I missed Press The Meat yesterday because it was interrupted for the LA marathon, so I didn’t have the dubious pleasure of seeing Joe Klein make my point about the DLC being an anachronism — or have the real pleasure of seeing Paul Krugman agree with me. Not that Klein is necessarily DLC but he represents the ossified views that took hold in the 90’s. When he starts using tech boom jargon, you know that he’s still lost in a haze of Monica’s thong and Pets.com.
MR. JOE KLEIN: Well, it’s kind of amazing and somewhat amusing to see the Republicans so much on the defensive on this issue right now. It’s an unusual circumstance. I agree with Paul in that private accounts have nothing to do with solvency and solvency is the issue. I disagree with Paul because I think private accounts a terrific policy and that in the information age, you’re going to need different kinds of structures in the entitlement area than you had in the industrial age. But it is very hard to do that kind of change under these political circumstances where you have the parties at such loggerheads.
I’d love to know what the logic is for his statement that we should have private accounts because we are in the information age as opposed to the industrial age. What, because we can get our account statements by e-mail? That is nothing but warmed over techno-babble you would have heard at Comdex circa 1997. He’s badly in need of an upgrade.
I wrote below about the DLC, but Klein shows that many in the elite media are probably suffering from the same problem. Obviously, Paul Krugman sees the real issue:
MR. KRUGMAN: I think it’s just wildly up in the air. I mean, you know, there’s enormous turmoil on the Democratic side trying to figure out–there’s a lot of unity but there’s a lot of turmoil about what the party stands for. And I just don’t know. I mean, I can’t–I dread the prospect of a Clinton run just because I think that would be–it would be an attempt to recreate the politics of the ’90s when you had Bill Clinton, who was a president who managed to sort of triangulate. And I think we ought to have an election that’s really about what what kind of country we’re going to be and we won’t have that if it’s Hillary Clinton running.
…
MR. KLEIN: Paul, I have a question for you: What was it about the peace and prosperity of the eight years of the Clinton administration that you didn’t like?
MR. KRUGMAN: No, I liked the way the country ran.
MR. KLEIN: I think that he had a real governing philosophy. It wasn’t triangulation. It was moving us from the industrial age to the information age, and that’s where the Democratic Party is going to have to move…
MR. KRUGMAN: There’s a radical right…
MR. KLEIN: …if it wants to have any role in American politics.
MR. KRUGMAN: There’s a radical right challenge to America as we know it that’s under way, and I think the Democrats–I mean, maybe Hillary Clinton can do this. I’m actually not opposed to her, right? But they need to make clear that they are going to turn back that tide, not blur it.
MR. KLEIN: The answer to a radical right challenge isn’t a reactionary left response.
No the answer is to keep making the same mistakes over and over again, apparently.
This is the essence of the argument within the Democratic Party right now. We either acknowledge the nature of the opposition and gather our courage to fight it with an affirmative defense of our beliefs and a willingness to take the fight to the Republicans or we continue with a constant tweaking of issues and small bore accomodation in the hopes that we can eke out a tiny win election to election, the latter of which I would find a dubious proposition what with the questionable “wins” we keep seeing in states run by Republicans.
Here’s the problem. The other side is waging a battle for total political dominance. They are willing to do anything to achieve it from cheating at elections to government propaganda to spending billions on a travelling political spectacle to entertain the folks. We will not defeat them with pocket protector arguments about the information age (although if anyone were qualified to make such an argument it would be Paul Krugman, the quintessential economist geek.) I suspect the fact that Krugman sees the big picture while Klein is still floating on a cloud of Seinfeldian nostalgia speaks more to the fact that Krugman famously does not hob knob with the in crowd while Klein famously lives for it.
As Ari Berman points out in his article in The Nation, the DLC and the allegedly liberal media are one big circle jerk.
Update: Josh Marshall is also curious about Klein’s bizarre statement that private accounts are required for this new information age. He’s scouting for some evidence that Klein wasn’t just blowing smoke because he didn’t have a clue about the subject. I’m pretty sure he won’t find it.
At a 1994 panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association Bolton claimed “there’s no such thing as the United Nations,” and stated ”if the UN secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”
Bolton on China/Taiwan: “…diplomatic recognition of Taiwan would be just the kind of demonstration of U.S. leadership that the region needs and that many of its people hope for. The notion that China would actually respond with force is a fantasy.”AEI web site, 8/9/99
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: “The Senate vote on the CTBT actually marks the beginning of a new realism on the issue of weapons of mass destruction and their global proliferation… the Senate vote is also an unmistakable signal that America rejects the illusionary protections of unenforceable treaties.” The Jerusalem Post, 10/18/99
North Korea: “A sounder U.S. policy would start by making it clear to the North that we are indifferent to whether we ever have “normal” diplomatic relations with it, and that achieving that goal is entirely in their interests, not ours. We should also make clear that diplomatic normalization with the U.S. is only going to come when North Korea becomes a normal country.” Los Angeles Times, 09/22/99
Sen. Jesse Helms on John Bolton: “John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon.” Speech at American Enterprise Institute, 01/11/01
Past Scandals: As a young lawyer Bolton in 1978 Bolton helped Sen. Helms’ National Congressional Club form Jefferson Marketing “as a vehicle to supply candidates with such services as advertising and direct mail without having to worry about the federal laws preventing PACs, like the Congressional Club, from contributing more than $5,000 per election to any one candidate’s campaign committee” (Legal Times). He later defended the club against charges from the FEC that led to a $10,000 fine in 1986. As a reward for his service Sen. Helms “helped the career of John Bolton” by supporting him for his Department of Justice and State positions (Legal Times).
At the Justice Department, Bolton acted as the Department’s “no man” refusing to provide congressional committees documents on Supreme Court nominees William Renquist, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. He also refused to provide information, including his personal notes regarding the Iran-Contra scandal, and aided congressional Republicans who attempted to stop investigations of Contra drug smuggling.
