Money and Political Cowardice
Three stories are haunting me recently. They are all stories of political cowardice on the part of the American public and their elected representatives and they involve guns and global warming.
First, Timothy Egan in this morning's Times.
American life in the spring of 2009 is full of hope, peril, and then this: the cancer at the core of our democracy.In a month of violence gruesome even by our own standards, 57 people have lost their lives in eight mass shootings. The killing grounds include a nursing home, a center for new immigrants, a child's bedroom. Before that it was a church, a college, a daycare center.
We hear about these sketches of carnage between market updates and basketball scores -- and shrug. We're the frogs slow-boiling in the pot, taking it all in incrementally until we can't feel a thing. We shrug because that's the deal, right? That's the pact we made, the price of Amendment number two to the Constitution, right after freedom of speech.
The second story involves the Military Industrial Complex's pushback against Defense Secretary Gates' decision to kill the F-22 Raptor.
That didn't take long. It's only been a few hours since Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposed a radical overhaul of the Pentagon's arsenal. And already, Congress is lashing out at the plan. Republican Senator James Inhofe, for one, called it "gutting our military."
The third comes from Tom Friedman on Carbon Taxes.
Since the opponents of cap-and-trade are going to pillory it as a tax anyway, why not go for the real thing -- a simple, transparent, economy-wide carbon tax?Representative John B. Larson, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, has circulated a draft bill that would impose "a per-unit tax on the carbon-dioxide content of fossil fuels, beginning at a rate of $15 per metric ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 each year."
Here are three issues: banning assault weapons, cutting wasteful Pentagon projects and taxing carbon to make us more energy efficient and reduce global warming. Most rational experts will agree that all three make sense, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the NRA will kill any gun legislation, the MIC lobbyists will kill any Military reform and the Oil, Coal and Auto lobby will kill an energy tax.The corruption of the monied interests in our Congress is complete.
Is this a Democracy or an Oligarchy?
I meant to respond to your last post but I'll respond here instead.
I think the anti-Obama fury comes from far left types (no surprise) and Hillary irreconcilable.
I also have to say that it's mutual. I do not trust Krugman anymore because there is no evidence whatsoever that he "gets" Obama and what he signifies and represents. For me, if you don't understand the significance of this Presidency, you understand very little about this country. Accordingly, I'm off Krugman.
I think everything he writes is tainted by disdain for Barack Obama.
April 9, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"there is no evidence whatsoever that he "gets" Obama and what he signifies and represents."
why you've expressed it so clearly and eloquently (and in such detail too), how can anyone not "get" it?
April 9, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
April 9, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
?? So your first comment was entirely facetious or sarcastic??
I think it's good to take Krugman with a grain of salt. But to dismiss him as a voice of reason because he preferred Clinton over Obama??
"I think the anti-Obama fury comes from far left types (no surprise) and Hillary irreconcilable."
That is not a sentence. There is also, of course, an anti-Obama theme from the not-left-at-all (aka, center and right), or rather a group of themes. But yes, some die-hard Clinton fans might remain unhappy with Obama.
April 9, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, MJ. This is entirely OT and I have no idea if you check your dashboard here at TPM, so I don't know if you'll ever see this. I've spent a considerable amount of time this morning trying to get a link to you. It's to an article entitled, "China's Palestine Policy." It seemed to be something you might find interesting.
Just FYI, the contact form on the IPF site just didn't work for me. It kept saying there was an error and suggested it was either a wrong email address (I double checked, but it was correct) or that I needed to enable cookies. I enabled cookies for IPF as well as enabling for the captcha program, but no luck. But perhaps the problem is on my end since the contact form on the articles's site didn't work either.
I also sent the article through the talk@talkingpointsmemo.com address, and asked that the article be forwarded to you. I don't know; perhaps you don't really want to have articles such as this one sent to you. I can see how you might be bombarded; although I probably only find articles worth forwarding once in every several months, you have a lot of readers so it could become unmanageable. Please let me know, and if you'd like to receive them, what is the preferred method to get them to you. Thanks. I hope this message doesn't disappear into the internet ether!
April 17, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me if this has been already asked and answered, but what is the thought on why Krugman seems to have adopted this 'disdain' towards Obama?
It seems to have escalated - some state in direct proportion to his 'celebrity' - but I believe there are other elements in play, just don't know what...
