The other day I was asked if the existence of Israel Policy Forum "really make a difference."

My interlocutor went on: "I would not expect you to have ended the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is not something Americans can do. But I would think you and your allies would have cut into the power of the right-wingers by now. But they still seem to own Capitol Hill, almost as if you guys didn't exist."

It's a good question, but it is also one that I had no problem answering.

That is because I believe that were it not for IPF the peace process would have died during the past eight years simply because the United States would have allowed it to.

In fact, it is astonishing that the diplomatic process survived the outbreak of the Second Intifada in the fall of 2000, 9/11, and the eight-year neoconservative-dominated Bush-Cheney administration.

Read more »

Apologies for the long post; I didn't have time to write a short one. Apologies too, for weighing in too late to contribute to the conversation.

They say liberal is someone who won't even take his own side in an argument, and so it was with me this President's Day. I received an astonishing document in the mail maybe a month ago, from Brian Lamb of C-Span, asking me to rank every president from one to forty-three on ten "Individual Leadership Characteristics." I remember chuckling at the ILC's fine-grained sensitivity. Maybe there are people who can really responsibly rank John Tyler vis-a-vis Ulysses S. Grant as to their "Administrative Skills," Grover Cleveland versus Calvin Coolidge as to their "Morality Authority"--but I am not that man. I sent apologies to Mr. Lamb; I hadn't, I explained, anything near the erudition to carry out the appointed task.

Then, last Monday, I learned that America's "presidential historians" had, without benefit of my vote, named Ronald Reagan the tenth-best president in United States history.

Read more »

Acting Chief of Staff to Senator Roland Burris, Darrel Thompson, has resigned his position, according to senior staffers in the US Senate.

Darrel Thompson, a former Senior Adviser to Senator Harry Reid, had been dispatched by Senator Reid to assist incoming Senator Burris in helping to fill senior staff positions in the office, develop a legislative strategy for the Senator's policy priorities, and build out constituent services.

Darrel Thompson has just released this statement:

Three weeks ago I was temporarily detailed to serve as Chief of Staff to Senator Roland W. Burris. Though my tenure was relatively brief, I enjoyed and valued my time with Senator Burris, his entire staff and his other advisors.

As of today, my role as Interim Chief of Staff to Senator Burris will end. I will resume, in full, my duties as Senior Advisor to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

I wish Senator Burris and his family the best.

Sincerely,

Darrel Thompson

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

First of all, thanks so much to everyone -- Kyle Longley, Douglas Kmiec, Stephen Knott, and Michael Cohen, so far -- who've posted here and made this what I think was a really interesting debate and discussion of the Reagan myth. My last post is rooted in current events -- and the frustration that many share that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their minions plotted torture tactics, illegal wiretapping,, political manipulation of the Justice Department and other alledgedly unlawful acts inside the White House, - and seem to have gotten away with it. Are you looking for someone to blame for that? How about Ronald Reagan? Or more accurately, the politicians and members of the media who let Reagan and some key aides - not to mention Reagan's long-term reputation -- largely get away with one of the worst scandals in White House history.

Because make no mistake, there is a straight line from the great political escape of Ronald Reagan - who went from failed president to near Mt. Rushmore status with the help of a well-oiled myth machine and a national case of amnesia - to the wanton and largely unchallenged lawbreaking at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue under G.W. Bush. The Iran-Contra experience began to solidify the notion that national unity and presidential strength are more important than making sure that presidents or even their key staffers followed the law, and that serious offenses that don't involve petty matters like sex are merely non-prosecutable "policy differences."

Read more »

Thanks to Michael Cohen for his comments on my remarks.

There was a negative side to Reagan's conservative appeal, although I think in terms of programs like affirmative action you would have to allow that there are principled objections to such policies. Oppostion to affirmative action is not necessarily evidence of closet racism. Nonetheless, I'm no defender of Reagan when it comes to his civil rights record, as my forthcoming book will indicate. Opening his 1980 campaign in Neshoba, MS, was miguided to say the least, as it was for Michael Dukakis to appear there during his 1988 campaign. But keep in mind that Reagan was endorsed in 1980 by Ralph Abernathy, Hosea Williams, and Charles Evers. In the midst of Jimmy Carter's misery index, Reagan's economic message resonated across the usual class boundaries. (Jimmy Carter, by the way, had referred in his 1976 campaign to preserving the "ethnic purity" of neighborhoods, a comment as equally offensive as Reagan's welfare queen rhetoric).

I have to take issue with Michael's comment that Reagan shredded the social safety net. Without question some of Reagan's advisers, and perhaps even Reagan himself, wished to repeal the Great Society, but political reality intervened to make this impossible. Much to the despair of conservatives, Reagan was a cautious and moderate President, who treasured his politcal capital, nurtured it, and used it sparingly. There was no major reform of the welfare system under Reagan, and while AFDC experienced some cuts in the first years of the Reagan presidency, by the time he left office all major welfare programs had survived and had grown by billions of dollars. I just don't think you can make the argument that the Reagan years witnessed a "shredding" of the social safety net.

Stephen Knott argues that Reagan's "massive electoral victories were based on his ability to woo millions of Democrats into his fold, including large numbers of union members. He connected to them in a way that drove his opponents to distraction. He offers a corrective to those in these hyper-partisan times who view their opponents as somehow un-American. Reagan understood that politics was not a blood sport."