After leaving the State Department under the first Bush Administration, Bolton headed the National Policy Forum which “reportedly pursued money from overseas” for the RNC (Los Angeles Times). The NPF defaulted on a $1.3 billion loan guaranteed by Hong Kong businessman Ambrous Young, whose lawyer claimed his willingness to absorb the debt was “contingent upon Mr. Young getting something in return,” namely “business opportunities.” The Taiwanese government “served as an intermediary for a $25,000 contribution” to the NPF(Washington Post). At his confirmation hearing Bolton acknowledged that he had received $30,000 from the Taiwanese government for writing a series of papers.
At his confirmation hearing Bolton defended his ability to separate his personal beliefs from his professional duties: “Of all the different jobs I’ve had in government, I’ve never had any allegations that I wasn’t following the policies that were set.” Actually, Bolton ignored administration policy while in the Reagan Justice Department when he held an unauthorized press conference lashing out at special prosecutors. His comments drew sharp criticism from the White House when spokesman Marlin Fitzwater called Bolton “intemperate and contentious.”
I think an intemperate and contentious UN Ambassador (who believes there is no such thing as the UN) is just what the doctor ordered, don’t you? Another excellent choice. I’m only sorry that Ted Bundy isn’t available to head up the FBI. I understand he was a Republican.
Kevin Drum takes issue with the assertion that Bob Casey was denied his speaking spot because he refused to endorse the ticket as Atrios and I both posted yesterday. I think he’s wrong.
Kevin cites a number of Democrats at the time who vaguely implied that Casey was axed because of his pro-life views, but none (except that clown Bob Beckel) that come out and say so. He concludes that it wasn’t because of his pro-life view per se, but because he wanted to deliver a pro-life speech.
The truth is that Bob Casey was the biggest crybaby the Party has ever known and he personally perpetuated this story for his own purposes. This story was settled long ago by Michael Crowley who investigated this a lot closer to the time these events actually happened (1996) and put the story to rest. The Republicans have kept it going because it’s such a nice example of Democratic intolerance. But it just ain’t so.
You’ll recall that Casey, a Democrat, was denied a speaking slot at his party’s 1992 convention, allegedly, as The New York Times reported as recently as August 25, “because of his opposition to abortion rights.” Now, as both parties bid up the stakes in the tolerance wars, the GOP has been using the purported muzzling of Casey to bludgeon the Democrats–and getting a free pass from the news media. “This is not like the Democratic convention in 1992, where the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, one of the biggest states in the nation, was prevented from speaking because he’s pro-life,” Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour said of his party’s tightly controlled show in San Diego.
Since leaving office in 1995, Casey himself has rehearsed the tale ad nauseam. “The raging national debate about tolerance on the issue of abortion was ignited,” Casey wrote in the August 23 Wall Street Journal, when “the party denied me … the right to speak because I am pro-life and planned to say so from the convention podium.” In Chicago, Casey delivered an impassioned pro-life speech Monday, railing against his party’s imposed conformity.
But the story is not so simple. According to those who actually doled out the 1992 convention speaking slots, Casey was denied a turn for one simple reason: his refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket. “It’s just not factual!” stammers James Carville, apoplectic over Casey’s claims. “You’d have to be idiotic to give a speaking role to a person who hadn’t even endorsed you.” “Why are you doing this to me?” moans Paul Begala, who, with Carville, managed two Casey campaigns before joining Clinton’s team in 1992. “I love Bob Casey, but my understanding was that the dispute was not about his right-to-life views, it was about the Clinton-Gore ticket.”
The man best able to explain the decision was the late Ron Brown. He addressed the topic during a roundtable discussion of Clinton campaign veterans (published as Campaign for President: The Managers Look at ’92). He explained:
We decided the convention would be totally geared towards the general election campaign, towards promoting our nominee and that everybody who had the microphone would have endorsed our nominee. That was a rule, everybody understood it, from Jesse Jackson to Jerry Brown…. The press reported incorrectly that Casey was denied access to the microphone because he was not pro-choice. He was denied access to the microphone because he had not endorsed Bill Clinton. I believe that Governor Casey knew that. I had made it clear to everybody. And yet it still got played as if it had to do with some ideological split. It had nothing to do with that.
Indeed, the more one examines the version offered by the Democratic hacks, the more compelling it seems. Casey’s claims to a speaking slot were tenuous from the outset. He was about to retire from politics, and convention speeches are usually allotted to those running for re-election. “It wasn’t like he was going to be on there and they said, `Well, you’re off now,’ or something,” Carville says. Besides, Casey repeatedly bashed Clinton during the primaries, calling Clinton’s success “very tragic.” Less than three months before the ’92 convention, he urged, “Convention rules provide for the selection of an alternative candidate. Let’s pick a winner.” Why would Clinton invite him to speak?
Casey doesn’t dispute that he refused to endorse Clinton. Instead, he notes that Jerry Brown and his sister, Kathleen, also did not endorse, yet were both allowed to speak. Theirs, however, were special cases: Jerry Brown had won several hundred delegates in the primaries, and under convention rules was allowed to speak because his name was placed in nomination. Kathleen Brown, then a candidate for governor of California, was one of the party’s highest-profile women (and, though she didn’t endorse Clinton, she didn’t endorse her own brother, either). Even a reluctant Jesse Jackson was coaxed into backing Clinton in exchange for his speaking slot. Furthermore, a slew of pro-life Democrats, including Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley Jr., Senators John Breaux and Howell Heflin, and five governors, did address the delegates in 1992. Though the speakers didn’t dwell on abortion, party officials say they weren’t barred from mentioning the issue.
Casey, for his part, offers little evidence for his version beyond his unswayable conviction that the party is out to get him. “I’m sure they were chagrined that I didn’t endorse the ticket,” he says. “But the overriding reason was that I was going to go up there and make the pro-life case.” As he tells it, on July 2, 1992, he wrote to Ron Brown, then the party chairman, and on July 13 to Ann Richards, the chairwoman of the delegation, asking to give a pro-life speech at the convention. He never heard from either one.
Casey also sought to speak against the platform when it was presented for a vote. This wouldn’t have entailed a prime-time speech. But in response all he received was a copy of a letter sent by the convention’s general counsel to its parliamentarian, explaining that, according to platform committee rules, his request was “out of order.” Casey found the perfunctory dismissal demeaning. He calls it “the kind of letter they might have sent Lyndon LaRouche.”
Casey’s claim that he fell victim to an orchestrated campaign to silence his pro-life views has never been proven and, based on the available evidence, isn’t very persuasive. Its currency stems mostly from his indefatigable promulgation of it. Yet the media have accepted the story at face value. At the very least they should be aware that, in so doing, they are playing into Casey’s–and the Republicans’–hands.
Here’s what Bill Clinton had to say in “My Life” about the incident:
Governor Bob Casey, whom I admired for his tenacity in running three times before he won, had been very critical of me. He was strongly anti-abortion. As he struggled with his own life-threatening health problems, the issue became more and more important to him and he had a hard time supporting pro-choice candidates.
—
There was [also] a minor flap when Ron brown refused to let governor Bob Casey speak to the convention, not because he wanted to speak against abortion but because he wouldn’t agree to endorse me. I was inclined to let Casey talk, because I liked him, respected the convictins of pro-life Democrats, and thought we could get alot of them to vote for us on other issues and on my pledge to make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” But Ron was adamant. We could disagree on issues, he said, but no one should get the microphone who whasn’t committed to victory in November. I respected the discipline with which he had built the party, and I deferred to his judgment.
It’s clear to me that rather than being denied a speaking slot because he wanted to talk about abortion, Bob Casey (Zell Miller Jr) was denied a speaking spot because he refused to endorse a pro-choice candidate for the Democratic nomination. Who is the intolerant one here? And it sounds to me as if Clinton was ready to do a little Sistah Soljah-ing with a Casey speech but since Casey had been extremely unsupportive, Brown decided to pull his chain. I see no reason to disbelieve this. Casey was behaving like a spoiled ass and they decided not to reward him for it. Good for them. It was the most successful convention we ever had.
Atrios wisely points out that all this babble about cutting a deal to pre-fund social security even without the private accounts is nonsense. Holy Joe was on late Edition this morning moaning dolefully about how we must Do Something because, oh my, social security was in terrible trouble. And last night on Chris Matthews everyone very smugly agreed that the Democrats had to eventually come together with Republicans and craft a compromise that Bush (that clever devil) would then take credit for as he, in his awesome shrewd brilliance, always does. Norah O’Donnell was veritably gushing at how perfectly Bush will have played it. (He’s so hot!)
I call bullshit on all of this. Atrios also links to Max Sawicky who also calls bullshit by pointing out what should be evident to any sentient being on the planet by now. THERE IS NO MARGIN IN COMPROMISING WITH REPUBLICANS!!! They lie. They cheat. And for everyone but Joementum a big old smooch on the lips isn’t going to be enough to cover up the inevitable stab in the back.
I sincerely hope that any talk right now about compromise is merely poker playing because if it isn’t we are well and truly screwed. It is key that all of us on the left keep up the pressure. We have to balance out the pressure from the business interests that are going to be putting the big squeeze on these people. Gotta let ’em know which side their bread is buttered on.
Someday, when crazy people aren’t in charge, we will revisit the possible social security shortfall in 2042. Right now, we should just shut this bastard down. It’s our best chance in decades to take the momentum away from these people and we should not flinch.
Armando over on Kos has an interesting discussion going about the future of the DLC and why we can’t just all get along. He cites Ari Berman’s article in The Nation in which the DLC is portrayed as an organization that is more than a little bit frayed around the edges — while the term “New Democrat” still provides some cover in regions that require some distance from “regular” Dems (e.g. latte swilling, volvo driving, NY Times reading assholes like me.) Except that until fairly recently I was a card carrying New Democrat myself.
I think perhaps that people have either blocked from their memories or were too young to remember the impetus for the DLC in the first place. By 1988, it really seemed as if the Democratic Party might not ever gain the presidency again, and it wasn’t unreasonable to think so. We had had our asses kicked hugely every election since 1968, with the exception of Jimmy Carter who barely pulled out a win even after Richard Nixon had just been forced to resign in disgrace. And the congress was hardly a bastion of progressivism — a large number of Senators and congressmen were old school Democrats who were far more in sync with the modern Republicans and many of them stayed with the party after 1968 simply to preserve their seniority and committee assignments. The Democrats had not been functioning as a majority party for quite some time and we were becoming desperate.
The DLC came along and started making interesting sounds about new strategies and market based policies that sounded fresh and interesting. I recall reading various articles in the late 80’s in the usual places like TNR that seemed to me to be in the tradition of FDR-like experimentation. I was intrigued by the idea of trying out new ways to achieve our goals. Our rhetoric was stale and ineffective and I was longing for something different. The energy was all on the other side and I was willing to entertain new thinking to try to keep the Republicans from doing …. what they have done anyway. I thought the DLC was devilishly clever to do an end run around the Republicans and I was very interested in the prospect of co-opting their rhetoric and turning their own solutions back on them. I never bought their tactic of “distancing” themselves from Democratic interest groups but it was never very explicit in those days. It’s only recently that I’ve heard them making Stalinesque purge noises.
Mostly though, I resigned myself to continuing to lose for the foreseeable future. When a colleague said to me in 1991 that he thought Bush was out, I literally laughed in his face. It was unimaginable. If we were gong to lose anyway, I thought we might as well try to move in a new direction.
And then along came Clinton and the deck got scrambled big time. First and foremost, I think Democrats were simply dazzled to see a candidate garner such excitement after years and years of dull technocratic candidacies. We baby boomer Democrats had been waiting for our Jack Kennedy our whole lives, you see, and when they showed that film at the Democratic convention we couldn’t resist the supernatural thrill of seeing Jack reach out his hand from the past and anoint Bill. The unbelievable possibility that he might be able to unseat an incumbent Republican made everybody set aside all their differences and just enjoy the moment.
