Thanks for the complimentary words and for caring to make the suggestion. I'll mull it over.

In the meantime, care to share, say, 1 or 2 of the points I made with which you disagree?

Posted at July 3, 2008 10:19 AM in response to Sen. Obama's Character, Philosophy, Supporters, and Critics

I am not invested in labels, either, except possibly for pragmatic political reasons. To the extent it may be necessary, or at least desirable, to have a shorthand for the political point of view or the program one is advocating, then it's better for those advocating it to choose the label and define it not only clearly but memorably and compellingly for the public, than to have the opponents do so.

Laura Jordan in one of her posts in the thread, in writing about why Obama appeals to her, wrote: "...I'd tweak that description to say that he is a thoughtful, intelligent, tolerant, conservative who knows that this country cannot thrive if its policies cause a shrinking middle class and growing underclass. I would say that he is a realistic..."

Omit the word "conservative" from that and I agree. I don't think a belief that "this country cannot thrive if its policies cause a shrinking middle class and growing underclass" marks one as a political "conservative". One might argue that that is a "conservative" belief in the ordinary, everyday use of the word to refer to, roughly, preserving or maintaining or continuing that which is seen as having been beneficial.

One of the reasons I don't self-identify as a political "conservative" is that I believe the policies of the Republican party, typically labeled as politically "conservative", in its current incarnation are actually deeply harmful to the objective Laura stated.

Those policies are in no sense "conservative" in the everyday, ordinary meaning sense of the word but rather are quite radical in the way they rationalize government policies which dramatically and demonstrably have redistributed upward distribution of wealth, income and opportunity. They don't even make an argument for how those policies will strengthen and expand the middle class reduce poverty: they simply assert that their policies will do so, as a matter of ideology or assumption or on pure faith, notwithstanding all of the empirical evidence showing just the opposite effects.

When this is pointed out to them, they seem to just shrug their shoulders and recite tired incantations about the magic of "free" markets and the evils and dangers of "government intervention" (as if they don't make sure to put the government squarely on the side of the plutocrats and the special interests at every turn).

One of my concerns with Obama is not so much with what he is saying as with what he is not saying, or at least not emphasizing in a way that is so clear to me.

Thematically I do not hear a clear and consistent, let alone a compelling, emphasis on addressing the middle class and underclass economic security and opportunity issues that Laura refers to. Whether one refers to those concerns as an ideology or attaches one or another political label to them is not the central point as I see it. It's that these are central problems that desperately need to be addressed in order to put our country on a much better path going forward.

We know McCain's approach on these is more of the same that has gotten us to where we are now.

I think, or at least I want to think, that we know Obama wants and means to do whatever he can do to change that situation.

But it's not coming through clearly to me what he sees as the key themes (and flowing from these, issue priorities and policy goals) of his Administration other than the relatively vague call for national unity and change that so far has offended so few people that the Wall Street Journal can, evidently with a straight face although how to tell?, write an editorial saying it's Obama and not McCain who is running for Bush's 3rd term.

He could, for example, talk about the American Dream and the Beloved Community (his call for national unity could dovetail into this, with more substantive elaboration about what kind of an America he wants), two ideals with very widespread, cross-party, cross-faith traditions, cross-geographical, cross-class, cross-racial and ethnic appeal in our country--about how they are necessary to one another and how his economic and social policies will offer real help for real people who are struggling in the present and anxious about the future, in contrast to the endless helpings of failed ideology and destructive policies his opponent wants to recycle.

Maybe he's saving the best for his Convention acceptance speech or the fall debates. If so--and this citizen can only hope--that will be quite something.

Posted at July 3, 2008 9:55 AM in response to Sen. Obama's Character, Philosophy, Supporters, and Critics

BrookD, you wrote: "Privatizing is going to have to be done, and it'st the only thing that will save the program."

If Social Security is privatized then in what sense is it the Social Security program any more? We need to destroy the program in order to save it?