Undoubtedly, there is a kernel of truth to this; and it's point I made in my earlier post. But before the mythologizing of Reagan gets out of hand let's take a step back. There was also a dark side to Reagan's conservative appeal - it was rooted in the white backlash that came out of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Read more »

Senator Chris Dodd may have just pulled a Hillary Clinton. . .

Like Clinton who just sent the media into a tizzy by referring to North Korea's leadership succession struggles and thus prompting a mad dash to understand whether she was now looking beyond Kim Jong Il or encouraging a coup, Senator Dodd has caused ripple effects with his comments about possibly nationalizing Citibank and Bank of America.

This from a Bloomberg report on Dodd's interview with Al Hunt:

Christopher Dodd said it may be necessary to nationalize some banks for a short time as Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. tumbled today on concern the U.S. may take over both banks.

"I don't welcome that at all, but I could see how it's possible it may happen," Dodd said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt" to be broadcast later today. "I'm concerned that we may end up having to do that, at least for a short time."

Read more »

As Matt Cooper pointed out earlier this week at TPMDC, Lockheed Martin and its allies pushing the Obama administration to buy more F-22 aircraft in part because it is allegedly a "shovel-ready" project that can create (or at least preserve) jobs now. The company's own documents, and an interview with a key union official at its Georgia facility -- a main production site for the aircraft -- tell a different story.

Read more »

Now that we come to the end of the discussion of the myth of Reagan which I have found stimulating (and I genuinely thank the TPMCafe and Will for inviting me to participate), particularly the different viewpoints represented, we now might ask for Will to start writing a new book on the mythology of George W. Bush.

Some may laugh and find the concept absurd, but I live in one of the true "Red" bastions in all America, the Gilbert/Mesa suburb of Phoenix that often makes the conservatives in Orange County look like bleeding heart liberals. I also was raised in West Texas in the Odessa/Midland area where many family and friends continue to reside (Mr. Bush spoke at my high school commencement in 1982). To them, George W. Bush is a true American hero as witnessed by the massive welcome home party in Midland in November that drew 25,000 people from as far away as Lubbock. In both places, as well as many others, the president has a strong following, and I have heard and read in print the numerous ways that the structuring of his mythology has already begun.

Read more »

The Stanford Financial Scandal shows you just how loose the Bush Era SEC was. Here is a description of one of the Board of Directors from this morning's Wall Street Journal.

The Mexia branch is where Stanford Financial began as a business. It no longer plays a role in the firm, James Stanford said. Stanford bank board member O.Y. Goswick lives nearby and is a family friend. Mr. Goswick had a stroke in 2000 and "can't string seven words together," said son Richard Goswick, also of Mexia. There was talk of removing him from the board at one point, according to Richard Goswick and James Stanford, but because he was a family friend he remained, and kept getting paychecks for being on the board.

O.Y. Goswick also received an SEC subpoena to be deposed, and his son Thursday was trying to obtain a doctor's affidavit explaining his father's medical condition.

James Stanford said he hasn't physically attended a board meeting for years, but sometimes listens in on a conference call to the meetings. He bristled at the suggestion that his son's operations weren't overseen by experienced financial people.

Read more »

I want to again thank Will Bunch for the opportunity to participate in this week's book club. "Tear Down This Myth" is an important, and long overdue, contribution to our understanding of not only Ronald Reagan, but the manner in which modern conservatives have manipulated and, in some measure, tarnished his image.
However, of Will's many myth-puncturing elements, perhaps none is more important to our political discourse than doing away, once and for all, with the fiction of Ronald Reagan's iron-willed resoluteness.

To be sure, it's not that modern Republicans aren't uncompromising and unbending; it's just that this isn't a good thing! Indeed, the constant railing by conservatives against compromise, "flip-flopping" or changing a policy course as near fatal signs of weakness has done much to negatively affect our national politics. It's made politicians less willing to compromise or change positions for fear of the negative campaign ads that will surely come as a result of this pragmatic decision-making.

Read more »

It deserves mention that Ronald Reagan was a creature of Hollywood, and certain elements of Hollywood superficiality infused his presidency. The late Michael Deaver was the guardian and projector of the president's image, which was as calculated as the images that came out of the Kennedy White House. For instance, Lyn Nofziger and William Casey didn't look quite right for certain roles, while James Baker did, and as a consequence Casey and Nofziger were denied more public roles. One could also note other elements of Hollywood superficiality and wackiness weaved into the fabric of the Reagan years, including Nancy Reagan's reliance on astrology and Reagan's friendship with the psychic Jeane Dixon.

Nonetheless, Ronald Reagan was a prince of a man; and like his hero Franklin Roosevelt, he had a first class temperament. He was a man of civility who could reach out to Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill even after O'Neill publicly criticized Reagan's wife. He was generous to his partisan critics, including Edward Kennedy and his family, and he frequently praised and cited John F. Kennedy, and raised money for the JFK Library. His massive electoral victories were based on his ability to woo millions of Democrats into his fold, including large numbers of union members. He connected to them in a way that drove his opponents to distraction. He offers a corrective to those in these hyper-partsian times who view their opponents as somehow un-American. Reagan understood that politics was not a blood sport.

Read more »

When the history of the Mini Depression of 2008-2010 is written by future historians, the word "distrust" will appear again and again.

Financial stocks are in free fall because no one trusts financials any longer. A sell-off in bank, housing, insurance and other financial stocks has accelerated in the wake of Geithner's bailout plan because the administration raised expectations too high that the plan would cure troubled banks. Yet it has become clear (even to Alan Greenspan) that the only way anyone is going to trust what they see on bank balance sheets is if bank regulators take over troubled banks, at least until those balance sheets are washed clean.

Geithner must be realistic about what can be accomplished even then. After all, the bubble was pumped up by financials. Between 2003 and the peak in 2007, the American Stock Exchange financial services index just about doubled. By 2007, financial services companies accounted for 22 percent of the S&P 500 index's market value. Now that figure is closer to 12.5 percent, and still dropping. That precipitous drop isn't bad for the economy; it's good. After all, what was the financial industry of 2007? Much was wishful thinking based on speculation, wildly optimistic (and inaccurate) models of risk-management, and outright lies. In other words, hot air -- and the sooner we let all the air out of the financial economy, the sooner the real economy can begin to recover.

Meanwhile, economic distrust is spreading around the globe. What started two years ago with a sub-prime lending problem in the United States is now global, the ugly consequence of untrustworthy global capital markets and inadequate worldwide demand (led by fearful consumers in the United States). The fragile economies of Eastern Europe are in danger of collapsing. The Russian economy is shrinking. Most of Latin America is in trouble. More worrying, Japan's recession is deepening. Even China, whose rapid growth seemed unstoppable, is slowing to a relative crawl. Global investors are fleeing risk; global consumers are hunkering down.

Given all this, America's stimulus isn't nearly large enough. At the least, it should be replicated, proportionally, by every major economy. Central banks around the world must also continue to lower interest rates and open their lending windows. Bank bailouts must be coordinated. Protectionism should be avoided.

In this world of economic distrust, it's vitally important that President Obama and his administration maintain credibility on the economy. Raising false expectations would do far more harm than good. In remarks aired this morning on ABC's "Good Morning America," former president Bill Clinton said he wanted the American people to know that Obama is "confident that we are gonna get out of this and he feels good about the long run. ... I just would like him to end by saying that he is hopeful and completely convinced we're gonna come through this." Clinton's suggestion is understandable but misguided. Happy talk at this point in time is so incongruous with what most Americans (and others around the world) know and are experiencing that it could undermine Obama's credibility.

The truth is that no one has any idea how long this crisis will last or exactly how to reverse it. Anyone who says differently cannot be trusted. And because restoring trust is so central to mending the economy, our leaders must be extremely careful not to indulge right now in the audacity of hope.

The world is changing.

Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went to Gaza with Congressmen Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Brian Baird(D-WA).

Here is what the two Congressmen said: "After spending the day visiting various locations within Gaza and meeting with civilians and relief workers, Baird and Ellison were deeply affected by what they had seen and heard.

"The stories about the children affected me the most," said Ellison. "No parent, or anyone who cares for kids, can remain unmoved by what Brian and I saw here.

"The amount of physical destruction and the depth of human suffering here is staggering" said Baird, "Entire neighborhoods have been destroyed, schools completely leveled, fundamental water, sewer, and electricity facilities hit and relief agencies heavily damaged. The personal stories of children being killed in their homes or schools, entire families wiped out, and relief workers prevented from evacuating the wounded are heart wrenching - what went on here, and what is continuing to go on, is shocking and troubling beyond words."

READ THE FULL STATEMENT HERE.

Can this Party be Saved?

Michael Cohen is right -- the filter of elections is the ultimate engine of de-mythology. That which is long-lasting and timeless will be remembered and that which is of transient nature will be pragmatically set aside. Will Bunch's effort is aimed at assisting us make this realistic effort at political discernment. It is a valuable contribution, even as I find far more reality to be cherished than that of the author. Reagan would have appreciated the honest assessments given with civility, even as Nancy being the keeper of a love greater than words likely -- well, has all your names.

Noting the current Republican refusal to engage with the Obama administration over addressing the present economic crisis, I recently penned an editorial essay for the Chicago Tribune entitled "the death of the GOP?" In 2009, the GOP has become a political party that has generally ignored the working class, that depends upon deploying an economic, supply-side theory that is ill fitting to the times, that has permitted sound deregulation to be transformed into economic looting by the well-connected, that has neglected the obligation to develop alternative energy resources and thereby jeopardized national security, and now thinks we should admire its leadership for sitting on its hands. The GOP deserves to be on life support if its modus Vivendi is pouting. It was particularly frustrating to read Judge Gregg's explanation for his withdrawal from the Commerce Department; specifically, that he could not see himself working on a team with people of different perspectives than his own.
I doubt very much whether Reagan would recognize his party, or if he did, the resemblance would be closer to the condition of the GOP in 1977 immediately following Jimmy Carter's election. Then, Republicans held only 38 Senate seats, not enough even to sustain a filibuster. In the House, the GOP had dwindled to 143 seats, just one-third of the total.

Read more »

The stock market reached a six-year low today. Why? Some blame loose talk (including that of former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan) about nationalizing the nation's banks. Others blame Obama's new plan for helping homeowners who may not be able to pay their mortgages. But the real culprit is the accelerating decline in aggregate demand -- consumers, businesses, and exports. Companies are losing money because their customers are disappearing. That's precisely why the stimulus is so important -- indeed, why many of us fear it's too small.

One of the oddest of right-wing claims is that FDR's New Deal didn't pull America out of the Great Depression, so Barack Obama's "New New Deal" won't, either. While it's true that the New Deal didn't end the Great Depression, three points need to be impressed on the hard-pressed conservative mind:

Read more »

Reflecting on Will Bunch's commentary on how President Reagan's foreign policy perspectives may have influenced the subsequent Bush misadventure in Iraq, I am grateful that Mr. Bunch has very appropriately differentiated what Reagan believed from what subsequent political figures may wrongfully attribute to Reagan. Reagan was greatly admiring of the commitment of men and women in the military, and he had great respect for its role. It is inconceivable to think of Reagan popping into a flight suit to steal the final scene (which of course the tragically inaccurate and premature claim of the end of "major combat operations"/ "mission accomplished" turned out to be for Bush's contrived carrier landing). As Bunch recounts, however, Reagan sought to limit military involvement and especially to safeguard civilian populations.

For this reason, Reagan did resist extending Geneva protections to terrorists or unlawful combatants. Reagan drew this distinction from his WWII understanding of warfare. Unlawful combatants do not fight in uniform. They are not subject to a centralized command and control. Unlawful combatants hide weapons, and, notoriously, do not observe--as we know from 9/11--any semblance of the laws of war. They not only endanger civilians by hiding among them, they target civilian populations. Indeed, as the World Islamic Front Declaration of War illustrates for al Qaeda, that is its central purpose. These individuals have never been immune from prosecution for war crimes under any convention. They can be captured, and interrogated. There is even common law authority to summarily execute them in the field.

Read more »

Avigdor Lieberman, the neo-fascist and anti-Arab candidate, has made his pick. He will throw his support behind Binyamin Netanyahu and make the Likud chief the next prime minister of Israel.

His only caveat is that he wants Tzipi Livni's, Kadima, to join the governing coalition too, thereby creating a unity government.

Hopefully, Livni will say "no" and go into opposition and let Israel have the right-wing government most of the population voted for.

Read more »

If this legislation is implemented effectively -- and there is every reason to think it will be -- then the possibilities are enormous. The decision to fuel numerous programs, as opposed to a single huge rebate or one massive tax cut, has led to the following:

1. Every department and agency in government is involved, which will energize creativity and commitment all across government.
2. The door is open to fresh thinking in every topic area: education, health care, energy, communications, transportation, housing, federal land and parks, and many others.
3. With so many involved, the creative ferment in government -- state and federal both -- can be quite stimulating.

There hasn't been so much new to hit government in thirty years. At least for a time, the private sector will be breathlessly trying to cope with the utterly new dynamics of our mixed economy.

Steven Walt, (co-author with John Mearsheimer of "The Israel Lobby" and a blogger at Foreign Policy) has been engaged with blogger Matt Yglesias about what happens if the two-state solution dies.

The question is this: will the United States continue to support Israel if it annexes the occupied territories while denying their Arab population the vote. In other words, if Israel is no longer a democracy, will we support it?

Here is my answer. I don't know.

But, with 20 years experience on Capitol Hill, I can tell you what Congress would do. With lobby talking points in hand, most Members of Congress would simply insist that Israel remained a democracy even if millions of Arabs were denied the right to vote. .

Read more »

After Professor Samuel Huntington passed away on December 24, I held off commenting on his work during the first 30 days of mourning out of respect for the norms that govern such a period. I believe we are now ready for a balanced review of his work.

The theme that runs throughout Huntington's various works is best characterized as a theory of fear. His books typically identify a mounting threat, such as Mexican immigrants, Islamic civilization, or democratic proclivities, and then point to the need for strong national-unity building measures and mobilization of the people (including militarization) in response to the barbarians at the gates. Sometimes, the argument is formulated in basically analytical terms: If the required vigorous responses to the particular challenge at hand are not forthcoming, various calamities will ensue (e.g., the U.S. will lose a large part of its territory to Mexico and its Anglo-Protestant identity will be undermined) that will implicitly call for stronger countermeasures. In other cases, advocacy for powerful antidotes is quite explicit. As Huntington puts it in the Foreword to Who Are We?, he is writing as a patriot and a scholar, in that order.

Read more »

Thanks to the folks at TPM for asking me participate this week in the TPM Book Club - and above all, thanks to Will Bunch for engaging in the long overdue process of unpacking the myth of Ronald Reagan.

One of the most surprising things about researching my book, Live from the Campaign Trail, is that I came away with a far greater appreciation for Reagan's basic political appeal. As Douglas Kmiec suggests, his 1980 campaign theme of "family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom" spoke to the values of millions of Americans who had grown wary of New Deal-style liberalism. But Reagan's appeal ran deeper - at the time when the country was mired in turmoil and "malaise" he articulated the basic desire of many Americans to feel pride in their country once again. (It was this element of Reagan's appeal that I think many liberals never truly understood; President Obama being a notable exception).

Read more »

The two most important features of the administration's plan to help homeowners are (1) its support for amending bankruptcy laws to allow judges to modify mortgages. This will give homeowners bargaining leverage with mortgage servicers (and give the servicers more leverage with securitized creditors on up the line) to get better terms; and (2) a massive expansion of the government's commitment to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- allowing F&F to buy more mortgages by increasing the government's guarantee against losses to $400 billion.