And Clinton was a bit of a Democratic Rorschach test. His history and baby boomer status led liberals to believe he was one of them and his openness to centrist and market based ideas made moderates think he was one of them. He had been president of the DLC but he had a way with African American voters and his wife was a feminist and on and on. In many ways he represented the whole baby boomer enchilada. We all saw in him what we wanted to see.
I saw him as an innovative, modern thinker who was willing to try new things. I bought into the DLC line that we could move toward the center of gravity and that would force the Republicans to move to the center as well. Indeed, the DLC strategy depended upon the Republicans acting in good will, out of principle and back in the day, they used to. Even in 1990 a deal to raise taxes was forged between centrist Dems and moderate Republicans. It wasn’t exactly the Great Society, but it showed that some positive bipartisan action could be taken and I was willing to believe that a new coalition of moderates could work together to forge some positive programs. I thought it was a way to bring ourselves back from the brink.
Clinton survived an unprecedented onslaught of character assassination and managed to govern effectively under the circumstances. But he also exposed the great weakness in the DLC strategy. The modern Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, saw any accommodation for weakness and went for the jugular. They had no use for bi-partisanship and for every step we took toward the middle they simply moved the goalposts. They had declared political war and we still thought we were having a friendly intramural game. It took me much too long to understand the way the game was now being played and I was so distracted by the scandal mongering that I failed to see that governance and results were now beside the point. (I also mistook Clinton hating for the fact that the GOP base had finally coalesced into an angry anti-democratic tribe of talk radio-fed liberal haters) I’m embarrassed to have been so naive. It took me until the stolen election — even after the bogus impeachment! — to fully understand that we were in an entirely new ballgame and any lessons we learned from the 1980’s were no longer relevant. This was a new era.
The DLC, however, seems to have over learned the lessons of the Reagan era and simply slept through the 90’s. While they were consolidating their status as DC kingmakers and building their fabulous rolodexes, they forgot to do the basic job that we liberal empiricists are supposed to do and check to see whether their experiment actually worked. The results are not so good.
First, it failed the party. People are more reluctant to identify themselves as liberals or propgressives than they wre in 1988 and one of the reasons is that people like Al From and his boys helped the Republicans degrade the label to such an extent that people don’t want to be associated with it. It is one thing to criticize your brothers; it’s another to sully the family name. They continue to do this by talking about purging Michael Moore and Move-On and generally showing such a lack of respect for the grassroots that you wonder why they don’t just call us all filthy rabble and tell us to eat cake. The lesson here is to never employ GOP rhetoric about the Democratic Party, ever. This is one thing that simply has got to stop.
Second, their strategy failed. With the modern GOP, blurring the lines is deadly, both as a matter of rhetoric and tactics. What I once thought was a clever way to muddy the waters in our favor has been a disaster. Clinton may have temporarily dispelled the myth that Democrats are nothing but tax and spenders but it doesn’t matter if the Republicans run these scorched earth campaigns in which they can get away with saying that black is white and up is down. If domestic policy ever becomes the basis of another presidential campaign, and that is questionable, there is no doubt in my mind that nothing Clinton ever did on that score will accrue to any Democrat’s benefit.
Third, their policies have never really evolved into exciting “third-way” approaches, as promised. Instead, they’ve simply softened standard GOP market wet-dreams. And as I’ve watched this process over the last twenty years I finally realized that this was just business school flim-flam. You either believe in an enlightened liberal democratic government or you don’t. There has been enough history to show us that left to their own devices the purveyors of market ideology will make things worse for more people. It’s just the way it works. The only institution that can even the playing field in a large, diverse society such as ours is government. And only government, bureaucratic as it may sometimes be, can deliver the basic services that guarantee a decent life for its citizens. We can argue about what services are needed to do that and we can argue about who should get them and how to deliver them, but never again should Democrats promote the idea that market competition is a substitute for democratic government action. We’ll get screwed every time.
But that does not mean that the DLC or its less committed adherents were all wrong to try what they tried. Liberalism cares as much about scientific speculation, experimentation, innovation and reform as it cares about the welfare of citizens, civil liberties and social progress. There is always tension between government and the market and that is as it should be. It’s not surprising at all that Democrats would look in new directions for solutions to problems because that is basic to our ideology. But, we must also be willing to admit when our hypothesis has been disproved.
In this instance, the DLC banked on the idea that consensus politics of the old school could be recreated in a Republican era. They were wrong. The Republicans desire total political hegemony. And any innovation they propose must now be clearly seen for what it is — the radical ideologues want to dismantle the New Deal and create a Randian paradise and the politicos want to further enrich their wealthy contributors. The rest of the rubes think that if the Republicans win they’ll get rich and go to heaven and the hated liberals will be vanquished from this earth. We cannot compromise with people like this. We must defeat them head on.
And we can do it. We shouldn’t throw out all common sense and run Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney in ’08. But we got very close this last time with a Massachusetts liberal up against a vicious smear machine and a wartime GOP incumbent. All this talk about white males and moral values and repositioning ourselves on abortion is outmoded political thinking in my view. This has come down to a classic philosophical fight between the two parties across the entire spectrum of issues. I don’t think that the condition exists anymore for splitting the difference. And I think we’ll win if we consistently talk about what we believe in instead of outlining a list of positions. In this era I think that’s what people are looking for.
But then again, I’ve been wrong before, haven’t I? 🙂
Ezra Klein has written a rousing defense of liberalism and wonders why the Democrats aren’t using this social security battle to help illustrate our philosophy of government:
Now that Republicans are reeling from running into the brick wall of the foundational Democratic program, wouldn’t it make sense to toss their ideology an anvil? Half our number seems to think we need to close the Social Security battle now while the other half wants to draw it out and win it closer to midterms. What about widening our attack so the counteroffensive takes some time and does larger damage? How about using the “crisis” language and the fact that Bush’s Medicare pperversion is a much larger economic fiasco to propose fight for changes that’d make it more cost-effective, more progressive, and force Bush’s promised veto? How about forcing Bush to roll back his tax cuts to fix Social Security’s shortfall, and demand that he not starve government to satisfy his radical ideology?