April 9, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to know where his animosity comes from as well, Aunt Sam.
April 9, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so, FDRdog and Aunt Sam. And it's quite perplexing to me because, in many ways, I think Krugman really does have the conscience of a liberal and really is the real deal. I don't think he walks on water, his reputation for meanspiritedness is rather well-deserved, and I especially think the Krugmanauts ought to take a look in the mirror rather than sling the crap they do about Obamabots.
But most of all, I just don't get Krugman's war on Obama. The only thing I'm pretty sure of is that Krugman's going to lose.
April 9, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh - He, Krugman, seems to have turned down the volume a bit so maybe he's come to realize he's on the losing end.
April 10, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
see my thoughts below
April 9, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if that is fair. I read Krugman more as severely disappointed in Obama's economic policy, and less concerned with his race. I think accurately gauges that the country is ready for a populist leftest revival and that Obama's rise is coopting that.
Yes he gets that he is racially significant. But that just adds insult to injury. The Masters of the Universe continue to rule us while we are distracted from the real pocketbook issues of class with a 'triumph' over racial division. I share some of Krugman's concern and am very unhappy that his rescue plans seem designed to profit hedge funds through my tax subsidies. And I certainly get the significance of, and campaigned for, Obama.
April 9, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the anti-Obama fury comes from far left types (no surprise) and Hillary irreconcilable.
I find this sentiment very depressing. And what about some us that understand the economy, are part active Democrats but of the left, and see that the current financial crises is a debt crisis. The solution to bad debt is to write it down. That is basically what we did in 1988 in response to the S%L meltdown. Over 1400 S%Ls were taken over by the feds and liquidated. The total cost to the taxpayer was high (about $100 billion or so) but we got over the problem. But today with Rubin's former employer, Citi, on the block (and from which he received $100 million in compensation over 8 years) we must now rally around the Democratic administration and bail them out.
Do not dismiss the anger here as the rantings of far leftists. Once more Americans begin to perceive what is going on the political backlash against the Democrats could be huge. I am an active Democrat and I also believe that my opposition is better for our party today than the mindless support that you advocate.
April 9, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is inappropriate to dismiss any and all support of this administration's economic plan, still in its infancy even, as "mindless." I don't know who you are or why you count yourself among the "some of us who understand the economy," and/or the not "mindless," but there isn't simply one side to this issue, neither economically nor politically, and to cavalierly dimiss the possibility that there might be points of view that have some validity besides your own -- not to mention some estimable intelligence among those of us who don't see things 100% your way --is quite frankly both oppressive and offensive.
April 9, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not saying that Obama's plan is mindless. It is plan that balances the health of citi and BoA with the US economy. I believe it is a balance that won't work. Those banks should be liquidated. I use the term mindless to describe those who support this plan simply out of loyalty to Obama.
April 9, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you presume to know why anyone other than yourself supports anything? I know a lot of people who voted for Obama, just about everyone I know voted for Obama, and not one of sacrificed their ability to think for themselves when they cast their vote. I don't know what people you're talking about.
April 9, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
cut the bull.
its very clear to anyone that isnt in the tank, that the obama plan is nothing but a HUGE transfer of wealth to the same people who created the problme, at the expense of the taxpaper.
you spend to much time here or you would be reading the many progressive voices that are shut out of the debate that know this plan will fail!.
and to argue against the fact that the majority of people here support it only because it comes from obama is offensive.
and that is an argument easy to make and prove.
since no one here has a clue on economics we all need to listen to those that do and then decide for ourselves.
i listen to the people with integrity, not in power with nothing to gain or no buddies to pay back on wall street.
they all agree ths plan will fail and sux.
you should find out who they are ,i wont tell you cause you are part of the problem or you would know them already.
pathetic how people need to cling to wrong impressions to bolster their weak egos.
April 10, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I take insults from loutish people like you as compliments.
April 10, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg apparently knows little to nothing about Economics, since he never analyzes Krugman's economic views and ideas. He simply tells us that Krugman doesn't get Obama and that he doesn't trust Krugman, without expanding.
April 10, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg apparently knows little to nothing about Economics, since he never analyzes Krugman's economic views and ideas. He simply tells us that Krugman doesn't get Obama and that he doesn't trust Krugman, without expanding.
April 10, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry about the duplicate.