Expect the usual grousing about "moral hazard," especially from Republicans who normally grouse about normal hazard. And under normal circumstances, they have a point. The government should not be bailing out mortgage lenders who should never have lent money to people unlikely to be able to repay, or borrowers who should never have taken out a mortage loan. Under normal circumstances, government shouldn't be bailing out bankers, either. But these aren't normal circumstances. We're in an economic crisis. And a failure to put millions of homeowners on a firmer footing would send more shock waves throughout the economy. Not only will more people lose their homes. Surrounding homes will lose value as well, as neighborhoods become blighted with more empty houses. And lenders, worried that even more borrowers can't repay loans, will stop making additional ones.

The Obama plan will help prevent a tsunami of foreclosures this year and next, but no one knows how big the wave may get notwithstanding. Nationwide, home prices have fallen 17.5 percent from where they were in early 2007, back to where they were in late 2004. But the housing bubble started earlier than 2004 -- and based on long-term ratios of home prices to rental prices and incomes, home prices probably could easily fall another 5 to 10 percent before bottom is reached.

And then what? Whether we're talking about the bailout of Wall Street, of the auto industry, or of homeowners, the biggest questions are (1) how long will it be until the business cycle turns up again? and (2) how long until the median value of financial assets, the demand for automobiles produced by the Big Three, and median home prices all return to where they were at the height of the bubble?

The answer to (1) is likely to be a year or two. But a turnaround is just the beginning. Taxpayers who are shelling out trillions of dollars (including, indirectly, commitments by the Federal Reserve Board), as well as people who are saving for retirement, many autoworkers, and a large number of homeowners won't be -- or feel -- safe until the economy at least returns to where it was in early 2007, and then continues to move upward from there. When will this be? It may take five to ten years, or longer; as to the Big Three, maybe never.

Understanding Ronald Reagan's presidential record is important -- but what's critical in 2009 is undoing the mythology that caused America to pursue even worse policies and justify them in the name of the Gipper. In the early 2000s, then-President George W. Bush and his aides often invoked the 40th president in pushing for an invasion of Iraq - something that no one who has studied Reagan closely believes he would have seriously considered.

In my new book "Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future," and in my initial post here at TPMCafe Book Club, there's little doubt that Ronald Reagan embarked on policies that were a disaster in key areas like the economy - accelerating an era of greedy deregulation and converting America from a creditor to a debtor nation - and energy, where he crushed hopes that the U.S. would be a leader in areas like solar and wind power. You'll likely read here about other ways in which the Reagan legacy has been dangerously distorted - "Nixonland" author Rick Perlstein, who should be writing here later this week, has noted that the "sunny optimist" rose up in the 1960s by tapping white middle class anger and resentment.

Read more »

In this brief interval before the new housing plan is announced, I'll try to sneak in a comment on the auto bailout, and the plans submitted by GM and Chrysler yesterday. This may be an obvious question that many people have thought about, and got some discussion in December, but: Why does Cerberus (the private equity firm that owns Chrysler) need money from the government?

Let's take this step by step. Assume GM has a viable restructing plan, but it needs $30 billion to execute the plan, after which it will be a viable standalone business. Even on that assumption, given market conditions, they would be unlikely to be able to sell $30 billion in newly-issued stock or raise $30 billion through bonds or loans, because of information asymmetry: put simply, no one would believe them. Therefore, they can only get the money from the government, because the government is the one institution that will provide a below-market loan because of the public interest (saving the auto industry and either hundreds of thousands or millions of jobs, depending on whom you believe).

Now, with Chrysler, which is asking for $5.3 billion in new loans (on top of the $4.3 billion already committed, and in addition to another $6.0 billion from the Department of Energy's alternative energy funding program - see page 16), there is a difference: The people writing the plan and the people who could provide the money are the same people, since Chrysler is majority-owned by Cerberus, so there is no information asymmetry.

Read more »

A number of the people in this discussion have commented on the importance of the disconnect between the rhetoric of freedom as promoted by Reagan in relation to the Soviet Union and other Communist nations and that of the application to other areas of the world. As someone with a keen research interest in Latin America (my second edition of my book, In the Eagle's Shadow: The United States and Latin America will appear in April) dating back to my political maturation as a college student in the 1980s, I think that commentators have correctly raised the issue as there are many in the conservative movement who look at the victory over the Soviet Union as grounded in Reagan's words and deeds and do not see the balance of the debate regarding the concept of "freedom" as raised by Mr. Kmiec.

Read more »

Frankly, I am not crazy about any of the contenders for the prime ministership of Israel. None of them, as far as I can tell, seems to understand that Hamas cannot be bombed into submission or that killing innocent civilians is, by definition, wrong.

But Avigdor Lieberman is in a class of his own. An immigrant from Belarus, he ran on a policy of forcing Israeli Arabs to either sign a loyaltry oath, lose all rights of citizenship, or get out. He's been in Israel ten minutes; they have been there forever and he's the nativist!

In any case, right now both Livni and Netanyahu are courting him to help tachieve a majority and win the top job. If either becomes PM with Lieberman in the government, it will represent the first time a western state included a neo-facist in the governing coalition. (Think David Duke here or the late Jorge Haider in Austria).

It can't be allowed to happen. Sign this petition and help prevent it. It is our business. The United States is Israel's only major ally on the planet; we have a say, or should.

Ever since Barack Obama won the presidency, American women - battered by the George W Bush administration's assaults on their rights - have sensed the possibility of change and mobilised to make sure that the new president hear their voices and recognise their needs.

No surprise here. During any great political transformation, women have almost always demanded greater equality. In the midst of the American revolution, Abigail Adams famously warned her husband that the new republic must not ignore the needs and rights of half the population. "Remember the Ladies," she wrote to him. "Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."

Adams understood that women become very angry when liberal change is in the air, but realise they will not be among its beneficiaries. It happened during the French revolution and during the 1960s, for example. It's happening again.

That's why advocates of women's equality quickly mobilised to press the Obama administration to reverse Bush's policies and to make sure he included women in whatever "new" New Deal might be necessary to keep the United States from sliding into the Second Great Depression.

Read more »

Blogging at the New York Times under the boringly provocative title "Neoconservatism Lives!", Times Book Review Sub-Altern Editor for Life Barry Gewen touts Times regular reviewer Jacob Heilbrunn's latest suggestion -- this time in The American Conservative magazine -- that neo-cons are rising again.

Gewen isn't only being provocative, although, Lord knows, he tries. He actually likes the idea: "The Iraq war was never a partisan affair," he explains, adding that "Many prominent Democrats and liberals like Christopher Hitchens, Paul Berman and George Packer supported it." Gewen neglects to mention that he supported it, too, along with his boss Sam Tanenhaus and most of the political reviews they published, as I showed here and in The Nation.

And how are Times Book Review readers responding? Click here and enjoy what Gewen wound up provoking.

Read more »

That was some PBS Frontline on Tuesday.

It was like a horror story. Bear Stearns, then Lehman, then AIG, then Freddy and Fanny.

Definitely watch it on line if you didn't see it yet.

The two most striking revelations (at least to me) were that (1) Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson seems to have let Lehman Brothers go belly-up after saving Bear Stearns because he personally had it in for Lehman's CEO from way back. And (2) the President of the United States was utterly uninvolved in the worst economic crisis since 1929. His name was never (or barely) mentioned. Every decision was made by Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and later, Congress.

No Bush.

Read more »

From the Financial Times.

The US government may have to nationalise some banks on a temporary basis to fix the financial system and restore the flow of credit, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman has told the Financial Times.

In an interview with the FT Mr Greenspan, who for decades was regarded as the high priest of laissez-faire capitalism, said nationalisation could be the least bad option left for policymakers.

This is what is known as "Political Cover" for the Obama Administration. Larry Summers and Tim Geithner were so worried about being tagged "Socialists" by our new McCarthyites led by Rush Limbaugh--that they couldn't say what the obvious answer was--one that even Greenspan can talk about.

Thank you Alan, even if you are responsible for both the tech and the housing bubbles.

Thanks again Will for having an open mind and reaching out to those who may disagree with you. The country has enough dittoheads on the right and the left who are averse to a civil exchange of ideas. It is always tempting to assume the worst in others, which is the last refuge of those afraid to engage in open debate. One might even call it a form of authoritarianism...

Will, your points are all well taken, and I accept your criticism of Reagan's fiscal and energy policies. In my work on Reagan I've repeatedly criticised him for his failed domestic policies, especially regarding civil rights. But he deserves praise for defying his advisors both in and out of government who told him not to trust Gorbachev, and who were appalled at his attitude regarding nuclear weapons and the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. He found the latter to be immoral, and searched for a way out of it. He rejected the counsel of Caspar Weinberger, Richard Perle, Richard Nixon, and a host of Republican foreign policy "experts" who urged him to spurn Gorbachev's advances. In that sense he was out in front on one of the most pressing issues of our time and his. At the Reykjavik Summit he came remarkably close to moving the two superpowers toward abolishing their nuclear stockpiles. This, to me, seems worthy of praise.

Read more »

Do not confuse American companies with American jobs.

The new stimulus bill, for example, requires that the money be used for production in the United States. Foreign governments, along with large U.S. multinationals concerned about possible foreign retaliation, charge this favors American-based companies. That's not quite true. Foreign companies are eligible to receive stimulus money for things they make here (as long as the nations where they're headquartered have signed the WTO procurement agreement). For example, Alstom, the French engineering company, is eligible to receive stimulus funds for the power turbines it produces in Tennessee; Japan’s Sanyo, for the solar cell parts it makes in Oregon; and French-owned Lucent Technologies, for the high-speed internet components it produces here, as well as the research it does here through its research arm, Bell Labs. On the other hand, U.S. Steel may not be eligible for stimulus money for the steel slabs it casts in Ontario, Canada.

I'm not defending the "buy American" provisions of the stimulus bill. I'm just saying they're not the same as "buy from American companies." And although these provisions skate close to protectionism and risk foreign retaliation, at least a case can be made that if American taxpayers are footing the bill in order to create American jobs, the jobs should be created, well, here in America.

Read more »

First off thanks to Will Bunch for inviting me to participate in this interesting exchange.

There's no question that part of the reason Reagan is revered in Republican circles is that Grover Norquist and others were anxious to find an icon who could be elevated into the American Pantheon. The Democratic Party had FDR and JFK, while the GOP's celebration of Lincoln and TR had a certain musty, ancient quality to it. But I would argue that Reagan deserves some of the accolades he has received, in part because he restored America's confidence in itself in the the wake of Vietnam, Watergate, and a failed Carter presidency (While President Obama faces a greater challenge, let's not forget the economic situation Reagan inherited, with skyhigh inflation, unemployment, and interest rates). Reagan also inherited a badly weakened presidency; with his five immediate predecessors leaving office under duress. In fact, it was so bad that some observers,including Lloyd Cutler, Douglas Dillon, and James MacGregor Burns, were arguing for a shift toward a parliamentary system. Within two years of Reagan's assumption of the presidency that talked had disappeared. This is perhaps Reagan's greatest accomplishment: restoring the confidence of the American public, including, ironically, their confidence in the same federal government that Reagan viewed as part of what ailed America.

