Of university politics, it is often said that the fights are so bitter, precisely because the stakes are so low. Judging from two recent articles (in yesterday’s New York Times & Washington Post), Palin learned this lesson early, while managing her town of 5,500 (in fact dwarfed by most universities) and never forgot it when she moved up the ladder. As we learn that the grim facts of her tenure gave even her best friends pause, it ought to make us take stock & reckon with the possibility of a divisive, hyper-partisan culture warrior in office.
These accusations – that Palin brands dissent as disloyalty, requires absolute loyalty from advisors, forbids press contacts, tries to scare off critics, and personalizes policy disputes – become grave indeed set against recent American history. Bush’s chief flaws, after all, existed higher up the funnel of abstraction than mere policy decision. His administration’s failure was located rather in his decision-making process, which insisted on absolute loyalty, isolated the president from competing viewpoints, and branded political curiosity as treason. If the one cure for inexperienced/un-intelligent high officials is a whip-smart & diverse team of advisors, palin seems to embrace the disease and its characteristic & dangerous political myopia.
Recall that, in 2000, we were promised that Colin Powell’s experience, intelligence, and moderation would counterbalance Bush’s inexperience and lack of curiosity. How did that work out? Palin’s insistence on toeing the party line threatens to similarly infect any McCain/Palin White House.
How nice that the media’s honeymoon with Palin is over, and we’re finally getting to substance. The substance, however, leaves me wondering: exactly what change can Sarah Palin bring to Washington? From her much-vaunted “executive experience,” all she seems capable of doing is entrenching Cheney’s conception of the Vice President’s office as the Party-Line Enforcer. That’s not change. That’s worse than the same.
Even the most negative articles I have seen seem to also admit she has been a reformer in the governor’s office. You can talk about her religious beliefs all day long but the facts stand on her willingness to buch the party line and work with Democrats when necessary.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 15, 2008, 7:40 amThis isn’t about her religious views; it’s about her unwillingness to deal with people who disagree with her. Good for her for working with Democrats who agree with her, but a policy that amounts to ignoring your critics and trying to saber-rattle them into shutting up is just plain ignorant.
Posted by Ames | September 15, 2008, 9:54 amShe also disagreed with a lot of Republicans.
If she can get some Democrats to come over to her side and at the same time tick off the extreme ends of both parties, I’d say she is probably keeping the majority of Alaskans happy. Afterall, most of us are firmly in the Center.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 15, 2008, 10:01 amWhere do you see evidence that she’s “ticked off the extreme ends of both parties”? From what I see, she is the extreme end of one party.
Posted by Ames | September 15, 2008, 10:30 amThe one criticism I had of Hillary (and the Clinton machine) during the primaries, was that in terms of political style seemed way too close to Bush to me. They’re a fan of loyalism over competency and I think had a penchant for secrecy. That’s one of the main things I want to get beyond at least this time. And so I have had a rather strong aversion to this sort of thing.
I think Obama has done well at surrounding himself with more experts as opposed to loyalists (he’s new, he also kinda has to), and at least says he will offer us more transparency.
Posted by Oneiroi | September 15, 2008, 10:57 amAmes, Palin is not well liked among the Republican establishment in Alaska. If you don’t know that one you missed some of your homework in all those Palin posts.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 15, 2008, 11:17 amPalin is not well liked among the Republican establishment in Alaska.
So? Alaska has effectively been a one party state for decades. In such a political climate, especially one that is found in a state with an economy based on extractive industry dominated by very large and very powerful corporations, you end up with the same people holding power for long periods of time, seeing their positions as their right, and seeing nothing wrong with corruption. See Louisiana in the first three quarters of the 20th century. If a person comes into politics and gains power from outside the normal power structure, of course that person is not going to be liked by the establishment. However, this says absolutely nothing about that person’s ideological commitments. PC, your argument is basically: Palin is not liked by the establishment Republicans of Alaska, and therefore Palin is not ideologically extreme, and could work well with Democrats in Congress. Let’s try plugging different names into that argument:
Huey Long is not liked by the establishment Democrats of Louisiana, and thus Huey Long is not ideologically extreme, and could work well with Republicans in Congree.