April 10, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here you go Taplin. Rosenberg has provided the answer to why you are getting flack from the left about Obama....
...for the left, what someone symbolizes is more important than who someone actually is, or what someone actually does. You're getting grief if you actually expect reality to match up to expectations. You can't fight a dream. Or a fantasy.
April 9, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
in fact, why bother to even try to argue rationally? it is truly a waste of time for us superior beings with two feet on the ground and a sense of self and knowledge of where we are, who we are, and where we are going. dfh's, leftists, dreamers yechhhhhhhhhh
April 9, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. I understand your point and it's why the world needs liberals. The divide between idealism and actual practice is something a lot of people don't choose to see and it trips them up.
There are actually people who think change is easy, who are frustrated when it becomes evident what the tradeoffs are. It's the "perfection being the enemy of the good" syndrome. For some people "perfect" is the only thing they'll accept and woe to those who interject the human condition.
April 9, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You can't fight a dream. Or a fantasy."
Isn't that the proper role of ridicule? When rational argument fails, ridicule might work. Of course, sometimes old theories don't die until their fervent adherents do, but that's the marginal not the central mode of the distribution.
April 9, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that is exactly where our collective outrage should be directed--to our own Congress critters. The extent of the lobbyists' rule over WDC began with Reagan and it has to stop. (I recall reading once that federal lobbyists at the start of the Reagan years was around 3,000; the last time I saw an equivalent figure it was around 35,000.)
I read with barely concealed rage this morning of the "sausage making" that our slow cooking Congress wants to engage in. My first thought? Well, that will give the lobbyists time to write the legislation in their own favor. And, then, I have to read the amount of lobbyist money and the return on the investment with various laws, like the 2004 tax holiday which resulted in NONE of the so-called benefits to plain folk.
Make note that our present Congress is Democratic and that will tell you that the level of lobbyist influence is bi-partisan.
April 9, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with the left is that it has never contributed anything to this country.
Every significant reform came not from radicals but from liberals like Obama unless the left dares to claim FDR, LBJ, MLK, etc.
On the other hand, the real left (including the Communists) always understood the power of racism and rectifying it which the "indifferent to Obama" crowd does not "get."
Oh well. The 99.9% of liberals progressives who are celebrating this Presidency along with 67% of Americans in general who are can make it without you.
It's hard for me not to like Krugman anymore but, hell, I'll survive. So will he.
April 9, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is about "who's more liberal" or about "progressives vs. radicals." I think it's more about impatience with the president's overarching strategy for how to accomplish his policy goals.
Obama has always been a political pragmatist and has never pretended to be otherwise. The problem is that normal rank-and-file citizens aren't so intimately aware of the ins and outs of our political structures to understand the tactical rationale underlying each compromise, so they get angry and feel betrayed when they see someone they voted for enact policies they don't like. It's a natural and understandable reaction, but unfortunately it's one that leads people to indulge in hyperbolic conspiracy theories about coverups at treasury or about Obama being a manchurian candidate for wall street.
My experience has been that people who are closer to the political process and have a better understanding of the political constraints that the administration is subject to, are typically more forgiving and less pitchfork-happy, regardless of how radically liberal they may be.
April 9, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The problem with the left is that it has never contributed anything to this country. Every significant reform came not from radicals but from liberals like Obama unless the left dares to claim FDR, LBJ, MLK, etc."
Perfect.
April 9, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
IF an Assault Weapons ban bill is introduced THEN:
I hearby predict that the republicans in congress will make a lot of noise, and won't vote for it, but won't actually do anything obstruct passage of a new Assualt Weapons Ban.
I also predict the of the 5 man congressional deligation from New Mexico (now 100% democrats)at least 4 and more likely all will vote against it.
Likewise congresscritters from other rural states and districts will oppose it. They will be far more active in opposition than any republicans.
Because, IF such a bill should pass, President Obama is certain to sign it into law, and IF that happens then:
I predict that this will result in a weakening of the demomcratic majority in congress in the 2010 mid-term elections, and possible loss of both legislative (both chambers) and executive branches in 2012. Pretty much the 1990s scenerio shifted by a decade or so. Heck, even Newt is stretching his legs for the coming marathon.
I further predict that, just like the last time, Such a ban will have no measureable effect on violent crime.(according to two Justice Department studies, first under Clinton, second under Bush)
Just remember, If it were not for the last AWB, Al Gore would have been president for at least 4 of the last 8 years. 5000 odd American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi bystanders would still be alive, and most americans still wouldn't know we have a military base in Cuba.
So if passing such ineffectual eyewash is really THE most important thing to your libral heart, then by all means write your legislators and attempt to persuade them to commit political suicide. Because lord knows, the last 8 years would have been SO much nicer with a thousand or so fewer ugly rifles in the hands of law abiding owners.
Popular support of republicans in the last decade has stood on the three legged emotional stool of Guns, God, and Gays. Backing off on gun control was key to the democratic party's toppling of that stool, and eventual return to power. If you want to hand that club back to the republicans, don't expect sympathy from me when they beat you silly with it.
The republicans are whipping thier base into a paranoid frenzy. Take the bait at your peril.
April 9, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their base is about 17% of the electorate at this point.
April 9, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. But never underestimate the ability of the Republican political machine to use fear as a tool to stir up votes. It did not work in 2008 (thankfully), and hopefully the 2008 election season marked the beginning of the end of these tactics (they might actually have to start competing on ideas now).. However, I've learned painfully over the years to never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
April 9, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was responding to
"whipping th[ei]r base into a paranoid frenzy"
and I don't believe base bleed over will be significant as long as Obama has decent ratings. But it's definitely true in General that GOP operatives have been skilled at manipulating messages, esp. fear messages, and that could drag down some important initiatives.
April 9, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know where the incredible disconnect occurred that progressives/the far left wanted Hillary in power and there is lingering resentment towards Obama by progressives/the far left over the fact she isn't President.
Most progressives/far left supported Obama because we rejected the craven centrism of Clinton. When Obama is criticized about his handling of the economy or FISA it is for no other reason than that it is what we expected out of a Hillary Clinton administration...
There might be some Hillary supporters still upset that she didn't prevail but for many of the people (most?) opposing Obama's policies on the economy and FISA it begins and ends with him embracing the wrong policies.
But let the ideological purges begin...I thought after Bush left office we left the era of dissent=treason. I guess not...
I really enjoy, and generally agree with Rosenberg and Taplin, but not on this issue.
April 9, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's odd how the criticisms have changed. At first it was Hillary supporters who were centrists who lacked the ambition to support the truly progressive Obama. But Hillary and Obama always believed basically the same things.
The real progressive in the race was Edwards but he's bad because he had sex or something.
April 9, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the more things it seems the more they stay the same. But that being said I knew both Hillary and Obama were centrists...I just opted for Obama for his vision for change, even if unstated, and I preferred his positions on Iraq/foreign policy. But safe to say I knew he wasn't from the far left or progressive. Still I am happy he is President, still fully support him, and just hoping he changes course on his economic and FISA policies.
April 9, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards? I don't think so -- which is not to say I mean he's a total phoney. But the genuine article he ain't either. And the man has no spine.
April 9, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because you say so?
I would say Edwards is not politically savvy. For me that is a big point in his favor. His policies would have been much better for the American people then the current ones.
Obama was always a centrist. Always. The only thing that really separated him from Clinton was his Health Care policy (I preferred hers) and his stance on transparency (I prefer his). Edwards had them both beat on both. He is a wonk.
During the election, I knew afterwards that I'd end up defending Obama from his rabid supporters because "THEY" don't 'get' him. Never did.
Krugman 'gets' Obama just fine, and I for one am glad he isn't afraid to criticize his policies where appropriate.
April 10, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Puuuuulease.
And how many people in the same period lost their lives due to having inadequate or no health care? If it bleeds it leads...and the outrage and hand wringing follows. On the list of top 10 problems facing this country, imo, gun violence is about 23rd on that list.
April 9, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I so agree with kevbo crystal stair and Libertine.
April 9, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So lets see...Taplin's list:
1. Ban assault weapons
2. Cut Pentagon spending
3. Impose a carbon tax
I'd say the top 3 should be;
1. Reform the regulatory regime for the financial sector and put in place stricter rules
2. Health care reform...universal coverage
3. Cut all subsidies to carbon based energy interests and give massive tax credits to any companies who'll actively and immediately develop alternative and green forms of energy
I obviously disagree on the gun issue and while reforming procurement for the Pentagon is something that absolutely needs to be done we, as the cliche goes, have much bigger fish to fry.
April 9, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink