Month: April 2014

The most important skill necessary for success in our “meritocracy”? Brown-nosing the new aristocrats.

by digby

I have taken to telling people that if they want to make a decent living they will need to find a job that serves the rich. It’s the smart move in a society such as ours. That’s where the money is. And it appears that one needs to apply this principle to all issues in our society. Even the government is getting into the act:

On a crisp morning in late March, an elite group of 100 young philanthropists and heirs to billionaire family fortunes filed into a cozy auditorium at the White House.

Their name tags read like a catalog of the country’s wealthiest and most influential clans: Rockefeller, Pritzker, Marriott. They were there for a discreet, invitation-only summit hosted by the Obama administration to find common ground between the public sector and the so-called next-generation philanthropists, many of whom stand to inherit billions in private wealth.

“Moon shots!” one administration official said, kicking off the day on an inspirational note to embrace the White House as a partner and catalyst for putting their personal idealism into practice.

The well-heeled group seemed receptive. “I think it’s fantastic,” said Patrick Gage, a 19-year-old heir to the multibillion-dollar Carlson hotel and hospitality fortune. “I’ve never seen anything like this before.” Mr. Gage, physically boyish with naturally swooping Bieber bangs, wore a conservative pinstripe suit and a white oxford shirt. His family’s Carlson company, which owns Radisson hotels, Country Inns and Suites, T.G.I. Friday’s and other brands, is an industry leader in enforcing measures to combat trafficking and involuntary prostitution.

A freshman at Georgetown University, Mr. Gage was among the presenters at a breakout session, titled “Combating Human Trafficking,” that attracted a notable group of his peers. “The person two seats away from me was a Marriott,“ he said. “And when I told her about trafficking, right away she was like, ‘Uh, yeah, I want to do that.’ ”

Justin McAuliffe, a 24-year-old heir to the Hilton hotel fortune, was similarly impressed by the crowd. “Hilton, Marriott and Carlson,” he said. “That is cool.”

The daylong conference was organized by Thomas Kalil, a deputy director for technology and innovation in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, with the help of Nexus, a youth organization based in Washington that seeks to “catalyze” the next generation of billionaire philanthropists and other stakeholders.

Mr. Kalil moved nimbly among the affluent participants and through the ornate halls of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where the summit was held. “A lot of this is not just, you know, collaborations between the administration and philanthropists,” he said, “but philanthropists finding each other, finding other philanthropists with shared interests.”

(Disclosure: Although the event was closed to the media, I was invited by the founders of Nexus, Jonah Wittkamper and Rachel Cohen Gerrol, to report on the conference as a member of the family that started the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical company.)

As in the old days of feudalism, if one wants to do something for the people one must petition the King or whomever the local noble might be to seek the funds to make it happen. It’s an interesting American twist that we have the government facilitating the nobility’s philanthropic hobbies, but it all adds up to the same thing.

Whenever I read something like this I like to reprise this piece from a decade ago by Phil Agre. It seemed a little bit extreme to some people at the time. I’d guess fewer people think that today:

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use “social issues” as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats.

More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy.

In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children…

It’s very nice that many of these young idealistic aristocrats want to do good deeds. But this is really nothing more than good old fashioned noblesse oblige which basically leaves the betterment of man to the whims of rich people. One of the big improvements democracy was supposed to bring was that the people themselves decided how to organize society rather than depending on the kindness of aristocrats. Even great philanthropists of the gilded age like Andrew Carnegie believed in a huge confiscatory tax of great estates in order that the government of the people might make the decisions rather than the heirs of great fortunes.

But we’re going the wrong way again. So if you have a good idea or want to help people or just need a job — figure out which of the wealthy young scions of the new aristocracy might be amenable to your needs and figure out a way to kiss their asses in exactly the way they like them kissed. That’s the major skill we’re all going to need in our so-called  “meritocracy”.

Update: More from Kathy Geier and Harold Pollack.

What’s the matter with Topeka?  They haven’t learned a damned thing in 60 years.


by digby

A school district in Topeka Kansas invited Michelle Obama to speak at a high school graduation. And all hell broke loose:

A furor over what the Topeka school district considers an honor has erupted after plans were announced for Obama to address a combined graduation ceremony for five area high schools next month an 8,000-seat arena. For some, it was the prospect of a tight limit on the number of seats allotted to each graduate. For others, it was the notion that Obama’s speech, tied to the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education outlawing segregation in schools, would overshadow the student’s big day.

Well, they aren’t lining up in front of the courthouse to block her entrance so I suppose they’ve evolved. I think we know what’s really going on here don’t we? Yes, the people they interviewed said they were all very upset because it took the spotlight off the kids. And that might even make sense if having guest speakers at graduations wasn’t something you see all over the nation every single year. Yes, this is a high school rather than a university, but it’s hardly unprecedented either. In fact, Michelle Obama spoke at this High School graduation a couple of years ago. Here’s the Notre Dame basketball coach addressing a high school commencement. Here’s Rudy Giuliani at a high school graduation.  Here’s President Obama at one. Here’s Ben Affleck. It happens all the time. And the students and parents are thrilled.

No, these people just don’t want this commencement speaker, the first African American first lady, coming there to mark the 60th anniversary of the landmark supreme court decision overturning segregation in the public schools. You’d think they’d be thrilled to be a part of such a momentous occasion and would remember it forever. Instead, they’re looking for reasons not to do it.

Mother (Nettie Hunt) and daughter (Nickie) sit on steps of the Supreme Court building on May 18, 1954, the day following the Court’s historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Nettie is holding a newspaper with the headline “High Court Bans Segregation in Public Schools.”

And yes, the schools are no longer segregated by law. But 60 years later, the people of Topeka still can’t bring themselves to acknowledge their role in that landmark legal finding  — and they’re teaching their kids to ignore what happened. (Well, that’s the most generous way of looking at it …)  What a missed opportunity for a beautiful moment of recognition and reconciliation.

Jesus H Christ — how long can they keep this up?

.

The longer we wait to act on climate change, the more it will cost

by David Atkins

Naked self-interest is by far the biggest reason for failure to act on climate change. Most major corporations don’t want any short-term reductions to their bottom lines, and nation-states don’t want to disrupt their political networks and take on major green energy programs.

In light of all that, the IPCC’s recent report makes clear that failure to act today is already having costly consequences, and will be very bad for everyone’s self-interest tomorrow:

The latest report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the effects of a warming world are not in the far-off future, but are happening right now.

And they’re taking a toll on humans as well as natural systems. Rain and snow patterns are changing. Glaciers are melting. Water supplies appear to be shrinking, and animals on land and in the oceans are shifting their ranges.
“There’s clear evidence of climate impacts today,” said Michael Prather, a UC Irvine climate researcher and lead chapter author for the U.N. panel. “Some are really obvious, some are more subtle. The issue is what the future looks like.”
Climate change appears to be reducing crop yields in some places, and extreme weather – droughts, floods, cyclones – is exposing humanity to disruptions in food production and perhaps even increased illness or death.
While some effects of climate change may be irreversible, the report has a modest silver lining: People are beginning to adapt to the changes, with governments in many places, including North America, factoring climate change into long-range planning.

But the risks to people and nature are high, especially at the higher end of estimates of potential warming in the decades to come.

The one silver lining to rule by oligarchic elites is supposed to be the ability to turn policy on a dime and to enact long-term solutions. We’re not even getting the “trains running on time” out of the bargain. The top tenth of one percent are simply living in as high a style as possible and letting the world burn in the process.

.

Little intruder

by digby

From the WSJ:

There’s a new guest at the White House. Unlike most people who pass through the presidential residence, he wasn’t invited. But in cutthroat Washington fashion, he saw weakness and took advantage. Now he rests and plays uninhibited at the seat of power.

He also has pointy ears and a bushy tail.

The little red fox, who hasn’t been named, turned up on the White House grounds in the weeks before the government shutdown in October. After many White House groundskeepers were furloughed, the fox settled in. Months later, the furry little conundrum has left officials who sort through some of the world’s most complex challenges scratching their heads.

They actually accompanied the story with one of these:

Luckily they have vowed not to kill the little guy. I just hope they don’t catch him and send him to one of these barbaric places.

Maybe we should rethink Clinton’s inevitability?


by David Atkins

Yes, it’s a Fox News poll so take with a slight dose of salt (Fox News polls tend to skew to the right somewhat, but not hugely). But this is interesting:

Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating has hit a six-year low, according to a new Fox News poll.
At 49 percent, just under half of Americans view the former secretary of state favorably, while 45 percent see her unfavorably, the poll, released Thursday, said. This is the first time Clinton’s approval rating has fallen below 50 percent in a Fox survey since April 2008 — during the Democratic presidential primaries — when 47 percent viewed her favorably.

The poll’s results also mark a 7 percentage point drop within the past year for Clinton, about whose potential 2016 bid there is wide speculation. Fifty-six percent viewed the former first lady favorably in Fox News’s previous poll, conducted in June 2013.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama’s approval ratings have remained consistent, as 45 percent view him favorably and 51 percent view him unfavorably. This is a 1 percentage point change from his 46/52 favorability split in 2013.

The biggest argument for Clinton’s candidacy in 2016 is her popularity, combined with overwhelming name recognition. The idea is that since voters already know a great deal about her, her favorability won’t decline after GOP attacks.

If this poll is accurate, it appears that argument may not be as valid as many thought.

Clinton tried to coast on inevitability in 2008, and her campaign failed miserably after a huge head start. Yes, she made some tactical errors shortly before the Iowa caucuses, but the election should never have been close in the first place. The Obama campaign was a juggernaut to be sure, but the race was Clinton’s to lose. She lost it by assuming inevitability, and even more so by her refusal to acknowledge the error of voting for the war in Iraq.

Many of my friends on the Democratic side don’t believe that Clinton will be vulnerable in 2016 because there’s no Obama-like candidate on the horizon. That would be a mistake that understates Clinton’s weaknesses and overstates Obama’s strengths.

If Clinton doesn’t fight harder for public support and do more to appeal to the progressive base, she can easily lose again in 2016.

.

I guess these folks don’t have any cows


by digby

So I haven ‘t heard any big outcry about the men with guns confiscating this property under forfeiture laws. It’s the State of Texas not the Federal Government so perhaps that makes the difference. It’s ok if Texas does it just not Washington. But it also strikes me as something that one might expect the Christian Right to see as an intrusion into religious liberty:

The Texas Department of Public Safety, which raided the Eldorado, Texas, ranch in April of 2008, said in a statement released on Thursday that the walled compound has been entered by law enforcement officers and “the residents have agreed to vacate the property.”
Jeffs was convicted of sexual assault in 2011. 

The statement noted that the state on January 6 secured a forfeiture judgment from the 51st Judicial District Court. Efforts to seize the property were initiated in 2012 by the Attorney General’s Office. 

“Law enforcement personnel are working with the occupants of the ranch to take all reasonable actions to assist with their departure of the property, to preserve the property, and to successfully execute the court order,” the DPS said. 

The DPS didn’t say how many people were still living on the 1700-acre compound with a gleaming white temple building in the center, located about 200 miles west of Austin. At one point, Jeffs held sway over some 700 followers on the ranch, where he and other leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, took young girls to be their “spiritual brides.” 

There are similar FLDS communities in Utah and Arizona. 

Jeffs, 58, is serving a sentence of life plus 20 years in the Texas prison system. He was convicted of sexual assault relating to what his sect called “celestial marriages” to two underage girls at the religious compound.

Obviously, I hold no brief for this fundamentalist religious sect. (Liberals aren’t usually big defenders of such institutions and I think most of the convenient claims of “religious liberty” are a right wing crock.) But I do find it interesting that none of those who are protesting legal forfeiture when it comes to cows says a peep when the cops come and kick this congregation off their land and seize their property. And since the man who perpetrated the crimes is in jail, wouldn’t you expect the religious libertarians to defend the rest of them to stay on their land?

I understand why people would find it distasteful to defend these folks. But that’s what principles are supposed to be all about.

.

You’d just better hope that wealthy elites want the same things you want

by digby

It’s a coincidence if your preferred government policies are adopted. And that’s becuse the government is doing the bidding of the wealthy — if they want what you want it’s all good. If they don’t, you’re out of luck. That’s the finding of the new Princeton study everyone’s chattering about:

Asking “[w]ho really rules?” researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America’s political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,” they write, “while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

As one illustration, Gilens and Page compare the political preferences of Americans at the 50th income percentile to preferences of Americans at the 90th percentile as well as major lobbying or business groups. They find that the government—whether Republican or Democratic—more often follows the preferences of the latter group rather than the first.

Imagine that:

“Ordinary citizens,” they write, “might often be observed to ‘win’ (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail.”

And, by the way, the Supreme Court’s recent rulings are just making it official. This study is based on data going back to 1980.

You remember 1980, don’t you? When Ronald Reagan won by telling everyone that the government wasn’t the solution, the government was the problem? Yeah, that worked out for us.

Update:  Be sure to read Kathy G’s informed take on all this. Fascinating.
.

Torquemada was not a whiner

by digby

What ever happened to the old saying “never complain, never explain?” Today manly men who believe they need to be sadists for the greater good whine like little babies because nobody understands them:

The psychologist regarded as the architect of the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program has broken a seven-year silence to defend the use of torture techniques against al-Qaida terror suspects in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

In an uncompromising and wide-ranging interview with the Guardian, his first public remarks since he was linked to the program in 2007, James Mitchell was dismissive of a Senate intelligence committee report on CIA torture in which he features, and which is currently at the heart of an intense row between legislators and the agency.

The committee’s report found that the interrogation techniques devised by Mitchell, a retired air force psychologist, were far more brutal than disclosed at the time, and did not yield useful intelligence. These included waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation for days at a time, confinement in a box and being slammed into walls.

But Mitchell, who was reported to have personally waterboarded accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, remains unrepentant. “The people on the ground did the best they could with the way they understood the law at the time,” he said. “You can’t ask someone to put their life on the line and think and make a decision without the benefit of hindsight and then eviscerate them in the press 10 years later.”

The 6,600-page, $40m Senate report is still secret, but a summary of its 20 conclusions and findings, obtained by McClatchy News, alluded to the role Mitchell and another psychologist under contract to the CIA, Bruce Jessen, played in the torture program.

The committee’s chair, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, has said the report “exposes brutality that stands in stark contrast to our values as a nation”. She added: “It chronicles a stain on our history that must never again be allowed to happen.”

Mitchell said: “I’m skeptical about the Senate report, because I do not believe that every analyst whose jobs and promotions depended upon it, who were professional intelligence experts, all them lied to protect a program? All of them were wrong? All of these [CIA] directors were wrong? All of the people who were using the intel to go get people were wrong? And 10 years later a Senate staffer was able to put it together and finally there’s clarity? I am just highly skeptical that that’s the truth.”

They were all wrong. Sorry. Just because they followed the directives of their superiors who told them torture was legal doesn’t absolve them of their crimes. We had a process a long time ago and came to a conclusion about this issue. It was called the Nuremburg Trials. And one of the guiding principles was this:

Principle IV states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.

This principle could be paraphrased as follows: “It is not an acceptable excuse to say ‘I was just following my superior’s orders'”.

A moral choice was available to all of these people. They could have said no and they would not have been put before a firing squad. I’m not sure they even would have lost their jobs. They could have easily walked away.

So yes, I’m sorry that they failed to listen to some top members of the FBI and others who were clear about the inefficacy of torture and walked away rather than participate. And it’s a shame that they are people who have a dearth of basic human decency, but they are. There is no excuse for torture. We didn’t excuse it in WWII when the entire world seemed to have gone mad and we certainly can’t condone it in this situation. In fact, it’s insulting that these people are even trying. 9/11 was a terrible thing but it wasn’t a license cast off all civilized norms. It wasn’t War of the Worlds.

.

Who is Eric Cantor’s intellectual mentor? Ayn Rand? Milton Friedman? Nope. It’s the Queen of mean, Ann Coulter.

by digby

In my piece at Salon today I took a look at Eric Cantor’s shift on immigration reform. And I look at why he might have done it:

If you are curious as to whom the Republican leadership truly respects and listens to about the proper policies for the party to follow, the answer might surprise you. Certainly one would expect that they’d listen to their strategists and pollsters. And it’s well known that they grant their donors the kind of fidelity one would normally only expect of 12th century knights of the realm. But if one is to judge by their approach to immigration, they are following the advice of the great oracle of wingnuttia, Ann Coulter.

Yesterday Democrats lamented the fact that the Senate immigration bill, passed over a year ago, still languishes in the House. The president made a mild comment suggesting that the American people are “ahead of the House Republicans” in this matter and would like to move ahead. He later called House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and they had a discussion of the issue after which Cantor released a pouty press release whining that the president is a big meanie.