Your position is false and in no way answers Ames’ criticism.
Palin is an extreme right-winger. That Alaskan Republicans who just care about promoting the interests of the companies who pay their bribes don’t like her does not change that fact.
Posted by Buzz | September 15, 2008, 2:36 pmThat should have been “…could work well with Republicans in Congress.”
Posted by Buzz | September 15, 2008, 2:37 pmI disagree completely that she is an ‘extreme right-winger’. She is socially conservative, but has not shown a willingness to push her ideals legislatively.
Economically she is a Centrist at best, leaning towards liberal.
I think, like AMes, you’re letting her social views color the whole picture.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 15, 2008, 3:03 pmI don’t think she has much of an economic policy; but yes, I am letting her social views color the whole picture, because, socially, she is an extreme right winger.
Posted by Ames | September 15, 2008, 3:45 pmHer administration in Alaska has dealt primarily with economic issues, and on those she is Centrists…so we should of course look at her social views even though she has shown no inclination towards legislating her personal views.
Sounds like that wise liberal thinking to me!
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 15, 2008, 4:11 pmEconomically she is a Centrist at best, leaning towards liberal.
Only in the world of “conservatives”, to whom any deviation from strict “conservative” economic orthodoxy makes one a liberal or socialist (some of that black and white thinking that make “conservatives” so much like “communists”) could anyone ever say that Palin is a centrist or liberal.
And yes, her social views matter. She was chosen as a sop to the extreme right who didn’t find McCain sufficiently socially conservative. Do you think those “conservatives” who crowd to her rallies to hear discredited lie after discredited lie (and strangely don’t care that they are being lied to) would be so over the moon if they thought she wouldn’t push her social views if she had sufficient power?
On another note, anyone else find that Palin reminds one of Greg Stillson from film version of “The Dead Zone”? I really can imagine her uttering the words: “The missiles are flying! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!”
Posted by Buzz | September 15, 2008, 4:31 pmPalin was chosen for two reasons: she motivates the best and she will draw some women voters. Mission accomplished on both accounts.
I would venture a guess that Biden has not drawn a single new voter to the Obama side. Palin on the other hand… Liberals still forget that nothing gets accomplished if you don’t win in November.
As for her economic policies, increased taxes on oil companies and a kickback to taxpayers is a fairly liberal move, any way you slice it. It’s wealth redistribution afterall….that should make most liberals aboslutely giddy.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 15, 2008, 10:56 pmAnd should make you hate her. No?
Posted by Ames | September 15, 2008, 11:12 pmI would venture a guess that Biden has not drawn a single new voter to the Obama side.
So? Obama clearly wanted to pick someone who is ready to be president, so he went with someone who is very smart, very knowledgeable, and very ready to govern should it become necessary. You know, all your comment showed is that the “conservative” mindset of “focus on getting elected, but who cares about governing” is deeply ingrained in party stalwarts. No wonder this country is in such dire straits right now.
…increased taxes on oil companies and a kickback to taxpayers is a fairly liberal move, any way you slice it. It’s wealth redistribution afterall….that should make most liberals aboslutely giddy.
Actually, 1. a tax on extractive industry is not wealth redistribution, but a way of making sure that the extractors properly pay the public for natural resources on which said extractors make outrageous profits, and 2. I would say that a liberal would be far more likely to use the increased tax revenue to improve government services, invest in public infrastructure, and generally combat problems as the flight of educated people due the lack of a diversified economy that could employ them, high rates of alcoholism, high crime rates, substandard education, and the looming impacts of global warming (most of the roads are built on permafrost that will soon be melting, after all). As I see it, just taxing and letting the money slip away by giveaways is a typical “conservative” waste of opportunity to actually be governmentally responsible. After all, the last eight years have shown, if nothing else, that “conservatives” don’t really believe in any sort of responsibility. All style and no substance Palin fits in quite well with that.
Posted by Athenian | September 16, 2008, 12:49 amAmes – I oppose the kind of gimicky stuff Palin did with oil revenues. I’m a ‘rainy day’ kind of guy. I would have put it in a nice mutual fund.
Athenian, I will agree with you on your second point…liberals would have been more inclined to let the government spend the money.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 16, 2008, 8:21 amAnd evidently you don’t believe in use of public funds for confrontation of public problems too big and too low-individual return to entrust to private entities. No wonder the massive problems “conservative” government has let fester in our country.
That’s the difference: liberals and progressives (and your name is at odds with your positions – not surprising for an oxymoron) believe in confronting problems to solve them while conservatives believe problems should be ignored until they blow up (and then blamed on liberals and then ignored again).
Posted by Athenian | September 16, 2008, 10:07 amYes, I will agree with you wholeheartedly that conservatives are guilty of ignoring problems. Too often they drag their feet on reform because they fear change. If they are going to remain relevant, they are going to have to do much better. But that doesn’t mean the liberal method of problem solving is any better. What liberals believe is that throwing money at a problem is always the answer. They try it with schools, despite all evidence to the contrary. They try it with poverty. They try it with any number of other issues. But the problem is that they spend first and think later. They are all too happy to create massive government programs without thinking the consequences through.
Progressivism, despite an effort by the Left to co-opt it as a rebranding tool, is a bipartisan approach to government. It is an understanding that change is a good thing but so are other notions like tradition…customs…patriotism…. Change is going to happen. That is inevitable. But the question of how change should happen is one that hasn’t been answered. I consider myself Progressive because I like change just as much as a liberal like yourself. But I think change should be thoughtful and measured, not emotional and reckless. That’s where my brand of Progressivism probably differs significantly from yours.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 16, 2008, 10:49 amtradition…customs…patriotism….
I believe in those things, though not blindly. So do all the liberals and progressives I know.
But I think change should be thoughtful and measured, not emotional and reckless.
I believe that, and so do all the liberals and progressives I know. In my lifetimes, most of the reckless changes I have seen have been engineered by “conservatives” who seem to believe in ideology above the practical, and believe in tradition, patriotism, and custom only to the extent that they can be used as wedges or bludgeons.
That’s where my brand of Progressivism probably differs significantly from yours.
You have no idea who I am and I haven’t commented enough here to say you do, or to say you really know my positions. You, however, comment here quite often. I have seen, sadly, someone who spouts the same tired “conservative” talking points on pretty much all issues, the same mindless transmission of propaganda, and very little progressivism.
As for bipartisanship…Over the years since 1994, bipartisanship when spoken of from “conservatives” has clearly meant: “Roll over and agree with our position in every detail, and that is bipartisanship.” We can’t, of course, forget they proclaimed that bipartisanship is another word for date rape, after all. Those years have made clear that the word “bipartisanship” when uttered by a “conservative” is simply a collection of sounds devoid of any real meaning. Get off your high horse and realize that.
Posted by Athenian | September 16, 2008, 11:00 amIn my lifetimes, most of the reckless changes I have seen have been engineered by “conservatives” …
I’m going to hope lifetime(s) was a typo….
But please feel free to give specifics on conservative reckless changes.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 16, 2008, 12:14 pmFor starters, you can look at the financial markets and the turmoil and chaos wrought by “conservatives” recklessly eliminating regulations because their ideology demanded it (and then you can go back to the S&L crisis brought on by prior deregulation efforts). Then you can look at changes in the tax code, again based entirely on ideology, that led to massive deficits and a crushing national debt. Then there have been the reckless changes to foreign policy over the last seven years, again made by “conservatives”. Just for starters. If you want more details, I suggest you read the last twenty five years of newspapers.
Posted by Athenian | September 16, 2008, 12:34 pmDe-regulating loans began under Clinton and that was just one part of a much larger confluence of negatives. Fraudulent loan applications accounted for as muc as 70% of the early foreclosures. So, in short, conservatives played a very small role in the overall crisis.