I had thought folks such as Dean Baker and Paul Krugman had shown that with relatively modest adjustments the program's fiscal integrity, which they maintain does not even come into question for another couple or three decades anyway under current trends, can be put on a solid longer-term footing. The sooner those adjustments are made the milder they will need to be in order to do this.

Posted at July 3, 2008 9:22 AM in response to What Do Working-Class Voters Want? They Want A Fair Deal

Here is something else to read--yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial informing the reader that it is actually Obama who is running for Bush's 3rd term, not McCain.

So does this mean they'll be endorsing Obama?

Posted at July 3, 2008 9:03 AM in response to Sen. Obama's Character, Philosophy, Supporters, and Critics

Of course.

Aw shucks. 'Tweren't nuthin, ma'am or sir. :

Posted at July 2, 2008 12:59 PM in response to Sen. Obama's Character, Philosophy, Supporters, and Critics

I didn't think it was funny and I didn't find it poorly written. Rather, it expresses some of this former Edwards supporter's biggest ongoing concerns about Obama. I even thought Michael Gerson's column in today's WashPost, "The Audacity of Cynicism", made some worthwhile points.

I've never been one to buy into the view that there is such a thing as a "post-ideological" view of the world, and when I hear the phrase "post-partisan" my BS meter needle moves hard to the right.

Right now Obama has no fierce ideological enemies.

Some will cite that as evidence that he really does offer a new way, a better way, and a practical way through the partisan thicket of Washington.

Others will say that until you develop some fierce opponents, then either you really haven't made clear what you believe and are willing to fight for, or else what you believe offends no one and on that count amounts to mush, a lack of definition.

Posted at July 2, 2008 12:35 PM in response to Sen. Obama's Character, Philosophy, Supporters, and Critics

Not on naval history, but Henry Ashby Turner's Hitler's Thirty Days to Power was fascinating, I thought.

Posted at July 2, 2008 9:56 AM in response to Summer Reading

Also, JTFaraday, I don't see the stuff Hacker is talking about as amounting to a point of view that "the only thing to be done about today's economic dislocation is to cave to it and smooth it over with with government programs hatched by a careerist Harvard policy elite."

As I understand The Great Risk Shift, Hacker's latest, the piece of the puzzle he is trying to address is about sharing risk much more equitably and both protecting people from some of the worst consequences of economic dislocation to the extent we can and providing greater security so that people feel more able to take risks in how they seek to make a living.

I seriously doubt that Hacker means to say that the "only" things we should do, policy wise, in response to the economic dislocation, are to bolster the safety net along the lines he suggests. Because he advocates A doesn't mean he is opposed to B or C or D, measures that could help to promote growth in decent-paying jobs, for example.

As to the "Harvard elite" that supposedly hatched this agenda, Hacker is at Yale and personally I don't care what the source of the ideas is, I care about whether they are good ideas or not.

Posted at July 1, 2008 4:48 PM in response to What Do Working-Class Voters Want? They Want A Fair Deal

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly on labor and labor law reform as well. I don't see it as "either/or" as between upgrading the safety net via government policies and a better deal for working people through increasing union density in our workforce.

Edwards was open and explicit about labor law reform.

For those unfamiliar with labor law and its shortcomings in our country, the best primer I've seen is Lance Compa, aUnfair Advantage: Workers' Freedom of Association in the United States Under International Human Rights Standards, 2004, a Human Rights Watch book.

What it documents and explains, among other things, is how firing employees who try to organize their workplaces makes entirely good sense as a cost of doing business in our country, given how weak our labor laws and the penalties for breaking them are. There is a whole cottage industry of specialists available to advise employers on how to do this either legally or at minimal cost.

Posted at July 1, 2008 4:31 PM in response to What Do Working-Class Voters Want? They Want A Fair Deal

Amen, oleeb.

Posted at July 1, 2008 4:06 PM in response to What Do Working-Class Voters Want? They Want A Fair Deal