Month: November 2008

Self Interest

by digby

Reader Bill sent me an email this morning that set me to thinking about something very fundamental:

I got up early and caught some of the discussion with Lawrence O’donnell, Chrystia Freedland, and Joe Scar as to why people who make tons of money still voted for Obama.

Well, for most people, their lives are not governed by the tax code. It ignores a world view of a social compact, and a certain amount of self interest too.
Fairness, tolerance, decency are part of the human deal too.

Philosophers and political theorists have argued about this forever, so I obviously don’t have any fresh insights. But I do feel that I understand this phenomenon. People who have money are like everyone else in that they come in all sizes and political persuasions. But they often have the luxury of looking beyond their immediate personal needs to the bigger picture and I think many of them realize that their comfortable life depends upon maintaining a stable society where there isn’t horrible poverty, where the infrastructure is modern and working, where crime isn’t rampant and where their kids can breath clean air. These are things they cannot pay for as individuals and are willing to kick in in order to insure that the nice life they have, and their children will likely have, continues.

If they are entirely rational in their thinking, they can even sit down and run a spreadsheet which gives them a cost benefit analysis of those broad social expenses and they’ll realize that they come out far ahead. The more instinctive among them just know that they don’t want to live in place that isn’t fair, tolerant and decent and they are willing to pay a share of their comfortable incomes to make that more likely.

I’ve always thought this pseudo-libertarian “self-interest” argument was a crock for anyone but the most pie-in-the-sky Randian. It’s in your “self-interest” to live in a well functioning society — and that requires an organizing principle and community action like government to achieve. The only argument against taxation that really makes any sense is the one that says government is somehow intrinsically incapable of doing anything right. In a country that was founded on democracy, there’s something about that which doesn’t scan very well — after all, we are the ones who choose the government. It’s an indictment of the people themselves.

The only way you can persuade a majority to ignore their collective interest in ensuring a decent community is to stroke their tribal lizard brains into believing that their money is going to help an “enemy” rather than their own. That’s why it has worked so well in racist societies.

For those government helps directly, whether it’s through educational opportunities or unemployment insurance or health care for their kids and elderly parents, the benefits are obvious. But there’s nothing unusual about financially comfortable people also being willing to pay for a decent society in which to live and work and bring up their kids. The unnatural ones are those who think they can live a good life without contributing to such things. Apparently, they think they can live inside a castle and pull up the drawbridge behind them, leaving all the ugliness outside. And that is the perfect, time tested recipe for revolution. It’s not exactly the smart move for the long haul.

.

Quote Of The Day

by tristero

Jane:

With 4.5 million members, MoveOn is now bigger than they NRA. Maybe our leaders should think about that for a while.

So should MoveOn. This is the time to move onwards with a progressive agenda. And fast.

Dropping The Anchor

by digby

Good God, I hope this is just rhetorical bullshit.

Democratic leaders are tamping down on expectations for rapid change and trying to signal they will place a calm hand on the nation’s tiller.

“The country must be governed from the middle,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday. Repeating themes from election night, she said she plans to emphasize “civility” and “fiscal responsibility.”

After saying the word “change” at least 175,000 times in the last year, the Democrats had better not start sounding too much like Republican grandpas or millions of people who voted for them might get the feeling they’ve just been taken for a bunch of chumps. I get that they are trying to calm the village and keep the restive Republicans from staging a hissy fit right out of the gate. And delivering on all this massive change was never going to be easy.

But they had better keep in mind that they were elected by a lot of new voters and liberals too and they are going to need very high levels of support for a sustained period of time to get anything done. I don’t expect them to cater to the base like Rove did, but they’d better not take it too much for granted either. We’ve seen what happened after 2006, when they raised expectations that they would fight Bush hard on the war. Their approval ratings ended up worse than Bush’s because they were loathed not only by the right wing (who will loathe them no matter what they do) but by their own base as well. They simply can’t afford to let that happen again.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with co-opting conservative rhetoric for their own use, but the other side is very good at making them wish they’d never made promises they had no intention of keeping. (It’s what they are really good at.) I just don’t think the Dems are clever enough to play sophisticated rhetorical games and not end up hanging themselves with their own words. They should just say what they are going to do as forthrightly as possible.

Of course, that might be exactly what they are doing.

.

