors excluding coverage of abortion-related services from government-run health plans.
The proposed resolution would send the GOP scrambling for candidates.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Michael Steele Tosses His Remaining Credibility Into the Gutter
RNC Chair Mike Steele has decided to leverage his remaining .01 ounce of credibility by appearing in a Republican smear advertisement designed to inspire panic among the nation's seniors. The commercial will promote the GOP's notoriously false and misleading Healthcare Bill of Rights for Seniors.
FactCheck.Org has the details on this pathetic development: RNC’s Steele to Seniors: “Stand With Us.” Steele has become a huge disappointment.
FactCheck.Org has the details on this pathetic development: RNC’s Steele to Seniors: “Stand With Us.” Steele has become a huge disappointment.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
GOP's "Pack of Lies for Seniors"
Apparently, the Republicans believe that they can make a run for seniors by continuing to scare the hell out of them. It all started with Sarah Palin's "death panels" lie. Now, they are fueling the notion that the Democrats are a threat to Medicare -- even the conservatives have blasted Medicare and the notion of "public plans" for decades.
On Monday, the Republicans released a Bill of Rights for Seniors. RNC Chair Michael Steele also published an op-ed in the Washington Post that analyzes the Republicans' platform for seniors. Steele's op-ed simply regurgitates deceptive talking points that conservatives have circulated around the Internet since the beginning of healthcare reform debates. The GOP's "Bill of Rights for Seniors" is nothing but a "List of Lies."
Steele makes 5 broad points in his essay. Each one tells a different lie.
Lie #1: Democrats Want to Raid Medicare; Republicans Want to Save It
Steele argues that "[Obama] and congressional Democrats are planning to raid, not aid, Medicare by cutting $500 billion from the program to fund his health-care experiment." Steele's argument that Democrats are the opponents of Medicare while Republicans are fans of the plan is absolutely bogus.
Republicans have for a long time opposed Medicare. Ronald Reagan joined the American Medical Association's campaign against Medicare during the 1960s, describing the idea as "socialized medicine." Republicans have a long history of opposing "public plans" and describing them as socialism. Although Steele's op-ed does not admit this point, medicare is a public plan.
With respect to Medicare cuts, every major presidential candidate -- Democrat and Republican -- who proposed healthcare reform also advocated cutting Medicare costs. John McCain, for example, wanted to slash $1.3 trillion dollars from Medicare and Medicare over a ten-year period. Mitt Romney also frequently discussed the need to cut spending on entitlement programs, including Medicare.
Furthermore, Steele argues that the Democrats want to cut $500 billion from Medicare, but he neglects to discuss additional funding to the program that they have proposed. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that taking into consideration both cost cutting and increased spending, Obama's plan would trim $219 billion from Medicare over 10 years -- which is much less than Steele's figure and than what McCain proposed. Steele's analysis of this issue is hypocritical and factually inaccurate.
Lie #2: Healthcare Reform Gets in the Way of Seniors and Their Doctors
Steele shamelessly argues that: "The government-run health-care experiment that Obama and the Democrats propose will give seniors less power to control their own medical decisions and create government boards that would decide what treatments would or would not be funded."
Although Steele paints a picture of a scary "government-run health-care experiment," he neglects to describe Medicare as a government-run health program. Under Medicare (and Medicaid and Veterans health plans), the government already determines what types of treatments are covered and the reimbursement for those procedures. Steele's argument describes a fantasy world where Medicare is presumably a private entity where doctors and patients can do whatever they want, unconstrained by governmental coverage decisions. Private insurance does not operate this way either. Steele is either ignorant or a liar. Neither option is good.
Also, Republicans strongly support the Hyde Amendment, which bans coverage of abortion for Medicaid recipients. Republicans, have in fact, demonized proposed healthcare reform by falsely stating that it would fund abortion services. This type of governmental intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship is apparently fine for Republicans. So, in addition to being ignorant or a liar, Steele is a hypocrite.
Lie #3: Obama Wants to Ration Care Based on Age
Steele says that care should not be rationed based on age. No version of healthcare reform proposed by any Democrat would do this. Steele is lying yet again.
Lie #4: Democrats Will Dictate End of Life Care for Seniors
Steele repeats the discredited "death panel" lie told by Sarah Palin and Charles Grassley. He claims that end-of-life care "becomes troublesome when the government gets involved." Perhaps that is true, but Steele's description of the Democrats' proposals is intentionally deceptive. The proposals would only compensate doctors who provide end-of-life counseling to patients. The proposals do not mandate the care.
This is the same thing as a governmental decision to pay for mammograms or a heart surgeries (which government insurance plans already do). Paying for treatment or counseling does not mandate it, nor does it get the government "involved" in the treatment. Steele is lying yet again.
Lie #5: Democrats Are Ending Veterans' Benefits
Steele argues that "we need to protect our veterans by preserving Tricare and other benefit programs for military families." He leaves the impression that Democrats want to discontinue these programs, but he can only state that some Democrats proposed raising premiums for Tricare -- which are far less than insurance premiums on the open market. Why? Tricare is a public plan -- the kind of government-sponsored plan that Republicans claim will lead to socialism, communism, and Armageddon.
Perhaps seniors could benefit from a "Bill of Rights." Unfortunately, the Republicans have only given them a pack of lies.
On Monday, the Republicans released a Bill of Rights for Seniors. RNC Chair Michael Steele also published an op-ed in the Washington Post that analyzes the Republicans' platform for seniors. Steele's op-ed simply regurgitates deceptive talking points that conservatives have circulated around the Internet since the beginning of healthcare reform debates. The GOP's "Bill of Rights for Seniors" is nothing but a "List of Lies."
Steele makes 5 broad points in his essay. Each one tells a different lie.
Lie #1: Democrats Want to Raid Medicare; Republicans Want to Save It
Steele argues that "[Obama] and congressional Democrats are planning to raid, not aid, Medicare by cutting $500 billion from the program to fund his health-care experiment." Steele's argument that Democrats are the opponents of Medicare while Republicans are fans of the plan is absolutely bogus.
Republicans have for a long time opposed Medicare. Ronald Reagan joined the American Medical Association's campaign against Medicare during the 1960s, describing the idea as "socialized medicine." Republicans have a long history of opposing "public plans" and describing them as socialism. Although Steele's op-ed does not admit this point, medicare is a public plan.
With respect to Medicare cuts, every major presidential candidate -- Democrat and Republican -- who proposed healthcare reform also advocated cutting Medicare costs. John McCain, for example, wanted to slash $1.3 trillion dollars from Medicare and Medicare over a ten-year period. Mitt Romney also frequently discussed the need to cut spending on entitlement programs, including Medicare.
Furthermore, Steele argues that the Democrats want to cut $500 billion from Medicare, but he neglects to discuss additional funding to the program that they have proposed. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that taking into consideration both cost cutting and increased spending, Obama's plan would trim $219 billion from Medicare over 10 years -- which is much less than Steele's figure and than what McCain proposed. Steele's analysis of this issue is hypocritical and factually inaccurate.
Lie #2: Healthcare Reform Gets in the Way of Seniors and Their Doctors
Steele shamelessly argues that: "The government-run health-care experiment that Obama and the Democrats propose will give seniors less power to control their own medical decisions and create government boards that would decide what treatments would or would not be funded."
Although Steele paints a picture of a scary "government-run health-care experiment," he neglects to describe Medicare as a government-run health program. Under Medicare (and Medicaid and Veterans health plans), the government already determines what types of treatments are covered and the reimbursement for those procedures. Steele's argument describes a fantasy world where Medicare is presumably a private entity where doctors and patients can do whatever they want, unconstrained by governmental coverage decisions. Private insurance does not operate this way either. Steele is either ignorant or a liar. Neither option is good.
Also, Republicans strongly support the Hyde Amendment, which bans coverage of abortion for Medicaid recipients. Republicans, have in fact, demonized proposed healthcare reform by falsely stating that it would fund abortion services. This type of governmental intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship is apparently fine for Republicans. So, in addition to being ignorant or a liar, Steele is a hypocrite.
Lie #3: Obama Wants to Ration Care Based on Age
Steele says that care should not be rationed based on age. No version of healthcare reform proposed by any Democrat would do this. Steele is lying yet again.
Lie #4: Democrats Will Dictate End of Life Care for Seniors
Steele repeats the discredited "death panel" lie told by Sarah Palin and Charles Grassley. He claims that end-of-life care "becomes troublesome when the government gets involved." Perhaps that is true, but Steele's description of the Democrats' proposals is intentionally deceptive. The proposals would only compensate doctors who provide end-of-life counseling to patients. The proposals do not mandate the care.
This is the same thing as a governmental decision to pay for mammograms or a heart surgeries (which government insurance plans already do). Paying for treatment or counseling does not mandate it, nor does it get the government "involved" in the treatment. Steele is lying yet again.
Lie #5: Democrats Are Ending Veterans' Benefits
Steele argues that "we need to protect our veterans by preserving Tricare and other benefit programs for military families." He leaves the impression that Democrats want to discontinue these programs, but he can only state that some Democrats proposed raising premiums for Tricare -- which are far less than insurance premiums on the open market. Why? Tricare is a public plan -- the kind of government-sponsored plan that Republicans claim will lead to socialism, communism, and Armageddon.
Perhaps seniors could benefit from a "Bill of Rights." Unfortunately, the Republicans have only given them a pack of lies.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Send in the Clowns: The GOP, the Sotomayor Hearings, and Political Suicide
Last year, I decided that Maureen Dowd had lost her verve. After a litany of weekly essays knifing Hillary Clinton and worshipping Barack Obama, she appeared robotic and unoriginal. But, Dowd's latest essay shows some of her old sparkle. In classic Dowd style, Dowd goes after the Republican Senators who have questioned Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's impartiality, temperament, and honesty. Dowd praises Sotomayor for maintaining her cool in the face of hostility, concluding that: "A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not know that a gaggle of white Republican men afraid of extinction are out to trip her up." Regrettably, I agree.
Prior to the Sotomayor nomination, I published many essays on this blog that defend Republicans from liberal attacks. For example, I defended Michael Steele (here, here, here, and here), Sarah Palin (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), Rush Limbaugh (here and here), and John McCain (here, here, here, and here) from unfair criticism. I also criticized "the liberal media," liberals and Democrats, including President Obama, when other progressives refused to do so (too many links to list). Although I continue to criticize liberals, my search for material to defend the GOP has been largely unsuccessful since the Sotomayor nomination.
The GOP's False and Offensive Anti-Sotomayor Narrative
Despite her excellent academic and professional credentials, many Republicans have decided that she is an intellectual lightweight, a partial judge, a bigot, and an ideologue. Given her nearly 20 years of judging, if these allegations were true, then the hundreds of opinions she has written would back up the claims. Nothing in Sotomayor's record as a judge, however, legitimates the Republicans' allegations.
Lacking any credible proof that Sotomayor is unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court, Republicans have resorted to distortion. They have extracted one case (Ricci) from her long legal career, and despite the fact that several other judges reached the same conclusion as Sotomayor, Republicans have pointed to her position in the case to argue that she is biased against white men.
Republicans have also extracted one sentence from one speech that Sotomayor delivered, distorted its meaning, and have attempted to define Sotomayor with their own misrepresentation of her words. Clearly operating under White House directions, Sotomayor has (wisely) said that she should have chosen other words to convey her message. She even apologized for any pain her words caused (but conservatives oppose "victimology"). Nevertheless, the spewing continues.
Embracing Principles or Committing Political Suicide?
Sotomayor will sit on the Supreme Court. All of the Democrats and even some of the Republicans will vote to confirm her. Meanwhile, the Republican Party will likely take a political hit from the hearings -- especially among blacks and Latinos, whose support for the GOP is already in the toilet.
Ironically, Republican Senators like Jeff Sessions are leading the attacks against Sotomayor. President Reagan nominated Sessions for a federal district court judgeship, but his nomination never made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Many committee members were not amused by some of Sessions's prior comments on race, which appear to praise the Ku Klux Klan and which describe the NAACP and ACLU as "un-American." Send in the clowns.
One could argue that the GOP is valiantly embracing its principles in the face of wide opposition and deep political risks. But that argument requires a showing that principles are actually dictating the behavior of Republicans. On that point, the record is weak. Portraying a highly successful woman of color with a long and distinguished judicial record as a dumb shrill racist partisan is not only factually inaccurate, but it amounts to political suicide for a party that needs to capture the attention of women, moderates, and persons of color. Rather than adhering to principles, it seems that the GOP is on a suicide mission. For those of us who favor a multi-party system, this is bad news.
Prior to the Sotomayor nomination, I published many essays on this blog that defend Republicans from liberal attacks. For example, I defended Michael Steele (here, here, here, and here), Sarah Palin (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), Rush Limbaugh (here and here), and John McCain (here, here, here, and here) from unfair criticism. I also criticized "the liberal media," liberals and Democrats, including President Obama, when other progressives refused to do so (too many links to list). Although I continue to criticize liberals, my search for material to defend the GOP has been largely unsuccessful since the Sotomayor nomination.
The GOP's False and Offensive Anti-Sotomayor Narrative
Despite her excellent academic and professional credentials, many Republicans have decided that she is an intellectual lightweight, a partial judge, a bigot, and an ideologue. Given her nearly 20 years of judging, if these allegations were true, then the hundreds of opinions she has written would back up the claims. Nothing in Sotomayor's record as a judge, however, legitimates the Republicans' allegations.
Lacking any credible proof that Sotomayor is unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court, Republicans have resorted to distortion. They have extracted one case (Ricci) from her long legal career, and despite the fact that several other judges reached the same conclusion as Sotomayor, Republicans have pointed to her position in the case to argue that she is biased against white men.
Republicans have also extracted one sentence from one speech that Sotomayor delivered, distorted its meaning, and have attempted to define Sotomayor with their own misrepresentation of her words. Clearly operating under White House directions, Sotomayor has (wisely) said that she should have chosen other words to convey her message. She even apologized for any pain her words caused (but conservatives oppose "victimology"). Nevertheless, the spewing continues.
Embracing Principles or Committing Political Suicide?
Sotomayor will sit on the Supreme Court. All of the Democrats and even some of the Republicans will vote to confirm her. Meanwhile, the Republican Party will likely take a political hit from the hearings -- especially among blacks and Latinos, whose support for the GOP is already in the toilet.
Ironically, Republican Senators like Jeff Sessions are leading the attacks against Sotomayor. President Reagan nominated Sessions for a federal district court judgeship, but his nomination never made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Many committee members were not amused by some of Sessions's prior comments on race, which appear to praise the Ku Klux Klan and which describe the NAACP and ACLU as "un-American." Send in the clowns.
One could argue that the GOP is valiantly embracing its principles in the face of wide opposition and deep political risks. But that argument requires a showing that principles are actually dictating the behavior of Republicans. On that point, the record is weak. Portraying a highly successful woman of color with a long and distinguished judicial record as a dumb shrill racist partisan is not only factually inaccurate, but it amounts to political suicide for a party that needs to capture the attention of women, moderates, and persons of color. Rather than adhering to principles, it seems that the GOP is on a suicide mission. For those of us who favor a multi-party system, this is bad news.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Earth to GOP: Branding Democrats as "Socialists" Is a Stupid and Futile Move
According to Politico, the RNC will hold an "extraordinary meeting" next week, during which it will officially decide to rebrand the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Socialist Party." The move strikes me as a stupid and futile strategy. RNC Chair Michael Steele agrees.
The Politico article, authored by Roger Simon, reports that Steele has condemned the move in a memorandum, which states that calling the Democrats socialists "will accomplish little [more] than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans." But the anonymous RNC source for the article dismissed Steele's objection by asking: "Who cares?"
As one should suspect, conservatives in the party voted to hold the special session, which Steele also opposed. They had also planned to present a proposal publicly criticizing Olympia Snow, Arlen Specter, and Susan Collins, the only Republicans who voted for the stimulus package (Specter recently became a Democrat). But they decided to withdraw that proposal.
GOP's Directional Battle
Simon's article also blasts Steele's performance as RNC Chair. He has also written several other essays that criticize Steel. Furthermore, many conservatives within the Republican Party believe Steele is a bad choice and do not trust him.
Perhaps I favor underdogs, but I think that conservative criticism of Steele is misplaced. I suspect that Steele smartly understands that the RNC needs to modify its image by embracing more moderate stances on social and economic issues. Conservatives in the party vehemently oppose such a move.
But instead of rebranding the Democrats, the Republican Party needs to remake its own image. Many political opportunities exist for linking a more moderate agenda with conservative values. A conservative belief in limited government, for example, is perfectly consistent with support for gay rights, which include freedom from governmental discrimination and invasion of privacy. Indeed, when conservatives oppose affirmative action and welfare, they do so by invoking the rhetoric of "equality," "individualism," and the "free market." But they abandon these supposedly vital principles in order to justify discrimination against GLBT people. This is not a winning strategy in today's political climate.
In addition, fiscal conservatism should not necessarily lead to callousness. The RNC could actually beat the Democrats at their own game if they truly pushed the notion of equal educational opportunity for all children, including poor whites and persons of color. In the longterm the country will save money and have greater opportunities for innovation and efficiency if it has an educated population. Sending children of any race to decaying and underperforming schools is an American tragedy. Using vouchers and reforming public schools reflect conservative values because these policies prepare private citizens to exercise greater autonomy over their own lives and to contribute to society.
Center Versus Right
Steele has faced resistance when he takes moderate positions or criticizes the conservative base (a move which, admittedly, seems to require a healthy amount of political savvy). When Steele stated that having an abortion was an individual choice (which it is), the Right blasted him. When he seemed to advocate a neutral state regarding gay and lesbian relationships, the Right complained again. When Steele made the reasonable analysis that Mitt Romney's political flip-flopping and his religion might have cost him votes among conservatives, they screamed again.
Steele's plight as RNC Chair is symbolic of a larger directional struggle within the party. Many GOP members are demanding that the party create a more moderate image, while others believe the route to greater national power involves lurching even farther to the right.
Apparently, many Republicans fail to understand that political currents come, go and return. The "Party of Lincoln" freed the slaves and was, therefore, virtually nonexistent in the South after the end of Reconstruction. Following the 1960s civil rights and antipoverty reforms, the South gradually moved to the Republican Party, and the party moved increasingly to the right in national politics in order to secure the loyalty of heartland and southern conservatives.
Although I do not believe that social conservatism is dead, in terms of national politics, hard line conservatism is not a winning formula at the moment. The GOP can either sink or swim. Charlie Crist's run for Senate in the exceedingly purple state of Florida can serve as a model for GOP change. But early reports suggest that conservatives want to blast Crist as well. By engaging in a petty strategy to rename the Democrats as a socialist party and caging Steele and opposing all efforts to modify the party's platform, Republicans might have effectively made the choice to sink.
PS: I am a nonpartisan progressive. Thus, this is essay is not an anti-GOP hate piece. What do you think?
Update: After an exchange with a couple of readers, I have deleted references to Simon's ideology. Although I think he sits on the right, he also appears to be somewhat of an ideological opportunist (Translation: His views reflect the popularly held opinions of the moment).
The Politico article, authored by Roger Simon, reports that Steele has condemned the move in a memorandum, which states that calling the Democrats socialists "will accomplish little [more] than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans." But the anonymous RNC source for the article dismissed Steele's objection by asking: "Who cares?"
As one should suspect, conservatives in the party voted to hold the special session, which Steele also opposed. They had also planned to present a proposal publicly criticizing Olympia Snow, Arlen Specter, and Susan Collins, the only Republicans who voted for the stimulus package (Specter recently became a Democrat). But they decided to withdraw that proposal.
GOP's Directional Battle
Simon's article also blasts Steele's performance as RNC Chair. He has also written several other essays that criticize Steel. Furthermore, many conservatives within the Republican Party believe Steele is a bad choice and do not trust him.
Perhaps I favor underdogs, but I think that conservative criticism of Steele is misplaced. I suspect that Steele smartly understands that the RNC needs to modify its image by embracing more moderate stances on social and economic issues. Conservatives in the party vehemently oppose such a move.
But instead of rebranding the Democrats, the Republican Party needs to remake its own image. Many political opportunities exist for linking a more moderate agenda with conservative values. A conservative belief in limited government, for example, is perfectly consistent with support for gay rights, which include freedom from governmental discrimination and invasion of privacy. Indeed, when conservatives oppose affirmative action and welfare, they do so by invoking the rhetoric of "equality," "individualism," and the "free market." But they abandon these supposedly vital principles in order to justify discrimination against GLBT people. This is not a winning strategy in today's political climate.
In addition, fiscal conservatism should not necessarily lead to callousness. The RNC could actually beat the Democrats at their own game if they truly pushed the notion of equal educational opportunity for all children, including poor whites and persons of color. In the longterm the country will save money and have greater opportunities for innovation and efficiency if it has an educated population. Sending children of any race to decaying and underperforming schools is an American tragedy. Using vouchers and reforming public schools reflect conservative values because these policies prepare private citizens to exercise greater autonomy over their own lives and to contribute to society.
Center Versus Right
Steele has faced resistance when he takes moderate positions or criticizes the conservative base (a move which, admittedly, seems to require a healthy amount of political savvy). When Steele stated that having an abortion was an individual choice (which it is), the Right blasted him. When he seemed to advocate a neutral state regarding gay and lesbian relationships, the Right complained again. When Steele made the reasonable analysis that Mitt Romney's political flip-flopping and his religion might have cost him votes among conservatives, they screamed again.
Steele's plight as RNC Chair is symbolic of a larger directional struggle within the party. Many GOP members are demanding that the party create a more moderate image, while others believe the route to greater national power involves lurching even farther to the right.
Apparently, many Republicans fail to understand that political currents come, go and return. The "Party of Lincoln" freed the slaves and was, therefore, virtually nonexistent in the South after the end of Reconstruction. Following the 1960s civil rights and antipoverty reforms, the South gradually moved to the Republican Party, and the party moved increasingly to the right in national politics in order to secure the loyalty of heartland and southern conservatives.
Although I do not believe that social conservatism is dead, in terms of national politics, hard line conservatism is not a winning formula at the moment. The GOP can either sink or swim. Charlie Crist's run for Senate in the exceedingly purple state of Florida can serve as a model for GOP change. But early reports suggest that conservatives want to blast Crist as well. By engaging in a petty strategy to rename the Democrats as a socialist party and caging Steele and opposing all efforts to modify the party's platform, Republicans might have effectively made the choice to sink.
