July 26 brings back fond memories of watching, with my parents in attendance, Bush I sign the ADA into law on the White House lawn.  I worked as a Congressional committee staffer behind the scenes in strong support of that law.  I shared with my wife that yesterday was the 20th anniversary, before I knew there was any press on that, and she told me, yes, there was a fair amount of press on that.   

I was 31 years old when the ADA became law.  I felt at that time as though, no matter what else I did or didn't do the rest of my life, I had done at least one thing truly worthwhile to improve the human condition.  

Getting to know those disability advocates was an incredible growth experience for me.  I have been unable to think about disability--indeed, societally defined "difference--in the same way since that time.  The people with disabilities that I met had such extraordinary personal stories of hardship and loss and literally going from being unemployed to being senior advisors to the President of the United States on this legislation, or key advocates leading the way towards a brighter future for people with disabilities.  

So many of them have died, many at young ages.  My best friend in the disability advocacy community was Howard Moses.  He was the finest public servant I have ever met, incredibly productive.  I had the chance to work under him at the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after I left my job with Congress.  He had cerebral palsy, mild, which left him with an ungainly walk, a mild speech impediment, and a hand tremor.  He was also a recovered alcoholic.  And he was gay.  I found it somehow poignant that the "handicap" he felt most self-conscious about, by far, was his homosexuality (not a disability, of course).  He was HIV positive but was kept alive many productive years with the cocktail medications available at that time. He had been married earlier.     

We got together from time to time after I'd left Congress and EEOC.  He had told me he was going back to Kansas to see his parents.  It wasn't until after the funeral that I found out he had died.  There was, I was told, quite a gathering of people at that event and I really, really wish I could have been there to honor his memory. 

While he was extremely tough he had the greatest warmth of personality of any human being I have ever met.  There was an incredible gentleness, compassion, and humanity to Howard.  He had a wonderful, warped sense of humor, too.  Plus a devilish side to him that was all the more endearing for the contrast with his overall saintly image.   

For some time after he died, I kept a picture of him in my office.     

The deaths, at relatively young ages, of so many of these people I had gotten to know reinforced my sense of the abiding fragility of life.  My mother had been in a bad car accident and suffered a traumatic brain injury while Congress was considering the ADA.  I'd already been "adopted" by the disability advocates as one of their favorite what they call "ABs" (able-bodied advocates).  So that when my mom had her accident things didn't change in that regard.  I guess, if anything, I was a little more "adopted" after that.  They knew how I felt before my own family experienced devastating consequences of sudden-onset traumatic disability. 

The ADA might also have been named the "Parents with Strollers Act of 1990" or the "Infirm Persons of Any Age Act of 1990", I suppose.   

I consider myself incredibly fortunate to have had that experience.  Not many Hill staffers have the opportunity to be a part of the passage of landmark legislation.  We are the first country in the world to have passed comprehensive civil rights legislation protecting people with disabilities.  I'm proud of that. 

(from the first draft of President Obama's address to the nation, following September 6, 2010 Senate passage of $150 billion jobs bill earlier passed by the House, and asking the public to pressure their elected officials to support, as he does, immediate passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, as part of further steps to come to address continued unacceptable levels of joblessness and other distress caused by the still sluggish economy):

"...the methods of normal times had to be replaced in the emergency by measures that were suited for the serious and pressing requirements of the moment...

...Wise and prudent men--intelligent conservatives--have long known that in a changing world worthy institutions can be conserved only by adjusting them to the changing time...Reform if you would preserve...I am that kind of conservative because I am that kind of liberal... 

...If all our people have work and fair wages and fair profits, they can buy the products of their neighbors and business is good...

...no country, however rich, can afford the waste of its human resources.  Demoralization caused by vast unemployment is our greatest extravagence.  Morally, it is the greatest menace to our social order...we must make it a national principle that we will not tolerate a large army of the unemployed, that we will arrange our national economy to end our present unemployment as soon as we can...

...Labor Day in this country has never been a class holiday.  It has always been a national holiday...We refuse to regard those who work with hand or brain as different from or inferior to those who live from their own property.  We insist that labor is entitled to as much respect as property.  But our workers with hand and brain deserve more than respect for their labor.  They deserve practical protection in the opportunity to use their labor at a return adequate to support them at a decent...standard of living, and to accumulate a margin of security against the inevitable vicissitudes of life...those who would try to refuse the worker any effective power to bargain collectively, to earn a decent livelihood and to acquire security...threaten this country with that class dissension which in other countries has led to dictatorship...

...The Fourth of July commemorates our political freedom...a freedom without which economic freedom is meaningless indeed.  Labor Day symbolizes our determination to achieve an economic freedom for the average man which will give his political freedom reality...

...Sometimes I get bored sitting in Washington hearing certain people talk and talk about all that Government ought not to do--people who got all they wanted from Government back in the days when the financial institutions..were being bailed out...bailed out by the Government.

...right now I am most greatly concerned in increasing the pay of the lowest-paid labor, those who are our most numerous consuming group but who today do not make enough to maintain a decent standard of living...

...(unemployment is a problem) in which every individual and every economic group has a direct interest

...The inherent right to work is one of the elemental privileges of a free people...Continued failure to achieve that right, that privilege, by anyone who wants to work and needs work is a challenge to our civilization and our security...we approach this problem of reemployment with the real hope of finding a better answer than we have now...

...It was this Administration which saved the system of private profit and free enterprise after it had been dragged to the brink of ruin by these same leaders who now try to scare you...Some of these people really forget how sick they were.  But I know how sick they were.  I have their fever charts. I know how the knees of our rugged individualists were trembling...and how their hearts fluttered.  They came to Washington in great numbers.  Washington did not look like a dangerous bureaucracy to them then.  Oh, no!  It looked like an emergency hospital.  All of the distinguished patients wanted two things--a quick hypodermic to end the pain and a course of treatment to cure the disease.  They wanted them in a hurry; we gave them both.  And now most of the patients seem to be doing very nicely.  Some of them are even well enough to throw their crutches at the doctor.

...I know that many of you have lost your jobs or have seen your friends or members of your families lose their jobs, and I do not propose that the Government shall pretend not to see these things...I conceive the first duty of Government is to protect the economic welfare of all the people in all sections and in all groups.

...from our earliest days we have had a tradition of substantial Government help to our system of private enterprise...(It is therefore) following tradition as well as necessity, if Government strives to put idle men to work, to increase our public wealth and to build up the health and strength of the people..to help our system of private enterprise to function again...

