Potpourri
A few quick hits for this Wednesday afternoon:
- The Case for Lieberman: Yes, Lieberman richly deserves to be stripped of his chairmanship. And yes, revenge is sweet. So why is Barack Obama sending signals that he is, at most, agnostic on Lieberman's future? It may be a purely tactical ploy, designed to enhance Obama's image as a forgiving, conciliatory figure, while leaving the unpleasant task of ousting Lieberman to the caucus. But as the fight drags on, there are increasingly clear signals that Obama actually wants to see Lieberman retain his chair. I can think of three reasons why that might actually make sense for the new administration. First, it's worth remembering that one of the principal complaints against Lieberman's tenure - excessive passivity and ineffectual oversight - may look like a virtue to the incoming administration. On a similar note, if Obama is responsible for Lieberman keeping his chair, it's a debt he can cash in at will. Every president dreams of having a powerful chairman under his thumb; if Lieberman acts up, Obama can count on anger in the caucus to force his ouster. Finally, there's the question of Joe's presumptive replacement, Daniel Akaka. When TIME numbered him among the five worst senators, it called him "living proof that experience does not necessarily yield expertise," and labeled him the "master of the minor resolution and the bill that dies in committee." The new administration may prefer Lieberman, for all his faults, because he actually possesses the legislative skills to shepherd bills through to passage. We've grown used to thinking of Obama as a candidate, free to take principled stands without bearing their consequences. We'd do well to start thinking him as an executive, shrewdly calculating the trade-offs that will be necessary to advance his agenda.
- Battle of the Bald: The most interesting succession fight this week is actually taking place in the legislative branch, where Henry Waxman of California is challenging John Dingell of Michigan for the gavel at House Energy and Commerce. The pair are not entirely dissimilar; both are prolific legislators and dogged investigators, and tend toward the liberal end of the caucus on most issues. There are a number of ways to frame the conflict. Some see it as a bellwether for the direction of the caucus as a whole, with Dingell standing in for the moderates, and Waxman championing those who want to use the new majority to pass an unabashedly liberal agenda. Others see simple frustration on the part of Waxman, who despite serving for 34 years remains stuck in the second slot behind Dingell, an 81-year-old whom he hoped would retire, but instead seems poised to break the congressional longevity record at 54 years. But whatever its other dynamics, the big battle here is over the future of the American automobile industry. Dingell has been Detroit's staunchest advocate, fending off decades of efforts to tighten efficiency standards and impose regulation. Waxman, the leading congressional advocate of cap-and-trade, lays Detroit's present struggles at Dingell's feet, arguing that his protectionism encouraged the industry continue down the dead-end path of building gas-guzzling behemoths. If you're looking for a new cause now that the election is over, give your member a call, and let her know which side you think she should take.
- All The News They Wish Would Be Printed: Kudos to the Yes Men, for pulling off the cleverest prank of the cycle by publishing and distributing a fantasy edition of The New York Times, complete with its own website. The jokes are a little heavy-handed, and some of the policies a little too far left for my taste, but I have to applaud the shear audacity and imagination of the prank. Who knows? Perhaps some stories will prove prophetic.
- City Slickers: The wonk in me loves the fact that Obama is making good on his promise to create an Office of Urban Policy. Sure, it's partly about rewarding and caring for his electoral base. But it also stands to rectify a long-running disparity in the way that government resources are allocated and coordinated. At its inception in 1965, HUD (that's Housing and Urban Development) was intended to fill this role. But that was during the heyday of urban renewal, and the agency has since abandoned the second half of its mission to focus on housing. Putting in place a new coordinator, with an office in the West Wing or EEOB, will be a major statement. More than that, it signals the rebirth of a real partnership between federal and municipal officials. And who will be the first White House Director of Urban Policy? Let the baseless speculation begin.
- Changement? Änderung? Cambiamento? There's a fascinating discussion, in today's Times, of European reaction to Obama's election:
In the general European euphoria over the election of Barack Obama, there is the beginning of self-reflection about Europe's own troubles with racial integration. Many are asking if there could be a French, British, German or Italian Obama, and everyone knows the answer is no, not anytime soon.
The most interesting part of the debate, to my mind, is the divide over how minorities can best achieve equality. In France, the debate is particularly fierce. The conservative French establishment finds in Obama's triumph evidence that integration and embrace of a national (and not particular) identity can be a path to success for immigrants and their offspring. As Le Figaro put it: "Obama should be the model to follow for young immigrants who have come to doubt their feeling of belonging to the nation. Minorities, who have chosen their exile, in contrast to black Americans, still have a lot to prove." The left vehemently disagrees on where to place the blame, faulting instead the establishments reification of difference, which "locked [non-whites] inside identities of resentment." But both sides agree that difference is debilitating. There were reams devoted to this question after the riots in 2005. One intriguingly contrary story pointed out how calm Marseille remained amidst the violence, crediting Marseille Espérance, an assembly of leaders of the city's various ethnic blocs, with maintaining order. So what's the better path toward ending discrimination - ignoring differences and urging assimilation, or reifying them and maintaining an uneasy truce through dialogue and compromise? Perhaps Obama's ascension suggests a more complicated narrative. He himself credits the assertive Civil Rights movement with securing opportunity, but then eschewed its rhetoric in his own run for office. That suggests minorities must first be politically empowered, and only then, from a position of strength and security, will they feel comfortable taking their place as equal citizens. It's the classic American model - forging a national identity that uses group identities as its constituent elements - as opposed to the French model - which urges the rejection of the particular in favor of the universal. We've been having this debate with the French for centuries, and until recently, they looked to be on the winning side. It will be fascinating to see what Obama's triumph means for Europe.