As for the national debt, much of it can be attributed to federal obligations of social security, medicare, etc. That takes an overwhelming majority of our GDP and those obligations are about to skyrocket. Wasn’t FDR a Democrat?
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 16, 2008, 10:00 pmPC, you really need to catch up on your history. De-regulation did begin under Clinton, but was it an initiative started by Clinton? No. It originated with “conservative” Republicans in Congress. Much of the sub-prime loan debacle can be traced by to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was a purely “conservative” bill passed by party line votes and achieving long-held goals of eliminating a broad swath of New Deal era regulations. The Savings and Loan crisis began in the 1980s and continued through the 1990s, and stemmed from other “conservative” attacks on long-standing and effective regulation. You will notice that that crisis, which ended up costing tax payers almost $200 billion predated Clinton, so you can’t use the “but Clinton” defense.
The national debt can’t be traced back to Social Security at all, as it has always run a surplus, and will continue to for a while yet. It has not contributed at all to the current national debt. Medicare’s costs have only recently begun to explode, and similarly the program has not contributed much to the current debt. The size of the debt and the increased size of budget deficits in recent decades goes back to Reagan’s supply side economic ideology, and his severe cutting of taxes without concomitant cuts in spending (this was not, contrary to “conservative” legend, due to liberal pressure from Congress, but Reagan’s absolute certainty that the cutting of taxes would increase revenue such that spending cuts were not as necessary – besides, he needed large outlays to pay for the 600 ship navy, SDI, and other pet projects). This policy caused the deficit and the debt with it to explode. If you look at Reagan, he inherited a debt from Carter that was about 32% of GDP, and left a debt that was 53.1% of GDP (it would have been much worse had he not gotten rational after the early years of his tax cuts, when the expected revenue enhancements did not occur and the deficit ballooned from less than $100 billion under Carter to almost $300 billion in 1985, and he then permitted tax increases to stem the flow a bit – another thing “conservatives” tend to forget). The debt then continued to increase to 66.2% under Bush I’s continuation of Reagan’s general economics before decreasing under Clinton’s administrations and his deficit reduction measures (which passed without a single Republican vote). Of course, then came Bush, and the deficit and debt have been both hitting records. Pretty much all of this debt has accumulated due to deficits in funding regular government activities, with entitlements subsisting on their own dedicated revenue streams.
Are the entitlements going to explode in the future? Yes, if nothing is done. However, it cannot be ignored that, had it not been for “conservative” recklessness with the budget since Reagan, we would be far better positioned to deal with those liabilities. As it stands, the “conservative” position that we should borrow whatever we need for what ever we want and leave the payment to the next generation down the road leaves us with few good options, little wiggle room, and a lot of pain down the road.
Finally, Social Security and Medicare do not take an “overwhelming majority” of our GDP. The US GDP stands at around $13 trillion per year. Social Security outlays are at about 4.3% of that and Medicare 3.2% as of 2007 according to the SSA Trustees Report. Last I checked, 7.5% did not even come close to a majority of that $13 trillion. Even if you project out some 80 years, the two together will only be around 16.6% of GDP by official projections. Where exactly are you getting your numbers?
I know “conservatives” hate education, but a little research would do you good.
Posted by Athenian | September 17, 2008, 12:30 amAthenian, can I make that comment into a post of its own? PC, I’d give you rebuttal, and comment away at the new thread.
Posted by Ames | September 17, 2008, 1:37 amSure, so long as I don’t have to be too active in the comments. I am pretty busy the next few days.
Posted by Athenian | September 17, 2008, 2:15 amSure – i’ll withhold my comments until i see the new post.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 17, 2008, 10:20 amlook for it at 2 PM. I thought it was high time to create a dedicated thread for economic debate, and Athenian’s lengthy & well-written comment gave me the push I needed
Posted by Ames | September 17, 2008, 10:22 amYou haven’t seen the rebuttal. You may need to put your server on steroids.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 17, 2008, 11:59 am