...History proves that dictatorships do not grow out of strong and successful governments but out of weak and helpless governments. If by democratic methods people get a government strong enough to protect them from fear and starvation, their democracy succeed, but if they do not, they grow impatient.  Therefore, the only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over its government.

...I never foget that I live in a house owned by all the American people and that I have been given their trust.  I try always to remember that their deepest problems are human...I try not to forget that what really counts at the bottom of it all, is that the men and women willing to work can have a decent job,---a decent job to take care of themselves and their homes and their children adequately..."

(end excerpts--please see my first comment in the thread)

As anxious, terrified, distraught, outraged, pick-your-adjective as so many of us are about what is going on in our world...I hope the dads out there will find a way today to reflect a little on, and hopefully cherish, the gifts and opportunities that go with the responsibilities and worries of fatherhood.  I am blessed that our children and my wife are helping me do that today, and I wish the same for all the other cafe dads, no matter how troubled and weary you, too, may be feeling these days.

The cafe's <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/09/election_sneak_preview/">Jon Taplin</a> is one of the few pundits sympathetic to the Democrats who hasn't already thrown in the towel for November--and I say good on him.  The defeatism makes me crazy.

Jon writes: (come the fall): "...it will be clear to all but the most crack-brained teabagger that the Republicans represent the plutocrats and the Democrats are looking out for the people."

I wish it were considerably clearer. 

See banking reform and its progress, or the lack thereof, as one notable example.  Or the outrageous exec compensation fiascos on Wall Street--there has been some showy rhetoric but no action to speak of so far. 

There is going to be resentment among some Obama voters about the individual mandate to purchase health insurance.  One can argue about whether or not that is justified or not, but I think it's just the reality.  It will feed into, and reinforce for some, the government-bashing agenda the Tea Party crowd and the Republicans are fomenting. 

I see a political as well as a policy need for an issue where the consequences of the differences between the parties' stances for the well-being of ordinary Americans, and our country's economic future, are much more readily apparent than with the HC legislation we are likely to get this time.  

Last night I saw the documentary "For the People: The Election of Barack Obama".  It held my interest, though I've seen better in that genre.  I was struck by footage of the President's early campaign comment addressing, he hoped, the issue of whether he had enough experience to make the run and become president. 

He quoted something Michelle had said to the effect that they were still "pretty normal".  He went on to talk about how they still had student loans they were paying off 2 or 3 years ago, to try to communicate the point about how they were not--not yet--out of touch with how ordinary people in this country live. 

I wonder if he and Michelle would, if asked today, agree that they are still "pretty normal".  They have been forced to live inside the bubble the President has said often he does not want to get lost in.

My feeling is that they *are* farther away from "normal".  The policy agenda the White House has chosen to pursue, along with its MO, is consistent with what could be happening if that is true.  There are obviously many other factors that could account for the Administration's actions to date. 

I for one am still hoping the President finds something like his inner FDR very soon, and well before the fall.

I am eager to see where this White House goes next on jobs in particular--whether, for example, it weighs in forcefully in support of something closer to the House bill, or even offers another, more ambitious proposal more along lines of the Economic Policy Institute's excellent <a href="http://www.epi.org/index.php/american_jobs/american_jobs_plan">American Jobs Plan</a>. 

At any point the White House and Congressional Democrats can simply say, as their justification for offering much more help than was reflected in what the Senate just passed, that although unemployment would be far, far worse absent the stimulus legislation last year (clearly true), there appears to be a consensus that the employment situation is not going to get much better any time soon, that this is an unacceptable cost for too many American families to bear, and that in any case we need to ramp up the kinds of investments in our infrastructure that are going to make possible more good-paying private sector jobs in the future.  This is all true and most of the public knows it. 

I am not holding my breath.  The warning signs, in the form of some fairly strong criticism by people initially sympathetic to this Administration, are there, if they are heeding them.  Steven Clemons has recently brought these previously private rumblings to the attention of a wider public, both here and at his site, The WashingtonNote.    

The President may be as outstanding a campaigner going forward as he was in 2008.  But he has more of a record, of both action and inaction on some issues, to defend. 

And he isn't the only one who will be campaigning.  There are a whole bunch of members of Congress who are going to need to make the case that what they've done so far merits re-electing them.  Most of those folks are not nearly in the league as the President when it comes to campaigning.  That makes it all the more imperative that they have several key, easily understandable and compelling issues to distinguish their record and commitments from that of their opponents. 

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), an excellent DC-based, pro-middle and working-class advocacy group, has developed an American Jobs Plan proposal it estimates would create or preserve at least 4.6 million jobs in its first year.  The cost would be about $400 billion. 

Under their proposal, the plan would pay for itself, through the levying of a small (compared to that of other countries which do this, including Great Britain) tax on the sale of stocks and other financial products, to take effect 3 years after the beginning of implementation of the plan, which is itself thought to be a good idea in its own right by many economists.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the legislation Congress is now considering would create roughly 2.1 million jobs. 

I say more is better, with the sheer number of people in this country who are under-employed and not even officially counted as unemployed because they've stopped looking, as well as those officially unemployed.

On a personal level I'm sure I'm not the only denizen distressed at the certainty of large looming cuts in local services absent further federal help of the sort the EPI proposal would provide.  Our county's school budget is about to suffer severe cuts that will hurt our kids, who are in 8th and 6th grades.  One of the plan's five component parts would be additional aid to state and local governments, which are facing a $469 billion shortfall over the next two-and-a-half years.  This would create or preserve roughly 1 million jobs by itself and help reduce the harm done by service cuts. 

Larry Mishel of EPI testified before Barney Frank's House Financial Services Committee yesterday on the jobs issue.  The proposal had not, as of yesterday, been introduced as a bill in the House and Senate.  The staff person I spoke to said it had not been determined whether Rep. Frank or another member would do so, let alone whether it would receive high-priority attention.

I have contacted the White House, Speaker Pelosi, and my two Senators, Webb and Warner, to ask them to support this proposal, introduce it in Congress, and do whatever they can to move it through Congress.

If something like the current, scaled down legislation does pass, there is no reason that more could not be done, and soon. 

If the Republicans in the Senate choose to block something like the EPI proposal, I think this would illustrate a clear and useful contrast between what the two parties are trying to do on jobs in the runup to November.  This might help rechannel some of the anti-federal government populist anger presently fueling Tea Party supporters and mindless government-bashers in support of practical, much-needed proposals such as this one--and those supporting it.     

If Democrats adopt an insufficiently bold approach in providing real help on Main Street concerns for the remainder of this year, the political body language this sends out is defensive.  It says the party is resigned to getting blasted in November and only hoping or praying it does not get spanked too hard.  It says the party lacks confidence in its agenda, in its relevance and responsiveness to key problems voters are concerned about.  If Democratic party elected officials are not passionate in support of a bold, forward-thinking agenda which addresses key public concerns, what reason would it have for thinking voters are likely to feel that way in November?

The presupposition that November has to be bad for Democrats, which seems widespread, I find defeatist and unadmirable in any political party that seeks public endorsement of its agenda.

I would far prefer going more aggressively on the offensive on this, among other issues of enormous concern to ordinary Americans and importance for our country's fortunes.  I am less optimistic about the prospects of either the health care or the financial reform issues working out in such a way this year.  

Jobs is a huge issue, a huge concern.  Everyone understands this.  Is it too much to expect that at least one of our political parties will move to respond to the distress far more aggressively than the current thinking reflects? 

I'd be interested in any responses any of you who decide to contact your elected officials receive on this.

What becomes the "center" changes over time.  We all know that because we've seen it move rightward for decades now.  

While many denizens consider "centrist" as inherently an epithet, successful social movements help redefine what the "center" is.  So long as a measure that is advocated is seen as marginal, as lacking in broad-based support, it stands no chance of being enacted.  

What is "centrist" is not the same as what has broad-based support.  This seems to be one of the prevalent false assumptions of our day.  All the proponents of the status quo have to do to cow many elected officials into backing down, apparently, is to rhetorically capture the political center by claiming it for themselves and in so doing labeling meaningful steps to deal with, say, jobs and regulating Wall Street, as not "centrist" but as "far left" or "radical" or coming from "the angry left".

"Center" means what whomever succeeds in claiming it wants it to mean.  It tends to carry connotations in our political dialogue of being presumptively "mainstream" and "sensible", and  presumptively commanding of broad public support, although this is simply not the case on many policy issues where the public has a long record of saying what it believes and wants.  

Ceding the "center" rhetorically is an enormous and common mistake people who think of themselves as liberals and progressives make when public opinion is actually on their side.  

Action on both jobs and financial reform is right now broadly desired by the public.  It is seen as in no way "radical" or "non-mainstream", but, to the contrary, indicative of being responsive to Main Street and not just Wall Street.  (Why do you think even some right-wing Republicans such as Richard Armey are seeking to muddy the waters by making it sound as though they, and not the Democrats, are the party that is most committed to acting on these issues?)  

Where public consciousness and opinion broadly supports actions that are being demanded, competent public officials should be able to define to their publics--if they want to--the changes being called for as "centrist".  

And Presidents usually want to.  My observation is that this President appears to want to define measures he takes as "centrist" wherever he can.  We heard evidence of this just last week at the nationally televised meeting with the Republican House members when, citing Bob Dole and Howard Baker's support for something similar to the health care proposal now on the table, he referred to that proposal as "pretty centrist."  

Translation: "mainstream", "safe", "not scary", etc.  There are many built-in advantages to being seen by the broader public--not so much with activists, and thus a rub--as doing something "centrist".

This is the battle for public opinion--and with it the opportunity to define the public debates in our day--in a nutshell. When progressive measures are popular and can be "marketed" as "centrist" this should count as a victory for many of us.  It means the center has actually been moved leftward.         

Does anyone else besides me find it...um...interesting...that a Republican seeking to unseat Harry Reid, Danny Tarkanian, is advertising here at the cafe?  His tag line is "Help Finish Reagan's Last Campaign".

I'm not sure what to conclude from that.  Does this mean the folks running Tarkanian's campaign really aren't too sharp at identifying promising ad buys?  Does it mean that they figured there is so much venom directed at Harry Reid at this site that it must be a Republican site? 

I might have offered "maybe he's a moderate Republican".  But would a moderate Republican invoke the prospect of finishing Ronald Reagan's agenda at a site where probably 90-95% of the ordinary folk written contributions appear to come from Dems and Indies?  Hmm.  I would guess that more than 5-10% of the folks who write here voted for Reagan at least once, though...

 

 

Jason Everett Miller, in his <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/j/a/jasoneverettmiller/2010/01/go-out-and-make-me-do-it.php">Go Out and Make Me Do It</a> post, is just the latest of many cafe folks I have seen reference, over the past couple of years now, the story about how FDR told labor leader A. Philip Randolph, who had just eloquently recited a list of grievances he wanted the President to address, to "make me do it."

What FDR meant was create political support and pressure, on me and Congress, to force us to do what some of us, at least, would like to do but don't have enough support to do right now.

A number of cafe denizens--Ramona, Erica, Jason, Theda Skocpol come to mind but I know there are many others thinking along these lines--seem to believe this needs to be done.

We all know that building a social movement that is organized, disciplined, and above all effective requires the dedication, commitment, ingenuity, and smarts of a great many people willing to contribute time and energy to an effort which offers guarantees of precisely nothing in the way of progress and results, but much in the way of disappointment and heartbreak, and often carries with it substantial risks just as an extra bonus.  

Suppose you as a denizen agree with this line of thinking.  What, you ask yourself, could I do specifically to try to advance that process?  After all, I don't run a large or powerful organization.  I don't have lots of money I could give.  I'm tired of talk, talk, talk--or at least if I'm not I want more in the way of constructive action to accompany it and am willing to pitch in.  How would I go about acting on that?

Herewith, a few questions that occur to me.  I am most interested in any thinking denizens might wish to offer on this topic.  I know there are many here who have valuable personal experience in organizing and movement-building endeavors, and with that much insight and wisdom and good ideas to contribute. 

1. How do you assess the landscape for building a movement or a movement of movements that could coalesce to exert national influence in support of a progressive agenda?  (my take: extremely fragmented, as usual, and not just on the progressive side although it feels that way sometimes.  Lots of personal rivalries and sensitivities and egos in the way of effective collaborative effort.)

2. What issues, and policy proposals, would be the focus of a movement you would be willing to support?  (i.e., green infrastructure public jobs bill, financial reform, strong public option on health care soon although not this year, more aggressive action to move towards a green economy, some way to clean up the Washington sewer of corruption and organized interest domination that the Supreme Court might not rule unconstitutional, etc.)

3. Are there leaders with a prominent public profile you could envision playing a, if not the, lead role as a prominent spokesperson for such a movement?  Whose name(s) would bring you to look favorably on making some sort of a personal contribution of time or money or both to such an effort?  (not necessarily, maybe not preferably, a single organization but perhaps a coalition of existing organizations--dare I say it, a "coalition of the willing"?)

4. There are lots and lots of protest and organizing movements in existence at the local and regional levels.  Some of these have impressive tangible results to show for their efforts, which usually get little or no attention from national media.  What would need to happen in order to take full advantage of whatever potential exists for exerting focused national leverage, presumably on one or more issues, through collaboration among these groups?  What might be a mechanism to get a critical mass of local and regional-level activists together to begin figuring out how to do this?

5. What audiences would you prioritize to recruit to such an effort in the early stages? 

Feel free to add and speak to your own questions--these are just a few that occur to me.

Paul Begala has said hard things to Presidents that needed to be said.  I have a lot of respect for him and think he's very sharp.

That said, I want to quibble with what Josh reported him to have said yesterday: that if there is no health care reform there will be no Democratic majority after November.

I've written at the cafe about my ambivalence about the health care bill.  I think the essential approach taken is one that should leave us unsurprised at the unease about it on the part of many citizens.  I realize that some polls show fairly good support for it.  I suspect that misses the point, however.

My intuition now is that it may not so much be what proportion of those polled who are favorable that is the most significant dynamic right now.  It's who--which demographics--is unhappy with it, in some cases really unhappy with it. This, at any rate, is an empirical question which a further breakdown of polling numbers might be able to resolve.

The mandate to purchase insurance out of pocket is radically different from the social insurance model the designers of Social Security came up with.  With Social Security the idea was that a) you, the worker paid into the fund and were thereby entitled to receive a pension backed by the US government (the latter very tangibly reinforcing a concept of citizenship meaningful to many people), and b) you got it the old-fashioned way, by earning it in the workplace. 

It was (and is) not quite a social citizenship model.  It did not say to participants "You are a citizen of this country and you are therefore entitled to a pension."  You had to participate in the workforce.  But most men at that time assumed that was what they were going to spend their days doing--or at least hoped that would be the case once we got out of the Depression.

It did not have all the features of a universal program. But it felt "pretty universal" in its approach, with the huge exception of those concentrated in the seasonal agricultural worker and domestic worker sectors, by no means a coincidence or an accident. 

My sense--not having checked survey data--is that more Americans today would say that health insurance should be a right of citizenship than would say that a pension should be a right of citizenship.  A right of citizenship would be a step beyond a right accruing to those with an employment history. 

But that's not the approach the mandate to purchase health insurance takes.  The mandate is experienced by those who have difficulty coming up with the out of pocket money as a nosy, intrusive government telling them what to do.

The alternative is to treat health insurance as a right of citizenship, not even requiring an employment history.  And actually talk about it that way.  It comes to you as a result of a) being a citizen and b) being a taxpayer.  That way, you don't experience it as being a burden imposed upon you by your government (a justifiable one or not) but as one of your rights as a taxpaying citizen.  

Call me crazy, but to me, if I'm thinking about a lot of middle-class, working class, and working-poor folks who should be voting Democratic with enthusiasm, the difference between my government telling me I have to come up with money out of pocket I don't have for something it, not not necessarily I, considers a social necessity, versus me receiving, as part of what I get for paying my taxes, health insurance that can never be taken away, is the difference between an offputting message versus the message I would want to hear from a government I trust and believe cares about me.

When it comes to how to design and sell a major social program, I don't fully understand why the current group of politicians has not assimilated this basic lesson from the history of the Social Security program.  The idea for today should be "health insurance that can never be taken away." 

There are a lot of citizens out there who think about things in this way.  An awful lot of them are voters whose votes a peoples' Democratic party, FDR's party, should get.  There are very legitimate reasons for the anxiety about the mandates approach to the health care bill in a country many of whose citizens are disposed to think the worst of government.  The conclusion I draw is that whether or not this approach to health care passes this year is not the most critical factor affecting Democrats' fortunes going forward.

The most critical factor affecting Democrats' fortunes in November is whether we get a major green infrastructure jobs bill (this has to happen asap because it takes time to get the money out and people to work) and action to clean up Wall Street and recoup the deeply offensive bonuses many people on Wall Street arranged for themselves.  Do those two things--or be perceived as having gone down fighting for them and desiring a referendum on them in November if they can't be passed this year--and I think Dems have a fighting chance of getting back the mojo coming out of the 2008 elections.

Retreat back into the shell, fail to push aggressively these measures, and I think Dems' chances in November are dismal.  When it comes to a jobs bill and financial reform, those who self-identify as "left" and those who self-identify as "center" should be pushing all-out for the same measures.  Both types of measures do, or will, command widespread public support.  If the Republicans want to block those, great, we should be elated to run on those issues.  The arguments just about make themselves and they are ones we win.

On HC going forward it seems to me there are broadly two options:

Option A: Pass the Senate bill before Brown is sworn in.  Defend it aggressively and unapologetically, and defend the Democratic party aggressively and unapologetically from the charges that this is Chicago-style politics.  This tactic can only work if there is something close to unanimity among Democratic elected officials to go this route.  If there isn't, it won't work.  Any defense of such actions which appears remotely halfhearted will not work.  The Republicans will smell blood in the voter.  Voters will sense the lack of conviction, the hemming and hawing, the vacillation many are prone to associate with Democrats, and react with disgust.

Option B: This one is well outside the CW and, I admit, not fully baked on important specifics of what a revised proposal would look like.  Some will think it crazy.  I think of it as unconventional.  But we live in times when unconventional actions may need to be taken.  In several steps:

1. The Democratic leadership in Congress strips out the individual mandate to buy and calls to a vote, right after Brown gets sworn in, a bill with as much of the uncontroversially good stuff in the current bill as possible--particularly the very worthwhile and important restrictions on private insurance company practices.   

2. Cast that step as the first step of several necessary for real cost control that will be pushed aggressively this year and next.  The removal of the mandate from the current proposal is cast as Obama and the Dems hearing voters' concerns on that issue while insisting that measures that command overwhelming support be passed now. 