I’m all for using this rhetoric, but needless to say we can’t actually force Bush to roll back tax cuts and we can’t actually force him to veto anything because we can’t pass anything. As the minority party we are certainly in the position, however, to take some chances and at least start setting the terms of the debate in our favor.
I think this deserves some real discussion in Democratic circles. It is past time for a passionate defense of liberalism for liberalism’s sake. That is to say its philosophy and meaning as it applies to both our opposition to the Republicans and the affirmative case for progressive policy. For instance, I was very disappointed that we didn’t draw the philosophical parallel between social security privatization and this bankruptcy bill. Essentially, the Republicans are saying in both cases that people must assume all the risk in their lives and that there are no second chances. (Interestingly, these are the same people who constantly screw up and claim that they have been redeemed by a belief in God. See Gannon, James and Bush, George W.) They are actively using the power of the government to make average people’s lives more insecure. That we aren’t standing fully in the path of legislating usury into law, especially in the current climate where people are clinging to the side of a mountain of debt with their fingernails, is just stupid. If we were smart at all we would have been talking about that right along with the social security mess at our all-star town meetings. It’s all part of the same thing.
I realize that there has been a full generation of brainwashing about how the government is always bad and that everyone will get rich, rich, rich if the government just gets off their backs. But I have a sense that the force of this argument is getting stale. The assault on social security may just be the thing that opens people’s minds to what their philosophy really means. And it may just open a window to allow the idea back in to the minds of the citizens that government programs can be an affirmative good. Social Security works. It’s more efficient, more fair and more inexpensive than any of the alternatives. People apparently instinctively know this. Since the Republicans decided to bring this to the forefront we should take credit for it and piggyback our new progressive ideas on its back. It’s been so long since anyone had the nerve to do it, that it sounds downright fresh.
Ezra quotes FDR in 1936 as an example of full throated liberalism at its peak. We aren’t struggling through the Great Depression and we aren’t in power, but the political argument still stands. The more things change and all that:
For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.
For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace…business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.
…
But they are guilty of more than deceit. When they imply that the reserves thus created against both these policies will be stolen by some future Congress, diverted to some wholly foreign purpose, they attack the integrity and honor of American Government itself. Those who suggest that, are already aliens to the spirit of American democracy. Let them emigrate and try their lot under some foreign flag in which they have more confidence.
When the Republicans said that future congresses would steal the reserves, they were simply stating what they intended to do. And yes, attacking the honor and integrity of the US Government is always a winner as long as it’s a Republican who is attacking it. If a Democrat deigns to attack even a Republican administration, it’s treason. (I am reminded again that throughout the 90’s it was considered perfectly acceptable for GOP representatives to call the FBI “jack-booted thugs.”)
Clearly, they have never really believed in American democratic government. They cover their belief with bromides about “the market” selling it to the public like a magic pill, when it’s clear that the market is insufficient to do anything but efficiently allocate goods and services. Despite what that jittery romance novelist Ayn Rand told Uncle Alan Greenspan and a whole host of breast heaving, dewy eyed privateers, there is no morality intrinsic to capitalism. It’s an economic system, nothing more and nothing less. Anyone who believes in the words of our Declaration of Independence must also realize that government’s purpose is not just to protect property and defend the nation against its enemies. It also exists to level the playing field, keep the powerful from gaining more advantage than they already have and mitigate the harsh effects of the market so that we can live in a decent and moral society.
Just as in the 1930’s the Republicans of today simply don’t believe in the idea of a moral and decent society. Their policy is to align themselves with powerful moneyed forces to tilt the playing field in their favor and let everybody else fend for themselves. That’s the essence of the argument and one that I think we can win if we care to wage it.
Update: I received an e-mail admonishing me for not acknowledging the part of liberalism that defends civil rights. I hereby issue a full disclaimer that every argument I make along this line does not mean to be inclusive of every policy and position of the democratic party. However,let the word go forth that I am a huge proponent of civil rights and civil liberties (including privacy) and there is an analagous argument that can and must be made that a moral and decent society depends upon our commitment to upholding those things as well. Indeed, the civil liberties argument is, in my mind, sorely underappreciated as a liberal issue.
Update II: Check out Kevin Drum’s analysis of the Bankruptcy Bill.
1.) It has come to my attention that I have been given credit for the term “Manchurian Beefcake” and while I admit to having the excellent taste to use it repeatedly, sadly I did not come up with it myself. That little morsel of descriptive genius came from God, aka James Wolcott. Long may he reign.
2) I have upgraded the haloscan account so you should all be able to pontificate at length from now on. Just remember that all rhetorical brilliance is owned by this site and yours will be stolen and recyled often.
3) Go give some change to David Neiwert for his fundraising drive. His insights are more necessary by the day.
One proposal in circulation would allow individuals to invest in personal retirement accounts on top of their current payroll taxes, as an “add-on,” rather than diverting payments from the existing system. Mr. Bush has been cool to the “add-on,” approach, but he used that very phrase on Friday to describe his vision for the plan. Under his proposal, Mr. Bush said, income from a private account “goes to supplement the Social Security check that you’re going to get from the federal government.”
“See, personal accounts is an add-on to that which the government is going to pay you,” he said. “It doesn’t replace the Social Security system.”
In fact, the personal accounts would offset a portion of the existing Social Security benefit and, its proponents argue, enhance it. Mr. Bush has proposed letting younger workers divert up to 4 percent of their taxable income into personal accounts – a move that detractors say would cost trillions in transition costs and ruin the underpinnings of the system.
Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said Mr. Bush was not embracing the alternate plan, which he said would amount to creating an entirely new program outside Social Security. Instead, Mr. Duffy said the president used the term “add-on” to describe his own proposal. “Social Security is facing its own problems and the president’s mission is to save Social Security,” Mr. Duffy said.
Is there some reason that the NY Times can’t just make it clear that the president and his spokeman are outright misrepresenting their plan? Unless there is a plan in place that says you get to keep all the same scheduled benefits on top of your new “private account” makes, then this is not an “add-on” it is a “replace.” Indeed, that is the whole point.
I think real add-on savings plans are fine. Since big business has abdicated its traditional responsibility to provide pensions (and people are forced to change jobs frequently), we are now reduced to encouraging people to save for a liveable retirement with various market based plans. But, it should be noted that one of the things that makes it possible for middle and working class people to take the risk of putting their retirement savings into the stock market is knowing that they have a guaranteed floor that they can count on — backed by the full faith and credit of the US government — in case something goes wrong.
But if Bush is going to pretend that his privatization plan is actually an add-on that will “save” social security then we should scrap the idea of any new add-ons, for now. If the allegedly liberal press is unwilling to state in clear and unambiguous language that the president is outright lying about this, then we will end up twisting ourselves into a pretzel trying to untangle the different meanings of “add-on” and “personal” and some fainthearted Democrats are going to get rolled.
I still maintain that whenever somebody says that we must present an alternative, we should say “We have presented the alternative. It’s called “Social Security”. It works very, very well and Democrats are damned proud to have created it.”
I also think it might be useful for Democrats to say, “the president likes to say that he enjoys going around the country and saying ‘Folks, we have got a problem.’ But this problem, if it even is a problem, won’t become evident for another 40 years. Meanwhile we’ve got a lot of problems right now in this country that the president doesn’t want to talk about like ….”
I think one of the things that is hurting Bush is the fact that he’s putting so much energy into something so abstract and far away. He’s supposed to be the dude who deals with bad guys, not some social engineer who’s trying to fix some complicated future problem that isn’t evidently broken. It’s weird. It doesn’t fit. We should go on the offensive and accuse him of ignoring real problems while he holds useless town meetings trying to convince people to fix a problem that won’t even present itself for forty years, if at all. I think people already kind of feel this and we need to articulate it for them. With all the problems we have in this world, does it make sense that the Republicans are so weirdly fixated on this?
Atrios links to Peter Beinart’s comment in this liberal roundtable in the NY Times in which he says:
I think one of the great problems in the debates about abortion and gay rights is the perception that liberals are illiberal and nondemocratic. It’s remarkable to me how many people still mention the fact that [the anti-abortion Pennsylvania governor] Bob Casey was denied the right to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention. That was an illiberal thing the party did. And there is an important debate for liberals to have about the role of the courts in pushing social change. Finally, I don’t think you can separate these questions from people’s larger concerns about the culture. Liberals should believe in free speech, of course, but there is no reason that liberals need to believe that everything that comes out of an unregulated free market is good culturally.
Atrios rightly points out that Beinert is helpfully pushing Republican talking points here, as so many Democrats do, and specifically corrects the record as to Casey, who was not allowed to speak because he refused to endorse the Democratic ticket, not because he was anti-choice.
And here is one liberal who doesn’t believe that everything that comes out of the unregulated free market is good culturally. For instance, I think that right wing talk radio is the biggest cultural pollutant in our society. I can’t conceive of anything more pernicious than hours and hours of eliminationist rhetoric, lies and propaganda being pumped into people’s cars, offices and homes throughout the country. Somehow, I just can’t get as worked up about fictional cable television shows that feature nudity and profanity when real live Americans spend the day listening to people talk about me in ways that sound an awful lot like they’d like to kill me.
Now, I would imagine that “conservatives” would scream bloody murder if I were to suggest that these voices be silenced. And I wouldn’t suggest it. But if Beinert asks me if I think that there are culturally dangerous examples of free speech going on today, I’d have to say I think Limbaugh and Savage will take this country down a helluva lot faster than some obscure college professor, MTV or Janet Jackson’s nipple.
Sadly, Beinert wasn’t the only liberal in this conversation who sounds like the right wing noise machine has replaced a part of his brain. Michael Tomasky is parroting right wing talking points, too:
TOMASKY. First, terrorism is a threat. It threatened our shores more directly than the Soviet Union ever did. And it must be the focus of a foreign policy. We need alliances, yes. But alliances are a means. The end is the isolation of terrorists and the states that harbor them. The end is the control of nuclear proliferation, an extremely serious issue that the Bush administration sort of ignores. And the end is bringing liberty to the places of the world where it doesn’t exist.
Yes, terrorism is a threat. But if blowing up a couple of buildings is more threatening than aiming thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons at every citizen of the United States and then waiting decades for someone to blink, then my sense of existential danger is sadly confused.
Here’s the scenario under which we lived for more than 40 years:
The idea that any nuclear conflict would eventually escalate into MAD was a challenge for military strategists. This challenge was particularly severe for the United States and its NATO allies because it was believed until the 1970s that a Soviet tank invasion of Western Europe would quickly overwhelm NATO conventional forces, leading to the necessity of escalating to theater nuclear weapons.
A number of interesting concepts were developed. Early ICBMs were inaccurate which led to the concept of counter-city strikes — attacks directly on the enemy population leading to a collapse of the enemy’s will to fight, although it appears that this was the American interpretation of the Soviet stance while the Soviet strategy was never clearly anti-population. During the Cold War the USSR invested in extensive protected civilian infrastructure such as large nuclear proof bunkers and non-perishable food stores. In the US, by comparison, little to no preparations were made for civilians at all, except for the occasional backyard fallout shelter built by private individuals. This was part of a deliberate strategy on the Americans’ part that stressed the difference between first and second strike strategies. By leaving their population largely exposed, this gave the impression that the US had no intention of launching a first strike nuclear war, as their cities would clearly be decimated in the retaliation.
The US also made a point during this period of targeting their missiles on Russian population centers rather than military targets. This was intended to reinforce the second strike pose. If the Soviets attacked first, then there would be no point in destroying empty missile silos that had already launched; the only thing left to hit would be cities. By contrast, if America had gone to great lengths to protect their citizens and targeted the enemy’s silos, that might have led the Russians to believe the US was planning a first strike, where they would eliminate Soviet missiles while still in their silos and be able to survive a weakened counter attack in their reinforced bunkers. In this way, both sides were (theoretically) assured that the other would not strike first, and a war without a first strike will not occur.
This strategy had one major and very possibly critical flaw, soon realised by military analysts but highly underplayed by the US military: Conventional NATO forces in the European theatre of war were considered to be outnumbered by similar Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces, and while the western countries invested heavily in high-tech conventional weapons to counter this (partly perceived) imbalance, it was assumed that in case of a major Soviet attack (commonly perceived as the ‘red tanks rolling towards the North Sea’ scenario) that NATO, in the face of conventional defeat, would soon have no other choice but to resort to tactical nuclear weapons. Most analysts agreed that once the first nuclear exchange had occurred, escalation to global nuclear war would become almost inevitable.
So, while official US policy was a clearly stated ‘non first-use policy’, never to strike first with nuclear weapons, the reality was that the lack of strength of conventional NATO forces would force the US to either abandon Western Europe or use nuclear weapons in its defense. Even though after Soviet collapse investigations by historians and military analysts revealed that the effectiveness of Warsaw Pact forces was rated far higher than they really were, official NATO doctrine had been critically flawed from the onset and global thermonuclear war would have been a very real possibility had actual conflict occurred.
I guess because we all went about our lives and lived as if the threat didn’t exist that it wasn’t a direct threat. Or something. But all it would have taken was one miscalculation — and it almost happened in 1962. The threat was clear and we managed, through a foreign policy that was realistic and vigilant, to get through it and come out victorious. Part of what kept us from blowing ourselves and half the planet up was that we didn’t listen to crazy people on the subject who insisted that we invade Russia, many of whom are now in charge of American foreign policy.
Liberals are in a bind on this, as we always are, because unless we strike the proper pose of panicked bellicosity we are called treasonous and cowardly. And to be fair, Tomasky does hold the threat of nuclear proliferation as the number one threat, which is correct. However, I still think it behooves liberals to be precise in our language and not enable the other side with loose talk about what kind of threat we are facing with “terrorism” and Islamic fundamentalism. It may be that this country gets off on the idea that we are under seige by some Satanic force, but somebody’s got to keep their heads.
(And if we all now have to pay lip service to Bush’s little fantasy that the US is “bringing freedom” all around the world — well, to the oil producing world anyway — then I give up. It’s bad enough having to listen to sanctimonious Republican phonies pretend to be morally superior, but if everyone now has to fall over themselves to proclaim that the United States is on a worldwide freedom crusade then we have truly entered the twilight zone.)
Finally, I don’t know why we should listen to anyone who says something like this:
BEINART. I think that the base needs to be engaged, absolutely, and I certainly think that Washington and Washington political consultants should not be the only people who set the direction for the party. But I also think it’s important to remember the base was enormously engaged in this election. The Democratic Party still lost. The party has to have a listening tour within its own base but also a listening tour among swing constituencies that are moving away: Hispanics, Jews, the military in particular. The Democratic Party needs a strategy with military voters not simply because of their numbers, but because military voters will give the Democratic Party credibility with nonmilitary voters who are concerned the Democratic Party is not tough enough. One cannot forget the central fact that the Democratic Party has lost every election since the 9/11 era, in which national security has been predominant. That is an enormous, enormous problem.
Sigh. 9/11 happened in 2001. We had a midterm election in 2002 in which the senate would have remained in Democratic hands if 100,000 votes had moved the other way. The president, who was hailed as a conquering hero throughout the country, at that time stood at a 70+ approval rating and campaigned vigorously. In 2004 that president won by 60,001 votes in a state that hasn’t voted Democratic in decades. This has all happened in a period of 3 short years after the country was attacked and we have launched two wars. The Republican party, long seen as the party of national security, came extremely close to losing.
It’s a fucking miracle we weren’t creamed and it’s a testament to the tenacity of the base of the Democratic Party which valiantly resisted the temptation to join in the the war party. George W. Bush barely won the last election (outside his base in the South it was nip and tuck) and it was largely a result of the natural advantage of GOP incumbency during wartime that got him under the wire.
Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Democrats have a lot of work to do, but we are most definitely not in the wilderness. “Reaching out” to military families and swing voters is a very nice idea and I think we should do it. But it is sheer naivete to think that doing so will balance the effect of Rush Limbaugh and his pals on the psyche of those who are inclined to listen and absorb his message. We are in a period of hand to hand political combat now, up close and personal, and the key is the willingness of Democrats to articulate their vision clearly and without apology and to fight like hell when the other side goes after us.
Beinert and the DLC boys are anachronisms. They continue to believe that we are out of step with the country, as we all thought was true back in the 80’s when we were losing big. But times have changed. The truth is that we are out of step with half the country.
But that means the Republicans are too.
Correction: Clinton won Ohio in both 92 and 96. It’s probably worth noting, however, that Perot got 21% in Ohio in 1992 and almost 11% in 1996.
In November 2002, a newly minted CIA case officer in charge of a secret prison just north of Kabul allegedly ordered guards to strip naked an uncooperative young Afghan detainee, chain him to the concrete floor and leave him there overnight without blankets, according to four U.S. government officials aware of the case.
The Afghan guards — paid by the CIA and working under CIA supervision in an abandoned warehouse code-named the Salt Pit — dragged their captive around on the concrete floor, bruising and scraping his skin, before putting him in his cell, two of the officials said.
As night fell, so, predictably, did the temperature.
By morning, the Afghan man had frozen to death.
After a quick autopsy by a CIA medic — “hypothermia” was listed as the cause of death — the guards buried the Afghan, who was in his twenties, in an unmarked, unacknowledged cemetery used by Afghan forces, officials said. The captive’s family has never been notified; his remains have never been returned for burial. He is on no one’s registry of captives, not even as a “ghost detainee,” the term for CIA captives held in military prisons but not registered on the books, they said.
[…]
The Afghan detainee had been captured in Pakistan along with a group of other Afghans. His connection to al Qaeda or the value of his intelligence was never established before he died. “He was probably associated with people who were associated with al Qaeda,” one U.S. government official said.
[…]
The fact that the Salt Pit case has remained secret for more than two years reflects how little is known about the CIA’s treatment of detainees and its handling of allegations of abuse. The public airing of abuse at Abu Ghraib prompted the Pentagon to undertake and release scathing reports about conduct by military personnel, to revise rules for handling prisoners, and to prosecute soldiers accused of wrongdoing. There has been no comparable public scrutiny of the CIA, whose operations and briefings to Congress are kept classified by the administration.
Ho Hum. War is hell and all that, what?
This story reminds me that we’ve never gotten to the bottom of yet another purported war crime (scroll down) in the early days of the Afghanistan invasion:
Nobody knows exactly how many Taliban prisoners were secretly interred in this mass grave, a short distance from the main road. But there is now substantial evidence that the worst atrocity of last year’s war in Afghanistan took place here; most controversially, during an operation masterminded by US special forces.
A 10-minute drive away is Shiberghan prison, where about 800 Taliban fighters who surrendered late last November at the town of Kunduz are held. The Afghan warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostum controls the prison; his mansion is nearby.
It was his commanders who transported the Taliban captives to Shiberghan. “It was awful. They crammed us into sealed shipping containers,” a 24-year-old survivor, Irfan Azgar Ali, told the Guardian. “We had no water for 20 hours. We banged on the side of the container. There was no air and it was very hot.
“There were 300 of us in my container. By the time we arrived in Shiberghan, only 10 of us were still alive.”
The prisoners still in Shiberghan – half of them Afghans, and half Pakistanis – estimate that about 400 people suffocated to death during the journey. Other sources say the figure is between 900 and 1,000. The Physicians for Human Rights group from Boston, which identified the mass grave earlier this year and later sent out a forensic scientist to carry out further tests, suggests that 2,000-3,000 of the 8,000 prisoners taken to Shiberghan died on the way.
[…]
Some of the first Taliban fighters to surrender made the initial part of the journey in open lorries, their faces caked with dust. When they reached Mazar-i-Sharif, 90 miles from Kunduz, they were taken to Qala Zaini, a mud-walled fortified compound on the outskirts of the city. There Gen Dostum’s soldiers crammed them into shipping containers. When they protested that they could not breathe, the soldiers told them to duck down, then fired several Kalashnikov rounds into the containers.
“I saw blood coming out of the holes,” an eyewitness who refuses to be identified said.
A driver who made four trips to Dasht-i-Leili said not all the prisoners in his lorry were dead when they arrived: some were merely unconscious or gravely injured. The guards laid the dead and the still living out on the desert. “They raked them all with bullets to make sure they were dead,” the driver said. “Then they buried them.”
[…]
The Pentagon said last week that the US troops had reported that they were unaware what had happened to the prisoners. But the evidence suggests that they were so close to Gen Dostum’s soldiers that they may have been informed.
The general has been on the US payroll for nearly a year. According to Newsweek magazine, an elite team from the Fifth Special Forces Group first met up with Gen Dostum last October, when its members were dropped by Chinook helicopter at his mountain base.
They coordinated the Northern Alliance’s dramatic assault on Mazar-i-Sharif, which fell on November 6, and then pursued the Taliban’s northern army to Kunduz, where it remained trapped for more than two weeks. During this bloody period the US special forces unit, the 595 A-team, paid repeated visits to Shiberghan prison – plucking the American Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh, for example, from his cell hours after his detention.
I admit that I’ve always been intrigued by this little bit of information that nobody has ever bothered to follow up. From my post on this subject last May:
These ODA 595 Special Forces guys freely admitted being very close to General Dostum and his troops. But, they had to leave right after the massacre at Mazer al Sharif:
Yeah we eh, we were ordered out quite rapidly and without General Dostum’s knowledge. He was out of town and we got word that we were to be quickly ex-filled, to brief Mr. Rumsfeld.
Quite the honor, I’m sure.
It may be that our troops were unaware of this massacre, but it doesn’t seem likely. Our guys were right there and Dostum was our man. It is more and more clear as time goes on that we hit Afghanistan and just went nuts.
There are many, many questionable deaths and not in the field of battle. Junior’s ill advised edict to “take the gloves off” resulted in unknown numbers of innocent or only mariginally involved people being killed, tortured and imprisoned. It seems that every day new evidence emerges that troops were ordered to behave like animals in the pursuit of this enemy and for no real purpose except indulging a barbaric bloodlust.
That’s ok, apparently, because according to writers like Andrew Mccarthy,(and the entire keyboarder brigade) we are facing an enemy like no enemy the world has ever known and absolutely anything is justified as a result:
Today’s marketplace of ideas, for example, has been notably reluctant to engage even the subject of Islamofascism and the threat it poses to our institutions and our liberties. Nor does that marketplace strike one as a very effective weapon for bringing suicide murderers to heel, let alone for militating against electronically beamed fatwas capable of unleashing weapons of untold destructive power before other ideas have a meaningful opportunity to compete and persuade.
His piece was aimed at limiting the first amendment, but the overarching theme of abject panic at the threat of “Islamofascism” applies to all aspects of the Republican approach to the “GWOT.”
From the minute the WTC was attacked their immediate response was to say that this threat is completely unprecedented. Therefore there are absolutely no limits to how much pain and suffering we are allowed to inflict and no limit to the freedoms we are allowed to restrict because this is the worst thing that ever happened to any nation or people in the history of the world. And anyone who doesn’t agree is nothing more than a treasonous girly man.
The only problem is, it just isn’t true. These guys were nothing but quivering hysterical panic artists. Why they are considered to be such tough guys, I will never know. Grace under pressure certainly isn’t their strong suit, that’s for sure.
The damage they have done to this country’s sense of itself as a moral force for good, however, cannot be papered over with soaring speeches about freedom and liberty. Leaving that naked prisoner (so many naked prisoners!) to die of the cold that night is just one of the many ways in which these puerile egotists sold this country down the river one simple minded atrocity at a time.