Archive for December 9, 2008

Hey, Liberals! Here’s Another “L” Word for You: “Lude”

Liberals need to chill on the always-a-bridesmaid complex

As in: Take one … And relax on the “Obama’s really a Clinton” paranoia. Not only is it premature to assert Obama is selling out liberal economic ideals, it is also inaccurate.

FREAK OUT NO. 1: Obama has backed off his call for a windfall tax on Big Oil’s mega profits. It is unfortunate that the best explanation the Obama camp has for the plan’s disappearance is that the plan was proposed when oil was over $80/barrel and since it is now under $80, there is no need for the tax. I can find the campaign promise, but I am unable to locate when and where $80 was made the benchmark. Nonetheless, I don’t think it’s time to fret. First, oil prices are down, because — ta-da! — the global economy is waiting for emergency surgery. Banging the drum for a windfall tax now would look unreasonable and unfocused. When should liberals worry? If Obama backs down on elimination of oil industry tax credits and other subsidies, then liberals can meaningfully and rightly say, “Houston, we have a problem.”

FREAK OUT NO. 2: What about dropping the immediate repeal of the Bush tax cuts? Since the election the economy is revealing itself in ever-amazingly bad shape. Obama is correct to focus on oversight reform of financial markets and developing his massive economic stimulus package, including huge infrastructure investment. Letting the tax cuts expire on time in 2010 rather than rewriting tax law for 2009 doesn’t substantively change Obama’s campaign tax plan.

FREAK OUT NO. 3: But Obama’s economic team is dominated by of a bunch of Clintonites. Well, so what? If I remember correctly, the Clinton Administrations turned the economy around. Did Robert Rubin and Larry Summers (and, much less, Timothy Geithner) oversee the dismantling of government regulation of the derivatives market with Alan Greenspan? Yes. But I think it is pretty clear that oversight is an inescapable reality in the future. The weight Obama gives to Volcker’s input indicates the corporate and banking communities should brace themselves for some majorly tough love.

The establishment of the National Infrastructure Development Corporation is something to get VERY excited about. It will act as a bank that will sell bonds to fund specific infrastructure projects, similar to how state and local governments sell municipal bonds. This is a revolutionary proposal that conceivably will eliminate pork. Marketed correctly, it could also provide a source of national pride. I’m thinking if bonds are directly marketed to the public (in addition to the usual institutional-fund investors), like war bonds were in the 1940s, we could see an environment where infrastructure development and maintenance stays a top priority and people feel involved in ensuring the health of their communities. What more could a liberal want?

My inability to see Obama’s nominees and his campaign rhetoric as mutually exclusive is not because I am not a true liberal. Last Sunday, on Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw quoted Obama as saying, “being a president is 90 percent circumstances and about 10 percent agenda.”

Here is Obama’s response:

As tough as times are right now–and things are going to get worse before they get better–there is a convergence between circumstances and agenda.  The key for us is making sure that we jump-start that economy in a way that doesn’t just deal with the short term, doesn’t just create jobs immediately, but also puts us on a glide path for long-term, sustainable economic growth.

I think it is perfectly acceptable for people to debate and question and demand. Thus, I am fine with liberals voicing their concerns, but if establishing policy and programs to optimize long-term growth means pissing off some liberals because action isn’t occurring exactly how, when, and where they want, then fine with me. We should be so lucky if that’s the greatest cost we face as we rebuild our present and design our new future.

Internet Extremism: the Exception, or the Rule?

Alive on the internet

Throughout this site’s brief history, I – and consequentially you – have discovered or explored three strange groups of internet “extremists.” Let’s recap. First, there were the science denialists, in the form of creationists, anti-vax groups, and their paleoconservative fellow travelers. Think Conservapedia. Second, how could we forget, came the PUMAs, pro-Hillary women who somehow came to believe that Sarah Palin, despite sharing nothing but anatomy with Senator Clinton, was the proper politician to carry Hillary’s torch. And third, just this past weekend, we met in force the Obama denialists, ordinary Americans convinced that the media, both political parties, and now the Supreme Court were somehow aligned against them to overthrow the Constitution by electing an ineligible candidate.

All of these groups share some common traits. First, they’ve become more radical over time, not less (witness Riverdaughter’s conversion from Daily Kos Democrat to WorldNetDaily conspiracy theorist). Second, they’re ridiculously popular, in their own way. None of these three will ever gain mainstream acceptance, but a look at the WordPress top posts on any given day will show you that at least the latter two groups have made comfortable niches for themselves. And, all of these groups admit only True Believers to their ranks, heckling, moderating, or brushing aside any criticism. The searching sun of criticism is nowhere to be seen.

I used to think that these sites were exceptions: “holes” in the internet, where the (ahem) confluence of extreme political beliefs and dogmatic stubbornness curiously resulted in a dangerous erosion of reason and freethinking. I’m no longer convinced, though, that these groups are outliers. Despite the prima facie democratic nature of the internet (everyone gets to say what they want), there’s a strong countervailing current: a net user can read anything, but she doesn’t have to. When this principle of self-selection is taken to its extreme, for the right communities, it can operate to isolate, homogenize, and radicalize. The internet can create the electronic equivalent of Athenian democracy, but it tends to create the electronic equivalent of 1950s-era gated communities. Just replace “no blacks” with “no evolutionists” or “no O-Bots,” and you’ve got the idea.

None of this is particularly encouraging, especially for those of us that continue to hope that the itnernet is, or can be, an answer to the monotony of popular media. In service of that ideal, we here try to keep this site moderate, respectful, and open to all (reasonable) countervailing view points (the only comment I’ve ever censored was a viciously racist screed, complete with a few n-bombs). Should we ever tire of temperance, though, and yearn for the bright, focused spotlight that only extremism can bring, it’s encouraging to note that all it would take is an abuse of font sizes and color schemes, a divisive oddball issue to “take a stand” on, and a vicious moderation policy.

Let’s see…

A SUBMITTED TO A CANDID WORLD EXCLUSIVE!!! BY AMES & DIDIONSMOMMY © 2008

HE TRAINED WITH OSAMA!!!! IS DICK CHENEY A CLOSET MUSLIM??!??? READ THE EVIDENCE THE CHENEYISTS DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE!!

WARNING: NO TOLERANCE ANTI C-BOT TROLL POLICY IN EFFECT. NEGATIVE COMMENTERS, WE WILL REPORT YOU TO THE FBI.

A good start?

Facebook, Cardboard Cut-Outs, and a Serious Faux-Pas

Over the weekend, a mini-controversy developed over a photograph, found on Facebook, that shows Obama’s future director of speechwriting (Jon Favreau) *ahem* “inappropriately handling” a cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton. Senator Clinton’s staff has tried to play down the incident, and although it’s easy to write it off as simple “youthful indiscretion” (oh, Facebook…), it’s still sexist, and a shockingly poor message for the young administration to be sending.

Predictably, PUMAs have raised the typical straw (wo)men, claiming that no-one is as offended as they should be. That’s incorrect. I’m offended, and I’ll add my voice as a male pro-Obama blogger and say that Favreau’s faux pas is in fact an unacceptable, 180° departure from the message that the administration should be striking. Were the decision in my hands, I’d have at least a nominal demotion for Favreau and a stirring public apology. While it might be bad PR for the Obama team to spend too much time on an incident garnering little media attention, this mini-crisis could serve as an effective teaching moment, and a way of “changing the tone” early on. Balancing the risk of squandering that opportunity against the risk of inviting unfavorable media coverage, I would resolve towards the former.

And, President-Elect Obama: if you’re looking for a new chief speechwriter, you have my contact information.