3. Come back, even as soon as late this year, or first thing next year--but after the jobs bill and financial reform votes are taken before November--with the second installment.  This is a revamped health care proposal that starts from a very different premise--that most citizens believe health care that cannot be taken away should be a right of citizenship, something citizens get as part of what we pay for with our taxes.  Finance the expansion of coverage to the currently uninsured with the taxes on upper income brackets of the sort now in the House bill and perhaps the Medicare savings in the current bill as well.  Cast a robust public option as the way we ensure that health care that cannot be taken away is a right of citizenship and not something we let the private insurance lobby have the last word on.  We don't elect insurance company executives to run our country--those who want that can vote Republican or for Senator Lieberman.  Recognize that there may not be enough votes for such a proposal to pass before November, even if the political climate changes for the better for the Dems as a result of the jobs and financial reform bills.  If this can be done through the reconciliation process this year, consider going that route. 

4. If the votes aren't there now, well, this is what we have elections for, to have a debate about what we should do and let the voters decide whether we want to elect people who represent the private insurance lobby, or who represent all of the people of a Congressional district, a state, and our country.  If by November the Republicans have blocked the jobs bill, financial reform, or both, the case will be that much easier to make for re-electing and electing people of whatever party who go on public record in support of the people on these necessary measures.  Those who see it differently can vote for a continuation of a politics as usual that looks out for the fatcats and irresponsible corporations at the expense of all the upstanding and hard-working ordinary Americans who expect nothing more than a government that... 

Something like that.

Me1: So, I see that where you are on the HC legislation is to look for reasons to urge a yes vote by your senators.  Care to elaborate?  

Me2: I understand completely, and pretty much agree right down the line, on the substantive criticisms of the legislation--it's a (expletive deleted) ransome paid to the private insurance industry as Krugman wrote, that even with the subsidies the mandate to purchase private insurance is going to be onerous for many families of ordinary means, the abortion cave-in, the big pharma cavein, the fact that the Obama Administration's expressed "fallback" position (from single-payer) of a robust public option was gutted and buried in the Senate, etc.  

But this is what I don't yet understand: why do some folks who, like me, want to get to a different place on all those issues, apparently assume that this effort, in 2010, is the One and Only Chance to get HC reform?  Why is the assumption that this legislation cannot be, or will not be, built on, moving forward?  

Me1: Oh, I don't know, maybe because the structural impediments--the Senate filibuster in particular--are insuperable?  Maybe because Democrats are likely to take a pasting in November so prospects will be even worse going forward?  Maybe because when you get right down to it, there just isn't enough commitment and courage to take on the private insurance lobby in particular, put in place a robust public option, and do the other things, among enough Democratic members of Congress?   

Me2: Fair points all.  It's entirely possible that could be the way things unfold.  But saying it's entirely possible that that negative scenario becomes the actual scenario is different from saying it's the inevitable scenario, no?  Why the seeming fatalism about that outcome?  From an activist's point of view, where is the long-term commitment to build the political strength--and possibly, preferably, a real, effective movement--to make, or help, the politicians, take the next steps?   

The late philosopher Richard Rorty wrote a 1999 critique of the American academic left called Achieving Our Country.  In it, he lamented what he saw as the decline of the attitude of hope and optimism, and the commitment to organizing and activity, of the old American left.  He urged today's left to again become emotionally engaged in the nation, to experience it as the left's country, too, rather than as something entirely alien and unsusceptible to reformation, even transformation, over time. 

If Rorty wrote this about today's American left in general, and not just the academic left, would he be right?  It seems awfully negative and accusatory out there in many parts of the blogosphere, if that's an accurate indication.   

Me1: Careful.  You've tried to be consistent over the years at the cafe in being faithful to your true views by refusing to draw hard and fast lines among liberals, progressives, leftists, the DLC, the base, etc--and between "reformers" and "revolutionaries" and "radicals".  I hope you'll resist falling into bad and counterproductive habits of thought now.   

If you needed a reminder of how this is an entirely justified point of view, you just finished reading Doug Rossinow's Visions of Progress, which details how liberals, progressives, and the left--self-described reformers and radicals, both--have, on the whole and notwithstanding ever-present and inevitable tension and conflict--reinforced and strengthened one another's efforts in the years since 1880 at least as often as they have thwarted them.  Why could that not become the case again now?   

Me2: Well, ok, granted, that could well happen, of course.  But I have to say that I see a distressing amount of what appear to be ongoing food fights--or is it just one prolonged food fight among self-identified "camps"?  These days one of the popular lines of demarcation is between the DLC and Democratic party's base. 

These attributions correspond to what, exactly, besides hasty judgments about what other individuals are presumed to think and believe based on one or a few remarks they have made at the cafe or elsewhere?  As if people in real life, when they have decisions of consequence to make typically accept, in its entirety, any one particular philosophy or point of view in all its particulars? 

Why do people feel they have to be in one "camp" to the exclusion of another?  Doesn't that reflect a kind of "all or nothing" stance towards packages of points of view that in many cases have not even been developed by oneself, but by others?     

Me1: It will take someone smarter than me to answer those questions.  I'll make one further observation for now, more of a plea, really, which is this: before jumping down someone's throat for being a sellout or a traitor or a gutless wonder or whatever epithet springs to mind, isn't it worth trying to find out, first, before doing that, whether your disagreement with them is one having to do with where you want to get to, versus strategy or tactics on how to get there? 

I'm sure there are some DLC folks who really don't want to see a rejuvenated labor movement or some other movement that would adjust the current lopsided balance of power between large corporations and workers (and communities, and the environment/future, etc...everything else). 

If so, then, if you are someone who feels strongly the other way, at least you know you have a real and pretty fundamental disagreement on where you want to go, what kind of society you are advocating and want to see, on that issue.   

But I'm sure there are some DLC folks (take that as a stand-in for people who are literally associated with the DLC as well as others who do not identify with the Democratic party's current base of activists, whether they self-identify as Democrats, independents, moderates, or even as one of the 178 remaining liberal or moderate Republicans) who either favor that or are open to that.   

Among those who favor it, if they favor a different specific decision or course of action, this may just be a difference in tactics or strategy, in which case, isn't it unnecessary and counterproductive to alienate them by casting broad aspersions on them based on what it is assumed they think and want?  How about, instead, actually talking to and listening to them, seriously exploring whether there are possibilities for working together to advance specific constructive proposals?   