Read on to see Ann Coulter’s counterintuitive take on immigration reform —echoed by other right wing commentators like Laura Ingraham — which says that the Republicans will forever be in the minority if they pass it. It’s quite interesting. Whether Cantor is literally following her advice is unknown. But the effect is the same. He’s using the “a” word (amnesty) again. Which is exactly what Coulter ordered.

You be the judge.

.

Grandma Clinton

by digby

Some of the more startling insults I read about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign weren’t sexist, surprisingly. They were ageist. (“Yuck. Her neck looks like a folded quilt.” “She’s the Joan of Arc of the dry pussy demographic.” ) And no those weren’t from right wingers.  Which is not to say that the right didn’t join in the fun.  Rush Limbaugh was very concerned for her:

[M]en aging makes them look more authoritative, accomplished, distinguished. Sadly, it’s not that way for women, and they will tell you. (interruption) Well, Snerdley, you’re just sitting there thinking I’m on the precipice of the cliff here without a bungee cord. I’m not. I am trying to be… Look, if I’m on the edge of the bungee cord, then I’ll take the leap. The bungee cord will save me. I’m just giving an honest assessment here of American culture. Look at all of the evidence. I mean, I’ve just barely scratched the surface with some of the evidence, and so: Will Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis? And that woman, by the way, is not going to want to look like she’s getting older, because it will impact poll numbers. It will impact perceptions.

It’s accompanied on his website with a hideous picture of Clinton, naturally.

So now, Chelsea Clinton has announced that she’s pregnant and what’s the first thing people are doing? They’re calling Hillary “Grandma Clinton” and launching into a big discussion of whether she can be a grandmother and a candidate at the same time. Apparently, they’re serious about this:

In the Christian Science Monitor, writer Linda Feldmann quickly went all out, musing, “How, if at all, might the news affect whether Hillary Clinton runs for president in 2016?… Perhaps it’s sexist even to ask the question – how will a grandchild affect her decision – but until she announces either way, it will be out there…. As anyone who’s had children knows, there’s often nothing like the bond between mother and daughter when the first grandbaby is on the way. If we had to guess, we’d say that Hillary Clinton will be a tad less interested in running for president now that she’s about to be a grandmother.”

But the Wall Street Journal helpfully surmised that “Mrs. Clinton’s status as a new grandmother could prove helpful, softening the image of a veteran politician who is often seen through a partisan lens.” Politico mused, “The armchair thinking goes, having a grandchild may make the Iowa State Fair a less appealing place to spend the summer of 2015. Why beg donors for money at dozens of events a month when there’s a happy baby to spend time with in New York?” but speculated, “In the vernacular of cable television, becoming a grandmother can only ‘humanize’ Clinton, who has long been critiqued for her aloof demeanor and rigid personal discipline.”

Washington Monthly, meanwhile, declared “Nana for President,” and observed, “Becoming a grandmother offers another particular advantage: it will give her the space to create a new public image. One that is softer. Cuddlier. More relatable. More real. And that’s exactly what Hillary needs.”

I suppose she could ask some of the other presidential candidates who were grandparents at the time for some advice about how to handle this. There have been a boatload of them. But we know that being a “grandmother” as opposed to a “grandfather” is a very different thing, don’t we? Rush explained why that is for you in gruesome detail.

Obviously, it’s absurd to think that Chelsea being pregnant or Hillary being a grandmother will impact her job as candidate or president. I think everyone will be functioning as they normally do. But the subtext in all this chatter about “Grandma Clinton’s” new status and how it will affect her campaign is just a more polite version of those ageist insults from 2008 — she’s an old hag who is too unpleasant to look at to be president. And yes, it’s sexist as well. Was there even one story in 2012 about Mitt Romney’s vast horde of grandchildren? Actually, there were passing mentions of them. I don’t recall anyone wondering if old Mitt might need to spend so much time with his grandkids that he wouldn’t have time for the presidency, though.

I realize that Chelsea has been in the public eye for 20 years and so it’s of interest that she’s pregnant. But there is no need for anything beyond a simple congratulations to Hillary Clinton since it  has no bearing on her ability or desire to run for president. It’s ridiculous on its face. But it does give a bunch of commentators a hook with which to characterize her as an old woman past her prime. And that’s both ageist and sexist, that special sweet spot in American life reserved for all of us women who manage to get to the other side of 50. Just ask Rush. He explains it very well.

Update: John Amato surveyed the fever swamps and found out that the right thinks this whole thing is a liberal plot. Of course it is.

.