Read more »

Did you ever consider what the State of Israel could accomplish if it didn't dedicate its resources to security (legitimate) and maintaining the occupation (illegitimate)?

Here's a clue. Today's Israeli media reports that the Technion, Israel's MIT, has developed a breathalyzer device that can detect cancer in any organ at a stage far earlier than any existing method.

The device is now in clinical trial but it has already not only distinguished the healthy from the ill "but can detect precisely the kind of tumor" in 92% of the cases. It has successfully detected lung, breast, colon, prostate and brain cancer, all before the subject or his physician had any reason to suspect he or she had cancer at all.

Imagine the implications. Almost all cancers are curable with early detection. If this breakthrough pans out, the cancer scourge could be eliminated.

Of course, scientific research in Israel takes a back seat to politics. Until peace is reached with the Palestinians, Israel will spend most of its financial resources on defense. And on the opposite of defense.

Read more »

The e-rate program, passed by Congress in 1996, required the FCC to determine how to spend what amounted to more than $2 billion a year in order to provide internet access to classrooms. In reading about various agencies now mandated to spend money under the stimulus, I thought it might be useful to list some of the lessons learned by the FCC.

First, involve as many stakeholders in the process as possible and as soon as possible. Don't think of the answer and then sell it; think of the questions and ask them. That means holding meetings, conference calls, convention-style gatherings. There's no shame in asking what to do; there's only regret to be had from not asking.

Second,

Read more »

I appreciate this opportunity to comment upon Will Bunch's "Tear Down This Myth" dealing with the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Mr. Bunch's commitment to honest historical appraisal is something I share, so it is good of him to let a Reagan witness give his account.

While my most recent incursion into national politics puts me strongly behind President Obama, I was drawn to work for the Ronald Reagan as his legal counsel because of five words he articulated in 1980: "family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom."

Read more »

I just ran across some of my notes from a conference organized by the Japan Institute of International Affairs in Hakone, Japan from March 12-13, 1999.

I was about to toss these scribbles until I glanced through them and found so many gems they should probably go to the National Diet archives.

Keep in mind that today the Japanese government announced that its economy had contracted at jaw-dropping annualized pace of 12.7 percent in the three months through December, the worst fall in the past 35 years. How does one treat national hypothermia on such a scale?

I may print and post all of my notes at a later time, but here are some of my March 1999 scribbles:

Read more »

The only way to make sense of Tim Geithner’s “stress test” for banks is to assume a kind of triage. Banks that are reasonably healthy right now -- whose assets are fully adequate to fund their liabilities, and can make new loans -- don't need a bailout. And banks that are too far gone to save –- whose loans when realistically valued won’t make them solvent even when the economy recovers -- shouldn't be bailed out. They should be put under receivership that pays off depositors, wipes out shareholders, and then closes the bank.

Read more »

The GOP has decided that Eric Cantor is their fair haired boy. He's young, he has hair and he's Jewish. This is the new GOP outreach. Find black, Jewish (and eventually gay) Republicans, move them up, and hope no one notices that they share none of the political views of their respective groups.

Anyway, this Cantor is something else.

Check out his financial ties to Abramoff.

Then check out this blog, wholly devoted to the up-and-coming Virginian.

And then get mad at SNL for having the utterly cool, Andy Samberg, play Cantor last night. Just because they are both Jewish does not legitimize such a casting choice. Well, at least, they didn't use Jewish actors Jake Gyllenhaal or James Franco. We'd have to sue.

Will Bunch poses an important question on how we get back to "the reality based Reagan." I would argue that the country has started the process over the past four years with the sound rejection of the Republican orthodoxy as represented by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Grover Norquist. Some in the Republican Party, particularly among the conservative wing, will continue to promote their version of Reagan that fits their ideology. This will have success in some areas such as Arizona where the populace is more conservative and inoculated fully with the mythology through organizations such as the Goldwater Institute (the South is also a prime target as well as pockets such as Orange County). Yet, on the national scale, it appears that the ideology has been largely rejected on many levels as evidenced by the congressional changes in 2006 and 2008 and the presidential election of 2008. Also, look, how successful have the Reagan supporters been at pushing their agenda over the past four years regarding the change in the dime, putting a Reagan memorial on the National Mall, and other efforts outside of the small pockets of conservative orthodoxy.

Read more »

Seriously, you didn't think the myth of Ronald Reagan would be wiped away in one election cycle, did you? Over the last decade and especially in last few years, we've the living proof that the distorted legacy of the 40th president - which has morphed with the help of right-wing activists like Grover Norquist into a dangerous philosophy that I call Reaganism - is hurting America on every front. We've seen a government that Reagan called "the problem" fail to protect its citizens from the floods of Hurricane Katrina, from a bridge collapse in Minneapolis or from the scams of Bernie Madoff or the Wall Street greed that crashed a global economy. We've also misinterpreted the Gipper's foreign policy - using a phony "Evil empire" bravado to justify badly conceived policies in the Middle East - and still believe in the magic of his "voodoo economics" that turned America into the world's' greatest debtor.

In fact, there were moments when I was working on my new book - "Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future," published this month by Simon & Schuster's Free Press - when I wondered whether a Barack Obama victory and a Democratic Congress would mean a sea change in our politics that would slay the dominance of Reaganism forever. I didn't need to worry about that. An obstructionist-minded GOP minority with a lingering ability to block or influence legislation in the Senate and a Beltway Gang of 500 that thinks that "Glory Days" and 1980s means more than just a Springsteen song are keeping the flame of the Reagan myth alive. And that may well threaten the very measures - a massive government role in job creation, a possible temporary nationalization of insolvent money-center banks - that are needed to keep America and the world out of Great Depression II.

Read more »

This week, we've got Will Bunch with us to blog American myth making vis-a-vis Reagan in our latest book club discussion. Bunch's new book Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future examines the yarns that have been spun about President Reagan, the actual strengths based in truth, and the continuing shadow which President Reagan and his mythical specter casts over our nation. Or, as Will puts it in his opening post, up shortly, "Seriously, you didn't think the myth of Ronald Reagan would be wiped away in one election cycle, did you?"

Bunch is a Senior Writer for the Philadelphia Daily News. He shared a Pulitzer Prize in 1992 with the New York Newsday staff. He is also the author of Jukebox America. You can read his blog Attytood at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/.

Joining the conversation are Rick Perlstein, author of Nixonland; Kyle Longley, professor of history at Arizona State University; Stephen Knott, professor of political science at U.S. Naval War College; Douglas Kmiec, professor at Pepperdine University School of Law; and Michael A. Cohen, senior research fellow at the New America Foundation. As always, join us!

Let's start with one basic idea-- "Buy American" provisions are not protectionism (and by the way, neither have much to do with "fair trade", but that's another question). In fact, the bigger danger is that without such provisions in stimulus packages around the world, global production and trade could collapse.

Protectionism is when a national government requires PRIVATE purchasers of any product to buy only domestic versions of a product or pay such a high tariff on foreign products as to obtain the same result. The "Buy American" provisions in the stimulus are quite limited, applying only to purchase of iron, steel and manufacturers goods for about $78 billion in public works. This is hardly enough to undermine the global trading regime, but fears that federal spending would not lead to creating domestic jobs could have undermined support for the overall hundreds of billions needed for the stimulus. Requirements to buy domestically may be the key to convincing enough nations to pass sufficient amounts of stimulus to jumpstart the global economy

Read more »

Back in the 1970's, there was a cool book about Wisconsin in the 1890's. It was called "Wisconsin Death Trip." It was not about suicidal political decisions made by the progressive folk of the Badger State. It consisted of photographs of, I recall, dead and depressed Wisconsinites, often in their coffins. It was creepy.

The term "death trip" jumped into my head today when I read Fareed Zakaria's Washington Post column on the Israeli election.

He writes of Avigdor Lieberman's triumph: "His Yisrael Beytenu party won 15 seats, placing third but gaining enormous swing power in the Israeli system. Whether or not the new government includes him, Lieberman and his issues have moved to center stage. As fiercely as he denounces the Palestinian militants of Hamas and Hizbullah, his No. 1 target is Israel's Arab minority, which he has called a worse threat than Hamas. He has proposed the effective expulsion of several hundred thousand Arab citizens by unilaterally redesignating some northern Israeli towns as parts of the Palestinian West Bank. Another group of several hundred thousand could expect to be stripped of citizenship for failing to meet requirements such as loyalty oaths or mandatory military service (from which Israel's Arabs are currently exempt). The New Republic's Martin Peretz, a passionate Zionist and critic of the peace movement, calls Lieberman a 'neo-fascist ... a certified gangster ... the Israeli equivalent of [Austria's] Jörg Haider'' No liberal democracy I know of since World War II has disenfranchised or expelled its own citizens."

Read more »

Everyone knows that a policy that makes sense has no chance in Washington, but let's try. As we sit here with an economy that is throwing 20,000 people out of work every day, there may be some interest in trying policies that the geniuses running things had not previously considered.

Just to get our bearings, we are in a recession caused by lack of demand. People are not unemployed because we lack food, oil, computers, skilled labor, or anything else. People are out of work because we are not spending enough money.

This should make the public furious because it is not hard to spend money. The suffering that the public is experiencing right now is entirely because of a combination of ideology and ineptitude. If we increase demand (yes, we can print money), then there will be jobs, and the unemployment rate will tumble.

The tax credit for shorter work hours is so simple that even an economist can understand it.

Read more »

Though it sometimes frustrates friends, one of my core beliefs is to engage those who disagree with my views -- and also to give credit when and where credit is due.

When I saw that the right-anchored Jerusalem Post was running an interview of Elliott Abrams with Ruthie Blum Leibowitz, I expected the worst. Leibowitz is the daughter of Norman Podhoretz, essentially co-founder with Irving Kristol of the neoconservative movement, and is brother of John Podhoretz and sister of Elliott Abrams' wife, Rachel Decter.

I think Leibowitz pulls no punches and asks all of the questions that a frustrated believer in a Greater Israel zero-sum strategy in the region would ask. And to be honest, she asks many of the questions I would have asked. Some of these were:

Read more »