In any case, these labels that are used as shorthand epithets are worse than useless--they are destructive of opportunities for what may be real, important, and necessary alliances.  They obscure more than they reveal.  What they sometimes reveal is the narrow-mindedness of the people who use them and make attributions and judgments on that basis that may or may not be accurate.    

Me2: Do you think there are simply too many progressive activists who, so to speak, only know how to score runs with home runs, or touchdowns with deep passes, if you prefer a different cliched sports analogy? 

If that is the case, doesn't that betray something of a lack of faith in future possibilities that could be fatal to efforts to grow a movement, if you believe that effective movements cannot be solely animated by grievance but must have at least some sense of possibility that a better future is possible in what may be more than a single step?  

Me1: Well, again, it will take someone smarter than me to answer those questions.  My response would be a simple one: it depends.  It depends on what decisions individual people make, because the decisions each individual makes about what they will do, including non-decisions which may be the most important decisions that are made, are what matters. 

Martin Luther King once wrote words to the effect that the reason cooperation and love are necessary is because people are interdependent upon one another.  He said this did not reflect a philosophical view he had but rather was simply a fact about the world as he saw it. 

I think he was right.    The world is radically contingent in this respect.  The future belongs to those with the spirit, the smarts, the enterprise, the commitment, to create it.  I don't feel sure of very much else. 

The individual attitudinal "trick", if that's what it is--is to find a way to suspend the fatalism, the cynicism, the disbelief anything really good could happen, if you are skeptical by disposition.  You don't need to think pie in the sky is just around the corner--you just need to suspend judgment on that, and do as many of the small actions that can help bring about those good things as you can find time and energy to.  You don't necessarily need to believe.  You just need to act, put one foot in front of the other, and suspend the disbelief and the assumption of pre-ordained futility. 

If you need intellectual backup to reinforce those feelings, read A History of Hope or some similiar book.  Other people in other times have overcome obstacles that seemed insuperable, hopeless. 

That's how we have to think about things these days--for the sake of a better world and indeed even the survival of the one we have.  We didn't get into the mess we're in overnight, and we're not going to get out of it overnight, either.     

Me2: So it sounds as though, notwithstanding the voiced desire to avoid labels, you come down with the "pragmatists" who are willing to settle for half a loaf, no?  

Me1: No, not necessarily.  It depends on the specific context.  I think there is a critical need to push for measures that will really be adequate to the problems we face.  If global warming really does "get us" 60 or 80 years from now, it won't matter a hoot what half or quarter-measures we did take. 

I say make the case directly, forcefully, unapologetically, to the public, for what is actually necessary to deal with the problems. Invite and challenge the people of our country and world, possessed of truly mind-boggling ingenuity, to give their best efforts to rise to the occasion and help us figure out how to do what we know is necessary.  Try acting as though you really mean it.   

Start there, rather than with an already-inadequate proposal.  The public might surprise you--if you make the case well.  Don't underestimate the potential power of an unequivocal affirmation of the future. 

Sometimes, even if you lose the first skirmish, you can help generate momentum towards mobilization that will lead to measures that are adequate not too far into the future.  That's been known to happen. 

If, as will happen, some people say you are radical, tell them that if the most radical thing in the world is the thing that works, then, yes, you sure are a radical.  (Actually, no, don't say that.)  Challenge them to defend their case that inaction, or measures that are transparently inadequate, are worth fighting for, or about.  Make them look like the small-minded, defeatist naysayers they are, whose views and actions do and will result in human beings and humankind being thrown to the wolves.  And then press on, head held high. 

At least you'll know inside that you didn't go down without a fight.  Something about a good conscience being the only sure reward.  

I just love how the Republicans--Cheney, of course, but plenty of others as well--are right now just full of all kinds of helpful advice to the Democrats on how to keep the country safe following the recent thwarted terrorist attack.

This, from the crowd which royally screwed up in the runup to 9/11, despite being told flat out by the departing Democratic Administration that they'd need to spend more of their time dealing with al qaeda terrorist threats than any other national security issue, and proceeding to completely ignore that advice, and despite the explicit intel warnings over the summer of 2001 the White House dismissed as CYA stuff coming from the bureaucrats.

But they are the self-acknowledged experts on how to keep us all safe. 

Rich.  The situation simply begs for creative ridicule.

 

One of my senators, Senator Jim Webb, wrote an op-ed piece on Afghanistan published Friday, December 4 in the Washington Post:

A plan in need of clarity

By Senator Jim Webb
December 4, 2009

I have great regard for the careful process the Obama administration employed in its efforts to define a new approach for the long-standing military commitment inAfghanistan and to put an operational framework in place for our responsible withdrawal. I intend, nevertheless, to continue to call on the administration to clarify to the American public and Congress how it defines success and how we reach an end point.

Since early 2009, I have said repeatedly that the U.S. strategy for Afghanistan must proceed based on four considerations: (1) the fragility of the Afghan government; (2) whether building a national army of considerable scale is achievable; (3) whether an increased U.S. military presence will ultimately have a positive effect in the country, or whether we will be seen as an occupying force; and (4) the linkage of events in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the coming weeks I intend to examine the administration's plan to see how it addresses these criteria and how it will affect our troops.

Since the president's address Tuesday, there has been much discussion of the date that the United States will begin to draw down military forces and transfer security responsibility. Just as important is a focus on creating the conditions to enable this transfer of responsibility. The administration has not defined them with sufficient clarity. Our strategy is sound only if framed with clearly defined and attainable goals, an understandable end point and a regional perspective. We must also avoid the inherent risks of allowing our success in Afghanistan to be defined by events that are largely beyond our control.

When U.S. troops entered Afghanistan in 2001, no true central government had existed in that country since 1979. The agreements reached in Bonn, Germany, in December 2001 led to a new constitution, an interim government and the national election of 2004. The agreements also gave considerable power to a central government in a country that is very disparate and historically far removed from the concept of central governance. The result today is a weak, fragile government inKabul whose power on paper is far greater than in reality. It is plagued by a lack of capacity and rampant corruption. Many observers say that power needs to be devolved to a more decentralized form of governance consistent with tribal realities to achieve the Afghan government's long-term viability.

We are ramping up deployment to about 100,000 troops, along with tens of thousands of American contractors and civilians, to implement a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. This greatly enlarged presence runs the risk, well rooted in Afghanistan's history of resisting foreign influence, that the United States will be perceived as an occupying force instead of a presence seeking to assist Afghans in improving their stability and development.

Another key question that remains to be answered is: How do we define our enemy in Afghanistan? When we talk about the Taliban, we interchange terms that aren't particularly interchangeable. Three different types of actors are associated with the Taliban. First came those in a vicious government that the United States assisted in removing. Second, there is an ideologically charged group that operates principally in Pakistan, associated with the forces of international terrorism. Third, we have a separate group, presumably growing with the greatest speed, that is viewed by many Afghans as something of a regional militia defending local interests and that doesn't particularly want to threaten U.S. interests outside Afghanistan.

I have said consistently that countering international terrorism requires highly maneuverable forces able to strike an intrinsically mobile enemy. The departure of al-Qaeda from Iraq and, in large measure, from Afghanistan demonstrates why more maneuverable U.S. forces are to be favored against mobile international terrorist movements. In each instance, al-Qaeda relocated to other areas, including Pakistan and the Horn of Africa. Our military must retain the same maneuverability.

On the personnel front, our active-duty military has been deployed repeatedly for combat operations since 2001. Guard and reserve components also have deployed at levels not envisioned when the all-volunteer force was introduced. We are in uncharted territory in terms of the long-term effects these deployments are having on the well-being of our men and women in uniform, especially the Army and Marine Corps. I introduced dwell-time legislation nearly three years ago to ensure that we achieved a better balance in deployment cycles with a minimum interval before follow-on deployments. The new commitment of some 30,000 U.S. troops will put additional strains on our forces and their families. I plan to press the administration on this point to ensure that we are more vigilant in safeguarding the welfare of our men and women in uniform.

The writer, a Democrat from Virginia who was secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he is chairman of the subcommittee on personnel.

(end)

My letter to him:

Honorable Senator Webb:   Your Washington Post op-ed on the President's preferred additional troop deployment was a strong contribution to making sure the right questions are asked and answered prior to a final decision by our government to do that.   I have perhaps an even more fundamental question.  What is the purpose of our continued presence in Afghanistan?  It is agreed that there are no more than 100 al qaeda there now, and they can, and presumably will, relocate to escape capture.    Here are other fundamental questions I hope will be asked and addressed in similar fashion:   2. (if the answer to the first question does not render it moot) What, in sketch form, is the scenario by which the US largely or entirely departs Afghanistan leaving the country in better shape than it is now?  What, in our view, would "better" mean?  What, in the view of the Karzai "government", would "better" mean?  What, in the view of various Afghan publics, would "better" mean?   3. Who, or what, are we attempting to help them protect themselves from?  Is "them": a) the Karzai government? b) the people living in Kabul and surrounds?  c) one or more Afghan publics? (and if so, which one(s)?)   Sincerely, (signed)  

 

 

(edited, from a comment bslev requested that I post as a blog)

Ok, that sounds good.

How about a large public jobs bill, focusing on (green, of course) infrastructure upgrades, to reposition our country to better compete globally going forward, as a key peg? 

I'll back up a bit.

It seems to me that our financial system, as currently structured and operating, is functioning as something of an inexorable national suicide machine, in at least two respects:

*The financial elites and their implementers now, to the extent they think about the existence or lack thereof of middle class, living wage US jobs, think of them as a cost, to be hacked away at it in the service of a better profit picture and stock values.  This is not because they are bad people.  Of course, some have engaged in illegality and other acts which have brought the Street into widespread disrepute of late.  But mainly they are doing what the system we have now is set up to have them do. 

*The financial elites have not yet, and very possibly, it appears, will not, see the need for external government, as opposed to internal only, regulation. In fact, they appear all to willing to resist such efforts, knowing the national Republican Party will exercise no independent judgment whatsoever on what is necessary but will bow in obeisance to the Street's organized power. Alas, too many of today's Democrats will compete with them to do likewise.

None of this should be particularly surprising: people doing their jobs, preferring self to external supervision and regulation, and, yes, aggrandizing power, because they can.  

While there is much anger, it is not yet being manifested in ways that are visible, focused, and likely to be effective in the service of making necessary reforms.

So it is difficult for anyone trying to see the world clearly how this ends, and where.  

Missing right now, it seems to me, is the movement, or movements.

US history is laden with amazing, against-all-odds victories for progressives against heavily entrenched power and/or societal mores. Few of them took place overnight and as a direct result of elections.

In addition to the movement, missing as well is a vision for the future that has wide buy-in throughout our society.

What we have are essentially two teams. In one corner, weighing in at the proverbial 800 pounds, is the Wall Street/financial sector team which is dedicated to producing profits and high stock values regardless of consequence to the US middle class job base, and has enormous resources and an extremely well-organized lobby at its behest.

In the other corner, weighing in at the proverbial 98 pounds, are ordinary American middle class people, entirely at this point unorganized politically (no movement), who are seeing their jobs disappear, their compensation gradually gutted, or both, and have no vision as to how and where this ends, other than in someplace bad. Thus the widespread anxiety and fear, so far unfocused into a movement for addressing it.

As for the politicians, who are supposed to be the referees, well, we have one entire political party rubbing down that guerilla, offering him advice, motivation, and encouragement.  The other political party has a few brave souls in the corner of the 98 pound weakling, looking out to the crowd, hoping, desperately hoping, that some potentially competitive opponent will jump into the ring and give them a new client.  

As the very sharp co-authors of this week's book discussion, on authoritarianism and polarization in American politics suggest, most citizens who are non-authoritarian in their world views are Democrats. We, for I am one of them, were brought up to believe in thinking for ourselves and to be skeptical towards, if not resistant to, falling in line.

Very often that serves us well, especially as individuals. But it presents inordinate barriers to organizing and building mass movements. Which is in line with your comment, bslev, opining that what many on the left are good for is mainly kvetching and lamenting. (Nathan Newman's front page cafe post, on the positive achievements so far under the Administration, is must-reading as a brave attempt at a corrective. We'll see how many recommends and comments it receives.)  There are a lot of workhorses on the left.  But I know what you are saying. 

One notable exception, the civil rights movement, which moved mountains, was led by African Americans, who, according to the data of the book discussion authors, score on the higher end of the authoritarianism measures they use. This surely facilitated the building of the movement that, well, moved things in our society.

Am I suggesting some of us opt for a personality transplant and adopt an authoritarianism disposition?  Hardly, even if that were possible.  Well I am posing as a question, I suppose, whether on our side we need more good followers. 

Garry Wills wrote a book on leadership in which he noted that there are no leaders without followers.  Effective followership in not at all passive or mindless.  Quite the contrary.  And there is no bright line between formal leadership and followership.  Followers are often leaders, essential ones at that, without whom movements simply never take off.  And leaders, good ones, know they need to follow sometimes people who are lower than them on the org chart. 

Look at any successful social/political movement and you will find great followers who are also, contrary to what the history books tell us, exceptional leaders in their own right. 

For any wondering, I am not an aspiring formal leader.  Just a progressive thinking about how our side might be more effective, wondering how the energy and the power that is there in peoples' hearts and minds might be harnessed to take on, with greater effectiveness, some of the juggernauts who see little or no need for change. 

I am certainly wrestling with these questions myself and have no simple "solutions" to offer.  I mean to invite others who have thoughts on this to offer theirs as well.

 

I have more or less reached the dismaying political conclusions that, first, a health care bill which provides tangible benefits must pass (by no means is it a given that something will pass), and second, any bill that passes is going to be an enormous disappointment to many progressive activists here and elsewhere (a given). 

The principle lesson I draw, which should hardly be surprising given the history of progressive change efforts in our country, is that this Administration and a Democratic Congress simply are not going to move forward on this issue unless and until there is a coalescing of the many progressive groups active on this issue, a mass movement with public visibility and effective spokespersons, or some combination of both.  Neither likely will or can happen soon enough to produce a health care outcome that will be broadly satisfying to activists. 

There must, in the aftermath, be resolve to come back to the table on this issue soon, within, say, a couple of years, to build on this initial effort.  We, progressive activists, are not well advised to think that the politicians we want to fight for progressive change, are likely to do that unless we are not only resolved to push them, but also find ways to improve the effectiveness of the scattered, diffuse efforts this time around.  That will not be easy.  And no one said it would be. 

With those suppositions re health care, the question becomes: what is a way forward?

My evolving view is that a major jobs bill, with a focus on infrastructure upgrades and modernization with a strong green thrust, offers the best prospects of restoring the momentum generated during the campaign and avoiding losses, or possibly even under the best scenario leading to gains, in the mid-term Congressional elections.

The Republicans surely would seek to filibuster such a bill and I say, hooray: this is the best thing that can happen for progressive prospects going forward.  Doing so will make their true values and agenda transparent in a way the health care debate, because of its complexity, cannot.  But only if it is presented to the public as being about restoring American pride and hope and laying the foundation for a thriving economy going forward. 

This will go a long way towards addressing what is the largest vulnerability at present for the White House and the Democratic Congress, which is the perception that neither has done much, if anything, to help Main Street and ordinary Americans who are suffering enormously on account of this economy.   In specific political terms, no other initiative has as much likelihood of attracting support from working-class Americans who right now are wondering what change they were asked to believe in is going to do for them.

At the same time, my impression, and it is only that, is that a lot of the financial elite at some level might acknowledge that some measures to address the jobs problem are probably an overall stabilizing force for the investment climate, the more so because they are being created in the short-term at public rather than private expense. 

I think a lot of those folks at some level also have to realize that they have, relative to what many ordinary citizens have experienced, skated and can entertain no self-pity or illusions that this Administration or Congress are out to demonize them. 

That should, and might, be the case even if, as many of us certainly hope, there will be at least some positive steps next year towards addressing the financial sector regulatory failures that contributed so much to getting us into this mess.  Again, I would anticipate that we will get a much less than adequate outcome on that issue.  And I would draw the same conclusion as stated above regarding health care--that there needs to be something that looks like a popular movement that is visible to the policymakers and saying credible things in order for there to be real movement on that issue.

OTOH, perhaps there really is no limit to the extent to which financial and economic elites, no matter how coddled by the political elites terrified of incurring their wrath, are capable of feeling sorry for themselves and channeling that wrath into what are ultimately self as well as societally destructive efforts.  And we've seen, over a period of decades now, just how destructive those efforts have been.    

One of our fellow denizens said this today or yesterday, and I agree: there has to be a way.  There is no alternative we can bear.

Happy Thanksgiving to all. 

By most of the recent polls, the Democratic nominee for Virginia's next Governor, state senator Creigh Deeds, is trailing in the polls by around 7 points to his Republican challenger, Bob McDonnell.

When I watch the TV ads for McDonnell and Republican Lt. Governor candidate Bollinger, if I did not know which party they were with, I wouldn't be able to tell. The issues they push--reducing class size, raising teacher pay, addressing the northern Virginia transportation mess, and, oh, by the way, cutting taxes (look ma! no hands!) are, with the exception of the latter, *our* issues.

Even if we weren't in a major down economy, with almost all states having to raise taxes, cut services, or both, any candidate promising to increase education and transportation and cut taxes at the same time should not pass the smell test for being someone who could be a credible steward of Virginia's finances over the next few years.

Why isn't the Deeds campaign hammering on this point?

The Washington Post *loves* politicians, at any level of government, who speak the language of fiscal responsibility. If Creigh can get this thing a little closer, he might be able to pick up the Post endorsement late and if it's close that could tip it.

Why not make the case that Deeds alone is the person who as the next governor, will be a good steward of Virginia's finances and that we've heard the cut-taxes-and-increase spending flimflam before, so shame on us if we fall for that impossible math yet again.

I'm not a campaign consultant, but I would think that if they want to go that road they should be able to put together some punchy speeches and good ads for the home stretch.

I just don't know if Deeds at this point has enough time to really develop positive initiatives on education and transportation that he can establish as clearly his to the voters.  Maybe a way to pull this thing out is to make the case that those are fraudulent promises the Republican candidates are making and hope the voters have enough common sense to see that that is the case before they enter the polling places.

I'm definitely not favorable to federal candidates running on a fiscal responsibility theme at this time--that would be terrible economics and politics, both, in my estimation. The voters know the economy is bad--maybe they need someone to prod them into asking the logical question of how any candidate in this environment can promise to increase spending in these two areas and cut taxes at the same time.

My two pennies.  Maybe not in the cards.  But Virginia voters still don't know who Deeds is or what he wants to do.  If he can project himself as a responsible guy who will protect the spending Virginians want protected most...who knows?  I don't think voters in most states, including this one, are expecting miracles these days from their Governors.  Maybe this time they'd rather not be BS'd quite so brazenly as McDonnell is doing, and getting away with.