The Outsider

by digby

Everybody’s chattering about Obama picking Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff. What does it all mean? I don’t have the faintest idea. Rahm is a political enforcer, so maybe that’s good news. It all depends on who he’s bringing the hammer down on, I suppose. We’ll have to wait and see.

I found this to be the most amusing bit of spin I’ve heard about the whole thing though:

When Emanuel led the Democrats’ efforts to take back the House in 2006, Axelrod was his chief political adviser. And, in the Obama campaign, Emanuel returned the favor. Although Axelrod tended to take a dim view of advice that was offered by Democrats dialing from a 202 area code, Emanuel’s counsel was always welcomed. “There are two branches of Washington,” one Obama adviser told me. “There’s official Washington and the pundits and the people who have spent a lifetime there and who have done things the old way. And then there are other people, like Rahm who aren’t purveyors of conventional wisdom. We don’t even consider Rahm a Washington guy.”

Okay…

“This beautiful capital,” President Clinton said in his first inaugural address, “is often a place of intrigue and calculation. Powerful people maneuver for position and worry endlessly about who is in and who is out, who is up and who is down, forgetting those people whose toil and sweat sends us here and pays our way.” With that, the new president sent a clear challenge to an already suspicious Washington Establishment.

And now, five years later, here was Clinton’s trusted adviser Rahm Emanuel, finishing up a speech at a fund-raiser to fight spina bifida before a gathering that could only be described as Establishment Washington.

“There are a lot of people in America who look at what we do here in Washington with nothing but cynicism,” said Emanuel. “Heck, there are a lot of people in Washington who look at us with nothing but cynicism.” But, he went on, “there are good people here. Decent people on both sides of the political aisle and on both sides of the reporter’s notebook.”

Emanuel, unlike the president, had become part of the Washington Establishment. “This is one of those extraordinary moments,” he said at the fund-raiser, “when we come together as a community here in Washington — setting aside personal, political and professional differences.”

.

Nail Biter

by digby

The latest on Darcy Burner:

Darcy is currently down by around 1400 votes, around 1%, with what looks like about a third of the vote counted. It’s impossible to tell what’s going to happen because the uncounted and counted votes are in clumps with distinct partisan leanings. That is, the counted votes are not representative of what the uncounted votes will look like. David Goldstein has the summary of what’s going on.

You can also mail in ballots in Washington until election day so we might not know this one for some days yet — and apparently there may still be a runoff recount. Keep your fingers crossed.

.

Fixed

by digby

The villagers are whipping themselves into a frenzy over the prospect that Obama might not be as bipartisan as they insist he must be, but they needn’t fear. The Republicans will be putty in his hands.

After all:

Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Democrats. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don’t go around peeing on the furniture and such.

.

The Resurrection

by dday

I couldn’t agree more with John Aravosis:

After eight years of having Republicans call me an un-American troop-hating fag-loving socialist, after months of John McCain embracing the hate to a level where his own supporters were calling out for Barack Obama to be assassinated, no one is going to be permitted to tell me with a straight face that “oh you know, both sides do it.”

Your side was abominable. Your side was hateful. Your side race-baited. Your side gay-baited. Your side lied like we’ve never seen in recent presidential campaign history. Your side used a tax-cheat who would do better under Obama’s tax proposal to be your everyman on the issue of taxes. Your side, in a veiled effort at race-baiting, said Obama doesn’t put his country first. Your side had the audacity to call Obama a socialist. Your side suggested he was a Muslim. Your side suggested he was a terrorist. Your side suggested he was Osama bin Laden.

Spare me the crap about how both sides do it. You people are a disgrace, you’ve been a disgrace for eight long years, and all your hate and lying and venom and vitriol finally bit you in your collective fat ass.

The effort to raise John McCain’s reputation from the dead has already begun. He’ll give a TV appearance where he’ll rend his garments and bat his eyes and talk about how sorrowful he was to see what his campaign perpetrated. And everyone in the Village will try to fall in line. It’s as predictable as the conservatives who will immediately blame President Obama for not fixing the economy come January 22nd (they’ll give him a one-day honeymoon).

Enough. You show your true character when put under the spotlight. John McCain showed his, and proved himself winning to go to any lengths to extend the glory to which he feels entitled. I’m not particularly interested in letting bygones be bygones. The Democratic nominee got multiple threats on his life as the anger of McCain-Palin rallies reached a fever pitch.