PS: I am a nonpartisan progressive. Thus, this is essay is not an anti-GOP hate piece. What do you think?
Update: After an exchange with a couple of readers, I have deleted references to Simon's ideology. Although I think he sits on the right, he also appears to be somewhat of an ideological opportunist (Translation: His views reflect the popularly held opinions of the moment).
Monday, April 27, 2009
New Partisan Theatrics on the Left: GOP Supports the Flu
Ok. I'm back. I have been scarce recently, due to professional constraints. Now that I have returned, I have discovered a litany of blog posts which essentially say the same thing: The GOP voted against flu preparation funding in the stimulus. The news is spreading like a....virus...across the web (yeah, cheesy intentional pun).
John Nichols, a writer with The Nation, started the flurry of posts this morning (I believe) with this zinger: GOP Know-Nothings Fought Pandemic Preparedness. Nicols describes a process where silly Republicans voted to water down the amount of money devoted to pandemic preparation in the stimulus package:
Nicols does not present any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that the normal budget failed to devote sufficient funds to the agencies responsible for addressing public health concerns. Nicols also fails to demonstrate why, if necessary, Congress cannot simply allocate funds now as part of an emergency spending plan. Instead, he whips out his partisan club and starts pounding. He does not even state whether the pandemic funds that actually made it into the package are being used to combat the swine flu.
My Take: I agree with critics who argued that including pandemic preparation funds in the stimulus package did not promote the policy behind the plan -- stimulating the economy. Public health is a general policy issue; it is not properly addressed in legislation combatting a financial crisis. Furthermore, opposition to including the the funds in the stimulus package does not mean that any particular member of Congress opposed investing in pandemic preparation as a general policy matter. Accordingly, my fellow liberals are just pumping out hot air on this one.
Apparently, the mercurial stock market has responded negatively to the flu, a fact that Nicols believes proves the link between the flu and the stimulus. But this argument is not persuasive. The stock market reacts and overreacts all the time. Extreme daily movement in the market usually has nothing to do with sound economic analysis. Instead, it results from public panic, which Nicols's analysis invites.
Finally, while Nicols blames the GOP for opposing the inclusion of pandemic preparation in the stimulus package, he fails to acknowledge that Democrats voted for them as well. The stimulus package would have passed without the votes of the 3 purple Republicans. If the Democrats believed that including the full amount requested by Obey was so compelling, they would not have supported the Republican cuts. On this point, one blogger says that Senate Democrat Charles Schumer also blasted the notion of including pandemic spending in the stimulus package.
My Very Cynical and "Bitter" Outtake: I wonder how the kids in racially segregated urban poverty schools are doing today. While liberals are blabbing incessantly about this silly matter, they should have been analyzing pressing social issues related to poverty and unequal opportunity. Decaying public schools pose a bigger threat to the economy and to public health than GOP opposition to specific items in the stimulus package. Liberals pretend that they are a "progressive" antidote to the GOP, but from here, it looks like many of them do not care about progressive issues at all. So long as they can beat up Republicans, they are happy. But that does not put food on people's tables, right? Yes -- I am venting.
Related article: Dems Put Swine Flu to Good Use.
John Nichols, a writer with The Nation, started the flurry of posts this morning (I believe) with this zinger: GOP Know-Nothings Fought Pandemic Preparedness. Nicols describes a process where silly Republicans voted to water down the amount of money devoted to pandemic preparation in the stimulus package:
Of course, even Nicols acknowledges that no flu pandemic exists. But he does not acknowledge that the stimulus package was an extra stream of money separate from the normal operating budget of the federal government and the normal allocation of money for general spending projects, including public health initiatives.When House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who has long championed investment in pandemic preparation, included
roughly $900 million for that purpose in this year's emergency stimulus bill, he was ridiculed by conservative operatives and congressional Republicans.
Obey and other advocates for the spending argued, correctly, that a pandemic hitting in the midst of an economic downturn could turn a recession into something far worse -- with workers ordered to remain in their homes, workplaces shuttered to avoid the spread of disease, transportation systems grinding to a halt and demand for emergency services and public health interventions skyrocketing. Indeed, they suggested, pandemic preparation was essential to any responsible plan for renewing the U.S. economy.But former White House political czar Karl Rove and key congressional Republicans -- led by Maine Senator Susan Collins -- aggressively attacked the notion that there was a connection between pandemic preparation and economic recovery.
Now, as the World Health Organization says a deadly swine flu outbreak that apparently began in Mexico but has spread to the United States has the potential to develop into a pandemic, Obey's attempt to secure the money seems eerily prescient.
Nicols does not present any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that the normal budget failed to devote sufficient funds to the agencies responsible for addressing public health concerns. Nicols also fails to demonstrate why, if necessary, Congress cannot simply allocate funds now as part of an emergency spending plan. Instead, he whips out his partisan club and starts pounding. He does not even state whether the pandemic funds that actually made it into the package are being used to combat the swine flu.
My Take: I agree with critics who argued that including pandemic preparation funds in the stimulus package did not promote the policy behind the plan -- stimulating the economy. Public health is a general policy issue; it is not properly addressed in legislation combatting a financial crisis. Furthermore, opposition to including the the funds in the stimulus package does not mean that any particular member of Congress opposed investing in pandemic preparation as a general policy matter. Accordingly, my fellow liberals are just pumping out hot air on this one.
Apparently, the mercurial stock market has responded negatively to the flu, a fact that Nicols believes proves the link between the flu and the stimulus. But this argument is not persuasive. The stock market reacts and overreacts all the time. Extreme daily movement in the market usually has nothing to do with sound economic analysis. Instead, it results from public panic, which Nicols's analysis invites.
Finally, while Nicols blames the GOP for opposing the inclusion of pandemic preparation in the stimulus package, he fails to acknowledge that Democrats voted for them as well. The stimulus package would have passed without the votes of the 3 purple Republicans. If the Democrats believed that including the full amount requested by Obey was so compelling, they would not have supported the Republican cuts. On this point, one blogger says that Senate Democrat Charles Schumer also blasted the notion of including pandemic spending in the stimulus package.
My Very Cynical and "Bitter" Outtake: I wonder how the kids in racially segregated urban poverty schools are doing today. While liberals are blabbing incessantly about this silly matter, they should have been analyzing pressing social issues related to poverty and unequal opportunity. Decaying public schools pose a bigger threat to the economy and to public health than GOP opposition to specific items in the stimulus package. Liberals pretend that they are a "progressive" antidote to the GOP, but from here, it looks like many of them do not care about progressive issues at all. So long as they can beat up Republicans, they are happy. But that does not put food on people's tables, right? Yes -- I am venting.
Related article: Dems Put Swine Flu to Good Use.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Yup. . . What He Said
Slate writer Christopher Beam has written an essay that persuasively analyzes the GOP effort to construct an "alternative" budget. Beam argues that the Republicans fell for the Democrats' "bait" and rushed to do something that opposition parties rarely do: Produce full budgets of their own even when their proposals have absolutely no chance of mustering votes outside of the opposition party. The reviews of the GOP budget have been almost universally bad.
Recently, I had a conversation with a good friend during which I made very similar arguments as Beam does in his essay. I had initially planned to elaborate my ideas on the subject, but thanks to Beam, I can focus on other things.
Here is a clip from Beam's essay:
Recently, I had a conversation with a good friend during which I made very similar arguments as Beam does in his essay. I had initially planned to elaborate my ideas on the subject, but thanks to Beam, I can focus on other things.