If you've enjoyed this, please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend' link. You can find more analysis on my blog, or subscribe by clicking 'Follow Me' on the right. As always, I welcome your comments and corrections, and thank you for your feedback.
Advertisement
I don't accept that consequences for actions=revenge. Revenge does not have to enter into it. He should not retain his chairmanship after his demonstration of poor judgment, immaturity, and poor character. When someone punches me in the face I am not going to give them another chance to punch me in the face. I am certainly not going to invite them to take a leadership roll in our congress especially after he then acts incredibly immature and tries to manipulate by threatening to go 'caucus with the republicans' out of spite. No Joe should not be a committee chair. I am not talking about revenge. I am talking about a man who has demonstrated a lack of skills and very poor judgement. We deserve the best leadership in the senate. Joe needs to rebuild trust and demonstrate some skill before he is given authority again.
November 12, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That he deserves to be stripped of the chair, and that stripping him of it would constitute revenge, were intended as two separate rationales. But be that as it may, I'm afraid we're talking past each other. You're explaining why, from the standpoint of our national welfare, it doesn't make sense to have Lieberman in a position of authority. My post was intended to explain something else entirely: why, despite arguments like the one you advance, Obama is evidently supportive of Lieberman's retaining his chair.
I can't say for certain why Obama's been sending the signals he has. But the debate and speculation, here and elsewhere, has thus far focused on whether or not Lieberman deserves to keep his seat, and what sort of a message his removal might send. And I'm suggesting that while that discussion may be interesting, it probably has little bearing on the eventual outcome. What will matter is the collision of interests. And at the moment he was elected, Obama's interests changed. He now has every incentive to maximize his congressional leverage, and very little reason to seek to strengthen congressional oversight. To me, that adds up to leaving Lieberman where he is. But I'm open to readers explaining to me why Obama's practical interests might lie elsewhere.
November 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steven Benen has one practical idea of why Obama and the Dems might want to can Lieberman now:
"I wonder what happens if, in six months, Lieberman starts launching partisan witch hunts against the Obama White House, and Senate Dems decide it's time to take Lieberman's gavel away. How's that going to look? An independent senator starts asking pesky questions of a Democratic president and White House allies decide to sack the one doing the asking?"
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_11/015645.php
Personally, I would LIKE a Democratic Senator asking pesky questions of an Obama WH...but not Lieberman. Though I take your point about Akaka not being a great second choice here, something I hadn't thought about.
November 13, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be more concerned if Lieberman had ever shown the inclination to pursue any measure of serious oversight in the past. He is driven by the conviction that Islamic terror poses an existential threat to the security of the United States. So far, all the White House has had to do is wave its arms and invoke national security, and he's been deferential to the point of being obsequious. I don't think that's likely to change.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the chairman requires the support of his committee to act. Reid is already hinting that he intends to chop GOP seats off of several committees, now that the Democrats control a clear majority. At the moment, Homeland Security has a narrow one-seat Democratic edge. If they leave Lieberman in place, I think it's all-but-certain that the caucus will increase that edge to two or three seats. That removes Lieberman as a potential swing vote, and will force him to build broader support for his actions.
Not, as you point out, that any of this should be reassuring to us as American citizens. On the contrary, it's somewhat disquieting to think of the man chairing this crucial committee, continuing to abnegate his responsibility to oversee and review the activities of one of our fastest-growing, least-transparent, and most-inefficient bureaucracies. But from the point of view of the incoming administration, it's another story. I'm sure that the Obama camp would rather reform Homeland Security on their own, and obtain the usual rubber stamp from Joe, than be forced to negotiate with the Senate in a meaningful fashion. That, at any rate, is how I see it.
November 13, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman - Obama is the executive and he certainly knows the constitutional roles. The Senators apparently were attempting to involve Obama in their decision about Joe. This is the same damned attitude the Senators had about the Iraq war vote--kick the matter to the prez. Obama just kicked the can back--and good for him!
Dingell needs to be removed from that chairbecause he is out of touch; took or blocked acton to rectify the autos' insistence on making gas-guzzlers; and simply does not fit autos into an overall energy policy and methods to ensure the continued existence of our own damned species. Failure to look out for the common good does not need to be rewarded with this sort of critical char.
I viewed Urban Policy as a way to prevent urban sprawl which is contrary to a good energy policy as well as the policies need to ensure our continued existence. Density matters. Being close to transportation hubs will matter. The American flirtation with the semi-rural life will become increasingly expensive. This feels more like the 21st century interpretation of this type of office instead of the 20th century version of tearing down whole blocks of construction.