McCain will have to live with himself. And anyone that tries to throw him a lifeline will hear from me, at least.

Always And Forever

by digby

…it’s good news for Republicans:

They lost the presidency, at least five seats in the Senate, and around 20 seats in the House. They are officially out of power. But considering how bad the damage might have been, the GOP actually had the best night they could realistically hope for under the circumstances. Looking back at our races to watch, just about all the conservative Republicans in traditionally red territory held seats needed by the GOP to avoid a blowout: Senators Roger Wicker in Mississippi, Mitch McConnell in Kentucky and, probably, Saxby Chambliss in Georgia, along with House members John Shadegg in Arizona, Cynthia Lummis in Wyoming and the Diaz-Balart brothers in Florida. It looks like graft-convicted Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska will somehow retain his seat long enough to get expelled, and his ethically and temperamentally challenged porkmate, Don Young, was reelected as well; Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota survived her McCarthyite rant on Hardball, and Ohio’s similarly obnoxious Jean Schmidt once again avoided a well-deserved early retirement. Republicans even ousted four first-term Democrats before they could get entrenched in deep-red districts — not only the clearly doomed Casanova Tim Mahoney of Florida, but Nancy Boyda of Kansas, Dan Cazayoux of Louisiana and Nick Lampson of Texas. Democrats did knock off a few fire-breathing right-wing targets: wacky Bill Sali of Idaho, who protested a minimum-wage hike by introducing a bill to repeal the law of gravity; Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, who once declared gay marriage the greatest threat to America; Tom Feeney of Florida, an escapee from the Abramoff scandal; and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, who ran ads calling her Christian opponent “godless.” They also defeated some impressive Republicans who could have helped lead the party out of the wilderness, like moderate Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut, conservative Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, and pragmatic Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, who had hoped to swim upstream into the governor’s office. Still, it could have been worse. After eight ugly years of AIG, WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Enron, Blackwater, freedom fries, yellowcake, record deficits, Fannie and Freddie and Brownie, Mark Foley and Duke Cunningham and Tom DeLay, the Republican Party should qualify for a bailout. Retiring GOP Congressman Tom Davis memorably declared that if Republicans were a dog food, they’d be pulled off the shelves — and their usually well-funded candidates were badly outspent this cycle. But they’ve survived to fight for more kibbles in the future.

Yes, all in all it wasn’t a bad night at all for the Republicans. Unless you believe that repudiation of their party by a majority of the country is bad, of course.

And, needless to say, none of this means that Obama can actually try to enact his agenda. That would be ridiculous without a landslide 50 state victory, a filibuster proof Senate and a veto proof majority (not that he’d need one) in the House, right?

Well, it all depends on if you are a Republican or a Democrat. Republicans eke out victories and get mandates:

Wolf Blitzer, CNN anchor: “My sense is that the president will see this as a mandate on his policies, because the Republicans also did very well in the House of Representatives, did very well in the U.S. Senate, picking up seats in both. He gets over 50 percent, 51 percent. And he’s going to see this as a mandate in the next four years to try and move the country in the direction he wants it to move. He will try to bring the country together in the short term, but he’s going to say, he’s got a mandate from the American people, and by all accounts he does.” [CNN election coverage, 11/3/04]

Democrats win big and need to resist the impulse to overreach.

[T]he experience of President Bill Clinton‘s rocky early months — remember gays in the military? the BTU tax? — suggests the steep political price of governing in a way that is, or seems, skewed to the left. This risk is particularly acute for Obama, whose opponents have painted him as a leftist extremist. The good news is that his advisers seem exquisitely aware of this trap and determined not to fall into it. There are other reasons to be optimistic that Democrats can resist overreaching. For the current congressional leadership, the memory of losing control in 1994 still sears; when Clinton took office, it seemed unimaginable that Democrats would ever lose the House. Now, the enlarged contingent of Blue Dogs and other conservative Democrats applies additional countervailing force.

Thank God for that. The last thing the American people gave Obama, with huge majorities in both houses and a large electoral vote win, is permission to enact his kooky, left wing agenda.

The good news is that the villagers seem to think it’s ok to pass SCHIP and Ledbetter so that’s something. He’s going to have to get their permission if he wants to do anything more “radical” than that. After all, it’s not like he has a mandate.

.

Bittersweet

by digby

As thrilled as I am that the country has begun to shake off the curse of the GOP, this still hurts:

Voters put a stop to same-sex marriage in California, dealing a crushing defeat to gay-rights activists in a state they hoped would be a vanguard, and putting in doubt as many as 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted since a court ruling made them legal this year.The gay-rights movement had a rough election elsewhere as well Tuesday. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents. Supporters made clear that gays and lesbians were their main target.

And naturally, the first words out of many of the gasbags’ mouths were that this means the country is still “center-right” and that there is no mandate for progressive change. Last night Doug Schoen was all over Fox saying the “ballot measures prove it.”

Honestly, I’m wrung out and I don’t even care about that at the moment. The political implications are what the spinners will make of it. But these hateful propositions winning makes the victory bittersweet. How people can vote for the first African American president in American history, with all that implies, while simultaneously voting to discriminate against gays is testament to the incoherence of American politics and the lack of clear cut philosophy guiding people’s choices. Everyone says there’s too much ideology in our politics but I’d say there isn’t enough. There isn’t enough common sense either. Discrimination against others just because you don’t like how they live their lives is against the very essence of the two pillars of America — liberty and equality. To fail to see that even as you vote for an historic, important first African American is incoherent.

I keep hearing about how this will right itself in the long run, that it’s just a matter of waiting until this new generation gets old enough and then gay rights will magically be “granted.” I hope that’s true. But to paraphrase a saying that’s been overused lately — in the long run all of today’s gay partners and gay parents will be dead. These soothing tones of “patience” and “don’t worry” don’t mean much when you consider that you only have one life to live.

It’s terrific that we are seeing a decline in racism to the extent that we are able to elect a black president. We’ve come a long way and there’s no taking anything away from those who waged the struggle over all these centuries. But our society is not truly changed if it’s still writing discrimination into law.

It’s as if we just can’t be America unless we are taking active steps to marginalize somebody.

.

First And Second Chances

by digby

There are many things to be said about Obama’s victory and people much more erudite and talented than I will be writing about all of it over the next few days. For me, there are twp things that are important and deserve at least a passing mention this morning after.

The first, of course, is what I referenced below. The election of the first African American president is inspiring for all the obvious reasons. I was never one who believed that we wouldn’t ever elect a black president. But I assumed that he would have to be a conservative Republican in order to win — a sort of Nixon/China deal. It is a sign of something very, very promising that this country elected a black Democrat.

The other thing is this:

“Your election raises great hopes in France, Europe and the rest of the world,” French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in a letter to the president-elect. “I have just sent my warmest congratulations to Sen. Obama,” said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown from his office at 10 Downing Street, before pointing to his country’s “special relationship” with America. “I have talked to Sen. Obama on many occasions and I know that he is a true friend of Britain.”

Newspapers around the world seemed upbeat, and the most positive press in Britain appeared to come from the two papers owned by News Corp. (nyse: NWS – news – people ) owner Rupert Murdoch. “One Giant Leap For Mankind,” proclaimed The Sun, a right-wing tabloid that is widely read in Britain, while The Times of London had a picture of Obama with the headline “The New World.”

“Historic” seemed to be the buzzword of the day, used in the headlines for the South China Morning Post, the Times of India and El Mundo of Spain. Many papers like Le Monde of France and Spain’s El Pais also referred to a fulfillment of the “American Dream.”

An article in Indian newspaper The Hindu suggested that Obama’s election could help resolve the separatist issue in Kashmir, while Pierre Avril, a blogger for France’s Figaro newspaper, said that Brussels would now want to “forget the Bush years.”

Abdul Rahman, a reporter for the Iraqi satellite TV channel Al Sharqiya, told Forbes.com that there were two different reactions to Obama’s win in Iraq. “Those who are against the political process are optimistic,” while others are more concerned about future political changes. “The rumor is that Obama will change the whole political process.”

Obama had said in his speech that “to those who would tear this world down–we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security–we support you.”

One of the most frustrating missed opportunities of the last eight years was rejecting the outpouring of support from around the world after 9/11 and failing to create a new regime of cooperation and common purpose in the age of globalization.

It looks like America might just be given another chance. Let’s hope we get it right this time.

.