Here is a clip from Beam's essay:
Opposition parties typically present an alternative—sometimes more than one—to the administration's budget. But it's by no means required. And for good reason: If the party doesn't control Congress, the budget stands little chance, anyway, making it more important as a rhetorical device than as a fiscal blueprint. And when the process is rhetorical, the minority generally does better when forcing the majority to defend its position rather than explaining its own. . . .Related Reading on Dissenting Justice: GOP Releases Problem-Laden Alternative "Budget" Preview
Yet somehow Obama managed to goad the opposition into producing its own full-blown alternative. First it was the DNC, labeling the GOP the "party of 'no.' " Obama joined in at his press conference last Tuesday: "[T]here's an interesting reason why some of these critics haven't put out their own budget. . . .And the reason is because they know that, in fact, the biggest driver of long-term deficits are the huge health care costs that we've got out here that we're going to have to tackle."
The Republicans took the bait, and the results have not been pretty. The first draft—more a statement of principles than a budget—was widely mocked. . . .It also allowed White House press secretary Robert Gibbs to twist the knife on prime time: "The party of 'no' has become the party of no ideas."
The second draft, released Wednesday, is substantive but does little more than reiterate familiar GOP policies. It cuts entitlement spending, extends the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, simplifies the tax system so people pay either 10 percent or 25 percent on income, and imposes a five-year spending freeze. . . .
Friday, March 27, 2009
GOP Releases Problem-Laden Alternative "Budget" Preview
The GOP has offered an alternative budget blueprint that is short on details and that fails to specify anticipated spending and revenue, which are essential elements of a "budget." Much of of the document simply responds to President Obama's plan in politically charged (and already familiar) language.
According to Politico, some Republicans are upset by the document, which they believe upstages a serious alternative budget currently under production:
Politics, Politics, Politics
The blueprint reads like a political document, rather than a budget (or budget preview). In one particular passage, the document rails against a host of traditional recipients of Republican scorn:
As with most political documents, the blueprint distorts the record. For example, it states that: "Democrats propose nearly $1 trillion in new spending on health care reform as a mere “down payment” for additional spending to come." Reality: The Democrats propose $634 billion for healthcare reform over the course of 10 years.
The blueprint also states that: "The prime focus of their agenda is the establishment of a government-run health insurance plan, designed to “compete” against private health insurance." Reality: Although Obama campaigned on the promise to create a public plan option, he has recently indicated that he might discard the idea. Also, two of the largest labor unions have dropped out of Obama's healthcare reform talks because they believe that the public plan issue is effectively off the table.
Sloppy Analysis
The blueprint also contains some sloppy analysis. It states, for example, that:
Fiscally Troubling
The Republican blueprint suffers from the same problem as the Obama budget: It promises to do many things with insufficient funds. I have already written about the skepticism economists have expressed concerning Obama's budget estimates. The Republican blueprint, however, makes a similar mistake by promising to implement "universal" healthcare and other reforms -- while dramatically slashing taxes. Specifically, the document states that:
Final Thoughts
I am troubled by the spending spree going on in Washington. But I was also bothered by the "cut taxes-and-spend a lot" policies of the Bush administration. For that reason, I look forward to debate among Democrats and Republicans who want to work on realistic solutions to the economic crisis and to refrain from engaging in partisan political grandstanding. Let's hope that members of Congress earn their pay by giving voters the thoughtful options they deserve.
According to Politico, some Republicans are upset by the document, which they believe upstages a serious alternative budget currently under production:
“In his egocentric rush to get on camera, Mike Pence threw the rest of the Conference under the bus, specifically Paul Ryan, whose staff has been working night and day for weeks to develop a substantive budget plan," said a GOP aide heavily involved in budget strategy.Highlights from the Blueprint
"I hope his camera time was gratifying enough to justify erasing the weeks of hard work by dozens of Republicans to put forth serious ideas," the person added.
"It's categorically untrue," said Pence spokesman Matt Lloyd. "Cantor as well as Ryan and the rest of the leadership have been part of this process for weeks. They not only signed off on it, but their staffs helped edit it."
Ryan told POLITICO that he didn't feel thrown under any buses and downplayed the disagreement.
"The problem is that somewhere along the line, someone got the mistaken impression that we were going to roll out a budget alternative today," he said. "What we all signed off on was a preview—the real [alternative] is coming next week."
Still, when he was asked what purpose today's preview served, Ryan directed me to Pence's office: "You've got to ask the conference this question, I can't answer that question."
Politics, Politics, Politics
The blueprint reads like a political document, rather than a budget (or budget preview). In one particular passage, the document rails against a host of traditional recipients of Republican scorn:
Who are the recipients of such largesse? International organizations and foreign aid recipients, including millions for reconstruction in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Labor union bosses participating in a new “green jobs” program. The National Endowment for the Arts, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Americorps, Title X Family Planning, and a host of spending programs that will do nothing to help our economy recover. And even community organizers, such as ACORN, performing “neighborhood stabilization.”Questionable Statements
As with most political documents, the blueprint distorts the record. For example, it states that: "Democrats propose nearly $1 trillion in new spending on health care reform as a mere “down payment” for additional spending to come." Reality: The Democrats propose $634 billion for healthcare reform over the course of 10 years.
The blueprint also states that: "The prime focus of their agenda is the establishment of a government-run health insurance plan, designed to “compete” against private health insurance." Reality: Although Obama campaigned on the promise to create a public plan option, he has recently indicated that he might discard the idea. Also, two of the largest labor unions have dropped out of Obama's healthcare reform talks because they believe that the public plan issue is effectively off the table.
Sloppy Analysis
The blueprint also contains some sloppy analysis. It states, for example, that:
Actuaries at the Lewin Group estimated that nearly three in four Americans—119 million individuals—with employer-sponsored health insurance would lose their current coverage. These individuals would lose their coverage not because they made a voluntary choice to accept the government plan, but because their employers would save billions of dollars by ending their current coverage and dumping their employees into the government-run plan.But the Lewin Group's findings are not based on any specific plan put forth by Obama -- because none exists. Instead, the group utilized plans mapped out by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries. Furthermore, it is unclear to me why saving "billions of dollars" is a bad idea for employers. Perhaps they would pass some of that money to employees or use it to hire more workers (or simply pocket it themselves, which seems like a Republican value).
Fiscally Troubling
The Republican blueprint suffers from the same problem as the Obama budget: It promises to do many things with insufficient funds. I have already written about the skepticism economists have expressed concerning Obama's budget estimates. The Republican blueprint, however, makes a similar mistake by promising to implement "universal" healthcare and other reforms -- while dramatically slashing taxes. Specifically, the document states that:
Republicans propose a simple and fair tax code with a marginal tax rate for income up to $100,000 of 10 percent and 25 percent for any income thereafter, with a generous standard deduction and personal exemption.The blueprint does not specify how this revenue-reducing proposal would lead to a balanced budget and a reduction in public debt.
Final Thoughts
I am troubled by the spending spree going on in Washington. But I was also bothered by the "cut taxes-and-spend a lot" policies of the Bush administration. For that reason, I look forward to debate among Democrats and Republicans who want to work on realistic solutions to the economic crisis and to refrain from engaging in partisan political grandstanding. Let's hope that members of Congress earn their pay by giving voters the thoughtful options they deserve.
Monday, March 16, 2009
If Conservatives Listen to Shelby Steele, They Will Never Win Support From People of Color
Steele's Arguments
Shelby Steele has written an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal which purports to explain why the Republican Party cannot make inroads among persons of color. According to Steele, conservatives (whom Steele conflates with Republicans) do not appeal to people of color because Democrats have seduced them with a mutated form of liberalism that rejects individualism and replaces it with a politics of redemption.
Steele argues that "redemptive liberalism" attracts persons of color because it offers "moral accountability" for the nation's history of racism. Steele argues that liberals have used this moral trope to justify "social engineering," achieved through activism around particular causes like "integration" and "diversity." Conservatives, by contrast, would rather "ensure individual freedom" and leave the rest to the "invisible hand."
Steele argues that conservatives' focus on individualism, discipline and market principles alienates people of color for a couple of reasons. First, individualism and limited government are wholly inadequate vehicles for constructing a narrative of moral accountability. Second, people of color expect "moral activism" because they -- "especially blacks . . . are often born into grievance-focused identities." Whereas moral political activism appeals to a grievance-based culture, the "invisible hand" does not.
Problems With Steele's Arguments
Steele's arguments are troubling on many levels. I will now turn to some of the weaknesses in his essay.
Internally Inconsistent. Steele argues that persons of color have a "grievance identity," which he portrays as antithetical to conservatism. But Steele also observes that "blacks and Hispanics often poll more conservatively than whites on most social issues," which he says should make them attractive candidates for the Republican Party. Steele's observation concerning the embrace of social conservatism among persons of color is correct, but this fact undermines his simplistic effort to link Democratic support among persons of color with a grievance culture. Instead, the situation is far more complex.
Voters of all races are complicated. They often make compromises and prioritize among many issues. Civil rights concerns appeal to persons of color because they believe that remedying ongoing and past discrimination is an important function of government. Steele, however, reduces this belief in and desire for concrete solutions to a pie in the sky fantasy concerning American innocence and morality. Opinion polls, however, tend to show that people of color -- especially blacks -- have a far more cynical attitude concerning the status of race relations and the prospect for racial change.
Conservatism Is Contradictory. While conservatives espouse the virtues of limited government, they often embrace governmental intervention into some of the most personal areas of our lives, including pregnancy, abortion, sexual orientation, marriage, and consumption of "obscene" materials like pornography and even "sex toys." They also support very strict restraints on liberty by expanding the criminal law, promoting heavy sentencing, and condoning highly permissive policing methods that invade personal privacy and autonomy. The "invisible hand" is only selectively invisible, and quite often, the results of conservative-sponsored governmental intervention has a disparate impact on persons of color. These policies, not a grievance culture, explain the inability of the GOP to appeal to many persons of color.
Steele's Claims Are Ahistorical. Steele argues that the 1960s civil rights legislation, busing, and Great Society programs form the redemptive glue that keeps people of color locked in the Democratic Party. But Steele's analysis could benefit from a richer appreciation of history -- and from a more deliberate effort to distinguish among different racial groups.
Blacks, for example, began voting for Democrats in great numbers in 1936, when Roosevelt received almost 80 percent of black votes. The only interruption in this pattern occurred when Dwight Eisenhower received 40 percent of black votes; his opponent, Adlai Stevenson, chose a southern segregationist as a running mate. The pattern has spiked in recent years (even before Obama) even though civil rights concerns have not dominated the Democratic Party's agenda. Bill Clinton dared to tinker with "welfare as we know it," but he maintained popularity among blacks, even though welfare is a New Deal/Great Society prized jewel.
Other groups of persons of color tend to vote for Democrats even though they do not fit neatly within the "redemptive" model Steele portrays. The busing controversy, for example, did not implicate Asian Americans as it did blacks and Latinos. And much of the civil rights legislation responded directly to black social movements. But a majority of Asian Americans vote for Democrats. On the issue of internment of Japanese Americans, a Democrat (FDR) issued the executive orders permitting the practice, and a Republican (Reagan) signed the reparations legislation into law.
Among Latinos, Cuban-Americans have voted for Republicans because the Republican Party has utilized governmental power to penalize Cuba. The "invisible hand' does not exist in this context, and Republicans have gained tremendously from governmental restraints on trade with and travel to Cuba. Perhaps what Steele calls a system of grievance and redemption is really old-fashioned political patronage, in which both parties engage.
Final Thoughts. I do not believe in an "us/them" dichotomy. Many essays on this blog, for example, criticize liberals and defend Republicans (even though I am a progressive). Only nonpartisan scrutiny of the nation's problems will produce workable solutions. Steele's essay is explicitly partisan.
I believe in a two-party or multiple-party political system, and for that reason, I hope that a credible second-party emerges (even if it is the GOP). Nonpartisans across the political spectrum must do the necessary work to make political and social progress a possibility.
(Updated/edited for style 3/17)
Shelby Steele has written an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal which purports to explain why the Republican Party cannot make inroads among persons of color. According to Steele, conservatives (whom Steele conflates with Republicans) do not appeal to people of color because Democrats have seduced them with a mutated form of liberalism that rejects individualism and replaces it with a politics of redemption.
Steele argues that "redemptive liberalism" attracts persons of color because it offers "moral accountability" for the nation's history of racism. Steele argues that liberals have used this moral trope to justify "social engineering," achieved through activism around particular causes like "integration" and "diversity." Conservatives, by contrast, would rather "ensure individual freedom" and leave the rest to the "invisible hand."
Steele argues that conservatives' focus on individualism, discipline and market principles alienates people of color for a couple of reasons. First, individualism and limited government are wholly inadequate vehicles for constructing a narrative of moral accountability. Second, people of color expect "moral activism" because they -- "especially blacks . . . are often born into grievance-focused identities." Whereas moral political activism appeals to a grievance-based culture, the "invisible hand" does not.
Problems With Steele's Arguments
Steele's arguments are troubling on many levels. I will now turn to some of the weaknesses in his essay.
Internally Inconsistent. Steele argues that persons of color have a "grievance identity," which he portrays as antithetical to conservatism. But Steele also observes that "blacks and Hispanics often poll more conservatively than whites on most social issues," which he says should make them attractive candidates for the Republican Party. Steele's observation concerning the embrace of social conservatism among persons of color is correct, but this fact undermines his simplistic effort to link Democratic support among persons of color with a grievance culture. Instead, the situation is far more complex.
Voters of all races are complicated. They often make compromises and prioritize among many issues. Civil rights concerns appeal to persons of color because they believe that remedying ongoing and past discrimination is an important function of government. Steele, however, reduces this belief in and desire for concrete solutions to a pie in the sky fantasy concerning American innocence and morality. Opinion polls, however, tend to show that people of color -- especially blacks -- have a far more cynical attitude concerning the status of race relations and the prospect for racial change.
Conservatism Is Contradictory. While conservatives espouse the virtues of limited government, they often embrace governmental intervention into some of the most personal areas of our lives, including pregnancy, abortion, sexual orientation, marriage, and consumption of "obscene" materials like pornography and even "sex toys." They also support very strict restraints on liberty by expanding the criminal law, promoting heavy sentencing, and condoning highly permissive policing methods that invade personal privacy and autonomy. The "invisible hand" is only selectively invisible, and quite often, the results of conservative-sponsored governmental intervention has a disparate impact on persons of color. These policies, not a grievance culture, explain the inability of the GOP to appeal to many persons of color.
Steele's Claims Are Ahistorical. Steele argues that the 1960s civil rights legislation, busing, and Great Society programs form the redemptive glue that keeps people of color locked in the Democratic Party. But Steele's analysis could benefit from a richer appreciation of history -- and from a more deliberate effort to distinguish among different racial groups.
Blacks, for example, began voting for Democrats in great numbers in 1936, when Roosevelt received almost 80 percent of black votes. The only interruption in this pattern occurred when Dwight Eisenhower received 40 percent of black votes; his opponent, Adlai Stevenson, chose a southern segregationist as a running mate. The pattern has spiked in recent years (even before Obama) even though civil rights concerns have not dominated the Democratic Party's agenda. Bill Clinton dared to tinker with "welfare as we know it," but he maintained popularity among blacks, even though welfare is a New Deal/Great Society prized jewel.
Other groups of persons of color tend to vote for Democrats even though they do not fit neatly within the "redemptive" model Steele portrays. The busing controversy, for example, did not implicate Asian Americans as it did blacks and Latinos. And much of the civil rights legislation responded directly to black social movements. But a majority of Asian Americans vote for Democrats. On the issue of internment of Japanese Americans, a Democrat (FDR) issued the executive orders permitting the practice, and a Republican (Reagan) signed the reparations legislation into law.
Among Latinos, Cuban-Americans have voted for Republicans because the Republican Party has utilized governmental power to penalize Cuba. The "invisible hand' does not exist in this context, and Republicans have gained tremendously from governmental restraints on trade with and travel to Cuba. Perhaps what Steele calls a system of grievance and redemption is really old-fashioned political patronage, in which both parties engage.
Final Thoughts. I do not believe in an "us/them" dichotomy. Many essays on this blog, for example, criticize liberals and defend Republicans (even though I am a progressive). Only nonpartisan scrutiny of the nation's problems will produce workable solutions. Steele's essay is explicitly partisan.
I believe in a two-party or multiple-party political system, and for that reason, I hope that a credible second-party emerges (even if it is the GOP). Nonpartisans across the political spectrum must do the necessary work to make political and social progress a possibility.
(Updated/edited for style 3/17)
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Rush: The New Bush
It didn't take long for the White House to begin distancing itself from the Democrats' effort to smear the GOP by attacking Rush Limbaugh. Yesterday, Politico.Com -- indisputably an Obama-friendly zone -- published a very persuasive article that links the recent flurry of discourse surrounding Limbaugh to a strategy orchestrated by Democratic Party operatives, including Paul Begala, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg.
White House: Part of the Limbaugh Strategy
The Politico article also concludes that the White House embraced the Limbaugh strategy. Specifically, White House senior adviser David Axelrod, Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs agreed to utilize it.
On Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel described Limbaugh as "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." Tuesday, Gibbs snidely commented on Michael Steele's "apology" to Limbaugh (which Steele only offered after taking the Democrats' bait and condemning Limbaugh during a CNN interview). And yesterday, the Washington Post published a 2-page op-ed by David Plouffe, Obama's presidential campaign manager, which describes Limbaugh as the "Minority Leader."
By the end of the day, however, the White House attempted to distance itself from the flap it helped to create. Gibbs for example, stated at a press conference that his criticism of Limbaugh and other media personalities was "counterproductive."
Why Beat Up Limbaugh?
Limbaugh is not a politician, but he is an influential voice among the rightwing. The GOP needs conservative voters, but it also needs to make its image more moderate in order to win national and state elections. The Democrats want to complicate this task by portraying the party as extremely conservative and "out of touch" with Americans.
During the last eight years, Bush -- and Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove/Rice -- served as the poster child for Democratic anger. Disappointment with Bush helped Obama and other Democrats win their respective elections. The Democrats realize that creating a political "enemy" can allow them to energize and organize voters to support the party and its candidates.
Why I Do Not Like This Strategy
There's a greater likelihood that Obama will invite me to the White House to "live-blog" his daily activities than there is a chance that Limbaugh and I will agree on any important social issue. I find Limbaugh and his views distasteful, hypocritical, and [insert many other negative adjectives]. But I vehemently disagree with this strategy, despite its potential effectiveness in helping Democrats. Here's why.
Distraction
First, this strategy fuels sensationalism and detracts from very important social issues. Rather than discussing deep social problems, the Democrats are creating a new poster child of evil to bash and demonize. Meanwhile, unemployment is soaring (especially in communities of color), people still lack health care, the stock market is plunging, the country is fighting two costly and deadly wars, and Osama bin Laden is somewhere tiptoeing through the tulips.
Despite this terrible reality, Rush Limbaugh, rather than complex social issues, captivates the Democrats and media. That is absolutely indefensible, and it betrays voters who thought they were getting change, rather than "more of the same."
Party versus Policy
Second, this strategy elevates the Democratic Party, not liberal policy. One could argue (as some readers have) that beating up Limbaugh empowers Democrats, which will lead to the passage of liberal reform. I disagree with this idea. Instead, I believe that beating up Limbaugh empowers Democrats, which will lead to the reelection of Democratic politicians, which will allow them to increase their own political and economic power.
Electing Democrats does not guarantee that liberal reform will take place. This is particularly true when party officials convince voters to treat politics as a battle of personalities rather than a battle over policies and principles. Both sides are guilty of this (think, "slimy neocon rightwinger" versus "looney tree-hugging liberal"). With many liberal voters and social movements fixated upon beating up Republicans and cheering for Democrats, Democratic politicians can avoid implementing true liberal reform and can even get away with continuing practices that progressives condemned during the Bush administration (such as rendition).
Democrats will only "support" enough liberal issues to secure their reelection. If they can improve their party's "brand" and their own election prospects by bashing Limbaugh and other Republicans, then this is an easier and less-expensive route to political success. It is certainly easier than planning and implementing strategies that address entrenched social problems.
Makes the Other Party Look Good
Finally, the Democrats' demonization of Limbaugh risks making the GOP look better in the eyes of voters. At a minimum, it allows Republicans to claim a higher moral ground and, perhaps, to mend their image.
Today, the Washington Post contains an op-ed written by Representative John Boehner, the House Minority Leader. Although I highly doubt that Boehner and I agree on many social issues, I prefer his analysis much more than the anti-Limbaugh lunacy emerging from my own party. The Democrats' foray into dirt allows Boehner to take the moral high ground, which he does when he offers the following sober analysis:
White House: Part of the Limbaugh Strategy
The Politico article also concludes that the White House embraced the Limbaugh strategy. Specifically, White House senior adviser David Axelrod, Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs agreed to utilize it.
On Sunday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel described Limbaugh as "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." Tuesday, Gibbs snidely commented on Michael Steele's "apology" to Limbaugh (which Steele only offered after taking the Democrats' bait and condemning Limbaugh during a CNN interview). And yesterday, the Washington Post published a 2-page op-ed by David Plouffe, Obama's presidential campaign manager, which describes Limbaugh as the "Minority Leader."
By the end of the day, however, the White House attempted to distance itself from the flap it helped to create. Gibbs for example, stated at a press conference that his criticism of Limbaugh and other media personalities was "counterproductive."
Why Beat Up Limbaugh?
Limbaugh is not a politician, but he is an influential voice among the rightwing. The GOP needs conservative voters, but it also needs to make its image more moderate in order to win national and state elections. The Democrats want to complicate this task by portraying the party as extremely conservative and "out of touch" with Americans.
During the last eight years, Bush -- and Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove/Rice -- served as the poster child for Democratic anger. Disappointment with Bush helped Obama and other Democrats win their respective elections. The Democrats realize that creating a political "enemy" can allow them to energize and organize voters to support the party and its candidates.
Why I Do Not Like This Strategy
There's a greater likelihood that Obama will invite me to the White House to "live-blog" his daily activities than there is a chance that Limbaugh and I will agree on any important social issue. I find Limbaugh and his views distasteful, hypocritical, and [insert many other negative adjectives]. But I vehemently disagree with this strategy, despite its potential effectiveness in helping Democrats. Here's why.
Distraction
First, this strategy fuels sensationalism and detracts from very important social issues. Rather than discussing deep social problems, the Democrats are creating a new poster child of evil to bash and demonize. Meanwhile, unemployment is soaring (especially in communities of color), people still lack health care, the stock market is plunging, the country is fighting two costly and deadly wars, and Osama bin Laden is somewhere tiptoeing through the tulips.
Despite this terrible reality, Rush Limbaugh, rather than complex social issues, captivates the Democrats and media. That is absolutely indefensible, and it betrays voters who thought they were getting change, rather than "more of the same."
Party versus Policy
Second, this strategy elevates the Democratic Party, not liberal policy. One could argue (as some readers have) that beating up Limbaugh empowers Democrats, which will lead to the passage of liberal reform. I disagree with this idea. Instead, I believe that beating up Limbaugh empowers Democrats, which will lead to the reelection of Democratic politicians, which will allow them to increase their own political and economic power.
Electing Democrats does not guarantee that liberal reform will take place. This is particularly true when party officials convince voters to treat politics as a battle of personalities rather than a battle over policies and principles. Both sides are guilty of this (think, "slimy neocon rightwinger" versus "looney tree-hugging liberal"). With many liberal voters and social movements fixated upon beating up Republicans and cheering for Democrats, Democratic politicians can avoid implementing true liberal reform and can even get away with continuing practices that progressives condemned during the Bush administration (such as rendition).
Democrats will only "support" enough liberal issues to secure their reelection. If they can improve their party's "brand" and their own election prospects by bashing Limbaugh and other Republicans, then this is an easier and less-expensive route to political success. It is certainly easier than planning and implementing strategies that address entrenched social problems.
Makes the Other Party Look Good
Finally, the Democrats' demonization of Limbaugh risks making the GOP look better in the eyes of voters. At a minimum, it allows Republicans to claim a higher moral ground and, perhaps, to mend their image.
Today, the Washington Post contains an op-ed written by Representative John Boehner, the House Minority Leader. Although I highly doubt that Boehner and I agree on many social issues, I prefer his analysis much more than the anti-Limbaugh lunacy emerging from my own party. The Democrats' foray into dirt allows Boehner to take the moral high ground, which he does when he offers the following sober analysis:
In the first two months of 2009, the Democratic Congress and the White House have spent more money than the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the response to Hurricane Katrina. After they doled out taxpayer dollars at such a blistering pace, the instinct of many inside the Beltway is to do what's most convenient: desperately try to change the subject by creating straw men -- called "the party of no" -- to rally against.Boehner, a politician, contends that Republicans offer better solutions for today's problems. I disagree with this assertion, but I certainly prefer his analysis over Limbaughmania.
And in a carefully calculated campaign, operatives and allies of the Obama administration are seeking to divert attention toward radio host Rush Limbaugh, and away from a debate about our alternative solutions on the economy and the irresponsible spending binge they are presiding over. This diversionary tactic will not create a single job or help a single family struggling in today's economic crisis. And that is where our focus should be.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Change Has Arrived: A Very Divided House of Representatives Approves Multi-Billion Dollar Spending Measure
[Sarcasm Alert]
Washington, DC is changing rapidly. The city already set a milestone by hosting the "historic" inauguration, and today, Washingtonians finally had a taste of a "real" winter, as snow, ice and sleet blanketed the Beltway.
But the transformation in Congress provides the most dramatic evidence of a new era. Today, members of the House of Representatives forcefully demonstrated that they have discarded "business as usual" when they approved a multi-billion dollar increase in government spending along strict partisan lines.
I have never witnessed anything like this before. First the Senate ushered in change by bickering over the appointment of Senator Roland Burris. Now, the parties cannot even remotely agree on the stimulus package which many experts argue could help the sluggish economy. Great work!
Washington, DC is changing rapidly. The city already set a milestone by hosting the "historic" inauguration, and today, Washingtonians finally had a taste of a "real" winter, as snow, ice and sleet blanketed the Beltway.
But the transformation in Congress provides the most dramatic evidence of a new era. Today, members of the House of Representatives forcefully demonstrated that they have discarded "business as usual" when they approved a multi-billion dollar increase in government spending along strict partisan lines.
I have never witnessed anything like this before. First the Senate ushered in change by bickering over the appointment of Senator Roland Burris. Now, the parties cannot even remotely agree on the stimulus package which many experts argue could help the sluggish economy. Great work!
No Unity Yet: Republicans Set to Oppose Stimulus Package Despite Obama's Effort to Secure Their Votes
After Obama held his widely (and wildly) reported luncheon with Republicans yesterday, media accounts suggested that the Great Unifier had performed an absolute miracle. Republicans emerged from the meeting beaming and offering effusive praise for the president, and Obama later invited some GOP leaders to the White House for drinks. After the GOP mocked the inclusion of funds for family planning in the stimulus package, Obama ordered (or requested) that Democrats remove the provision. But Obama's networking could not change the policy differences between Democrats and Republicans or to secure unified support for the stimulus, in spite of these differences.
ABC News reports that the stimulus will undoubtedly pass, but without much support from Republicans. I do not find this shocking or upsetting. Although contemporary Democrats have often voted against their party's professed values, earning them much criticism during the last decade, Republicans have typically supported the party line. Accordingly, I am not surprised that they have defied Obama's bipartisan gestures.
The cynic in me says that Obama probably knew he would not change their minds, but he engaged in this very public "outreach" in order to portray himself as a unifier and, possibly, to make Republicans look like sore losers for not joining the team. Also, he clearly does not need GOP support for the legislation to pass. If Republicans support him, however, they could lose some credibility if they subsequently tried to criticize the legislation. If the stimulus helps the economy, then the GOP will look bad for not supporting "sound economic policy." But now that Republicans have said they will not support the legislation, I wonder whether a bold Democrat try to reinsert the family planning elements.
Regardless of the underlying motives and risks, the partisan split reminds me of one of the funniest moments during the Democratic primaries, when Hillary Clinton challenged Obama's frequent assertion that he would bring about a "new" politics of bipartisanship and unity, while she was too "divisive" and could only offer "more of the same." I have posted a video clip of Clinton's controversial stump speech. Enjoy.
[Editor's Note: Beware of the CNN pundits!]
ABC News reports that the stimulus will undoubtedly pass, but without much support from Republicans. I do not find this shocking or upsetting. Although contemporary Democrats have often voted against their party's professed values, earning them much criticism during the last decade, Republicans have typically supported the party line. Accordingly, I am not surprised that they have defied Obama's bipartisan gestures.
The cynic in me says that Obama probably knew he would not change their minds, but he engaged in this very public "outreach" in order to portray himself as a unifier and, possibly, to make Republicans look like sore losers for not joining the team. Also, he clearly does not need GOP support for the legislation to pass. If Republicans support him, however, they could lose some credibility if they subsequently tried to criticize the legislation. If the stimulus helps the economy, then the GOP will look bad for not supporting "sound economic policy." But now that Republicans have said they will not support the legislation, I wonder whether a bold Democrat try to reinsert the family planning elements.
Regardless of the underlying motives and risks, the partisan split reminds me of one of the funniest moments during the Democratic primaries, when Hillary Clinton challenged Obama's frequent assertion that he would bring about a "new" politics of bipartisanship and unity, while she was too "divisive" and could only offer "more of the same." I have posted a video clip of Clinton's controversial stump speech. Enjoy.
[Editor's Note: Beware of the CNN pundits!]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)