My two cents and my recommendation.
November 12, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this post, FOTW. To walk your comments on "changement" back to this soil, let's consider the effect of revelations of racism as a global problem from the side of the US racist. Yet untraced in this many-sided unfolding of the Obama Presidency is the reaction to foreign racism in the portion of the American electorate that would not vote for him because of race. If US citizens can be said to have an emotional bond to the person who symbolizes the presidency perhaps racism toward that symbol might produce counter arguement based on some patriotic impulse. Wouldn't seeing toad-like Berlusconi's jokes about the race of the US President not rile even Limbaugh to the defense of the office, if not the person? My sense is that the necessity of seeing US superiority might produce some kind of response among these people even where moral outrage cannot be produced. At the least the left may consider waging the argument that not reacting to racism directed at the US president weakens the office that the right in particular holds so dear. I would wage that argument in hopes that even this small crack in the foundation of the American racist mind-set might begin to grow.
November 12, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an interesting point. The thinly-veiled racist cant in which much of the right wing indulged during the campaign will have a very different resonance when spoken with a foreign accent. Ironic, isn't it, that the great foe of racism may prove to be xenophobia?
November 12, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always thought that comparisons between race relations in Europe and the U.S. were between apples and oranges for two reasons:
1) The U.S. has much higher percentages of minorities and immigrants. The U.S. is about 35% non-white, including Hispanics. It's hard to find reliable numbers from France, since they don't count that sort of thing, but it seems to be under 10%. 8% in England. 3% in Germany.
2) The U.S. has a much longer history of large minority populations. Most of Europe's immigrants are post-colonial.
With some exceptions, notably Japan, modern racially homogeneous countries are usually tolerant of minorities. It is only when minorities grow in size and influence that intolerance increases. The increasing xenophobia of many European nations corresponds to increases in immigration from non-Europeans. In addition, increasing protests and activism by minorities also corresponds to larger minority populations exerting political power.
The experience of African minorities in France is mirrored by those of Turks in Germany and East Asians in the UK, despite cultural and political variations, suggesting that neither government policy nor forms of political activism have caused the changes in race relations but rather demographics. Thus, I suggest that in a modern open democracy, the struggle for (and against) political empowerment is natural consequence of population growth among minorities. Europe will run this gauntlet with or without Martin Luther Kings and Barack Obamas. Or rather, the demographic changes will create first Kings and then Obamas.
November 12, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS If you've enjoyed this comment, you can find more analysis on my blog, or subscribe by clicking 'Follow Me' on the right.
;)
November 13, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another fundamental difference is that in the US, racism began in the most brutal of forms, that of slavery, and was then followed by stringent segregation, the US's own brand of apartheid. On the other hand, in Western Europe racism has always been subtle and in many ways easier to deny or dismiss by the majorities. There was never any form of institutionalized segregation of housing, schools, or public bathrooms nor was there institutionalized anti-miscegenation. African Americans who visited Europe found themselves enjoying society with whites in a way unfathomable in the US, as any reader of James Baldwin would readily realize.
It was this big difference which has allowed Europeans to claim that their societies are not racist and to hurl criticism at the still somewhat segregated United States even as flows of immigrants from around the world entered Europe, changing the demographic landscape, and generating racial frictions as these populations grew.
Now Europeans find themselves having ethnic ghettos filled with minorities who are not readily accepted into their mainstream economic institutions, but until last week they still felt they had the moral authority to deem themselves and their societies as less racist. With President-elect Obama, this has become a significantly less credible bragging point.
November 13, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Lincoln was elected, he did not think the secessionists were going to actually pull it off. He figured enough cool heads in the slave states would take him at his pledged word not to interfere with slavery where it already existed.
Lincoln miscalculated. The secessionists were not bluffing, and even though they didn't start with a majority of support in most of the confederate states, they put into action a plan that had been festering for many years; and carried the day across the cotton states. They had the active collusion and support of numerous Senators and federal officeholders.
Obama is in for a rude surprise. He was successful in state politics in working with Republicans. But the national situation is radically different.
As a US Senator, he spent almost his whole time so far running for President. He doesn't realize that there will be no cooperation from the Thugs except on their own terms. We know Sen. Obama has read Doris Goodwin's book about Lincoln's cabinet, "Team of Rivals." He thinks that's the model he can use. But he miscalculates if he thinks Lieberman can be domesticated. Lieberman is one of the traitors, like Breckinridge in 1860. There will be NO collecting debts from Joe---Obama will have to learn the hard way. Better Barack should listen to his true friends than to get hoist on his own bipartisan rhetoric . . .
It will be a discouraging spectacle to see the Thugs even as a minority and without the Executive in their hands, STILL bitch-slap Reid and the Congressional Democratic leadership. We really need a rank-and-file revolt against all those fossils and fools and feckless empty suited wimps.
Too bad 207 more Minnesotans didn't vote for Franken. That was one race where the smear tactics and character assassination campaign by the Thugs DID work . . . a national tragedy.
November 13, 2008 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink