Archive for April 2009

John Boehner Reminds us Why America Hates Him

For those of you who read this blog, but not Salon’s “War Room” (yes, both of you), make sure you see this web ad, released by GOP front-man John Boehner (R-OH). It’s a truly blistering indictment…

…of the Republican Party, and a reminder that conservatives only ever win elections by exploiting holes in democratic theory, the fear, hysteria, complacency, and xenophobia that together conspire to rob voters of their reason. With this ad, Boehner demonstrates once and for all that neither he nor the GOP are capable of truly leading the country, in the sense of inspiring the nobility of spirit that a democracy demands of its citizens, especially in wartime. For shame.

Richard Posner Comes to the Dark Side

And by “dark side” I mean the side of support for regulation of the market. (Some of us — ahem –consider this “seeing the light.”)

Posner is a classical liberal. Actually, that five-word sentence understates the point. It’s a tough call as to whether Posner or (Milton) Friedman is the face of the (University of) Chicago School. Granted, Posner is in the law school while Friedman “built” the Chicago School of Economics, but Posner’s prolific and highly influential work both on the bench (U.S. Courth of Appeals, 7th Circuit) and as an author has positioned him certainly as the living face of the Chicago School and — perhaps over Friedman — the symbol of same.

So imagine my surprise when I bunkered down last night with the latest issue of the NYRB and found Posner’s latest — A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of ’08 and the Descent into Depression — reviewed by Robert M. Solow, a Nobel-Prize winning economist at M.I.T. Solow excerpts this passage from Posner (bold mine):

Some conservatives believe that the depression is the result of unwise government policies. I believe it is a market failure. The government’s myopia, passivity, and blunders played a critical role in allowing the recession to balloon into a depression, and so have several fortuitous factors. But without any government regulation of the financial industry, the economy would still, in all likelihood, be in a depression; what we have learned from the depression has shown that we need a more active and intgelligent government to keep our model of a capitlaist economy from running off the rails. The movement to degregulate the financial industry went too far by exaggerating the resilience — the self-healing powers of laissez-faire capitalism.

Whoa!

Solow calls Posner to task for sloppy definintions. For instance, Posner defines the current economic crisis as a “depression,” a “steep reduction in output that causes or threatens to cause deflation and creates widespread public anxiety and … a sense of crisis that evokes extremely costly efforts at remediation.” Solow wonders how steep the reduction needs to be and points out deflation should be sustained and not sporadic, which is what we have seen thus far, to merit “depression” labeling. Instead, Solow believes we are in a recession, a long and serious one.

From Solow, too:

There are other weaknesses in Posner’s remarks on the real economy. For example, more than once he says that the various antirecessionary measures — like fiscal stimulus, bailouts — are very “costly” and “may do long-term damage to the economy.” He does not explain what these costs and damages are. … [B]ailouts are mostly transfers from one group in society to another, for example from taxpayers to financial institutions and their owners. They are certainly not ethically satisfying transfers, but it is not clear how they do long-term damage to the economy. The components of a fiscal stimulus package are costs to the federal budget; but to the extent that they put otherwise unemployed labor and idle industrial capacity to work, they do not impoverish the economy; in fact, they enrich it. … If fiscal stimulus works, even imperfectly, there is no doubt which way the benefit-cost ratio goes.

Solow does give Posner some credit for “worrying about the very large increases in the money supply and in the interest-bearing public debt that are left behind by antirecessionary policy.” Nonetheless, economic recovery resulting in stable growth rate and monetary policy can reduce the ratio of debt to GDP, which — Solow says — “is what matters.”

The point is, Posner’s paradigm shift is a big deal. It echoes Alan Greenspan’s mea culpa:

I would never insult Posner by lumping him with the intellectual likes of Republicans in Congress, but the impression of Posner’s book I get from Solow is similar to what I have been hearing from Republicans on the House Finance Committee. Specifically, House Republicans — at least the rank-and-file — are admitting the need for stronger regulation, but they are absolutely, positively unwilling to give an inch when it comes to non-tax-cut interventions to try to staunch the flow of the recession. It’s almost like trying to deal with a toddler who is overdue for a nap and who doesn’t want to either let go of her PB&J sandwich or finish that last bite. She won’t admit she is tired, nor will she admit she is overwhelmed by the sandwich in her hand. She’s out of ideas, and on the verge of a tantrum. Sound familiar?

Certainly, the Republican rhetorical style is acutely childish, but so, too, it seems, is the substance of the conservative economic argument in this country.

The Party of “Hoax”

The clip is 4:30, but you can get what you need by 1:45 and definitely by 3:10.

That was yesterday. And here is today’s expected statement from Representative Foxx wherein she says her use of “hoax” was a “poor choice of words.”

Can Congressional Republicans get any more stupid?

Cloning: a Potential New Wedge Issue?

When they work, conservative culture war issues have a wedge-like quality to them (just ask the Discovery Institute). Take abortion. Arguing against abortion naturally tends towards a critique of feminism, women’s rights, and changing social norms generally; from there it’s a quick leap to the old “elitism” canard; and from there to an indictment of the role of the federal courts. By the end, all of the myriad talking points are in the field, following naturally from one particularly pointed issue.

That’s why cloning – which seems to be a non-issue – could become a dangerous issue, and a new rallying point for otherwise fatigued social conservatives. Bear with me.

Reproductive cloning is basically a valence issue. Nearly everyone agrees (90% in 2002) that it’s wrong, for one reason or another. For what it’s worth, even this author, the perenially pro-science type, agrees. I’ll stand steadfastly behind therapeutic cloning – basically a fancy way to get custom-grown stem cells – but the cloning of a full human being, especially to replace another (as some seem to envision it) is a bridge too far, especially for objective safety reasons.

On that point, any legislative attempt to ban human reproductive cloning would surely pass, overwhelmingly so, to the point of it being a non-issue, off the radar of any self-respecting congressperson. But news of near-successful reproductive cloning from Europe could raise the issue to the forefront, and bring a whole host of other issues, once more, into play.

The prospect of reproductive cloning implicates the same sticky moral quandaries exploited by the right for generations – the potential destruction of embryonic life, distrust of science, usurping the role of the divine – but frames them in an even more offensive light. Call this the tip of the “wedge.” From there, rhetorically, it’s easy to segue between a critique of reproductive cloning to questioning garden-variety stem cell research, through the old “slippery slope” fallacy. And legislatively, because of the way U.S. lawmaking works, a proposed ban on reproductive cloning could, as it nearly has in the past, pull through illegitimately anti-science provisions on its coattails, as amendments.

At this point, all this is basically a fanciful nightmare, born of speculation on how conservatie America could re-invent itself, to the detriment of all. But if the GOP is looking to re-rally the fundamentalist base, and establish a new beachhead in the culture wars, this issue could be it.

At 100 Days, is it Obama’s Economy Yet?

Like a hearts player eager to dump the queen of spades at the first opportunity, the Republican Party desperately wants to frame the nation’s continuing economic problems as Obama’s legacy, not his inheritance, and Newt Gingrich seems to think the 100-day  mark is the time to do that:

One thing is clear at this point in President Obama’s presidency: His control of Washington Democrats has been so masterful, and his policies so successful, that he has officially claimed ownership of the American economy.

Going forward, it won’t be possible to continue to place blame on former President Bush and the Republicans. If President Obama fails, it will be his failure and his alone.

This “transition of blame” remains premature. While economists begin to report some signs of hope, the continued economic downturn is just that – a continuation to be broken, not re-attributed. It takes time for any political action to filter through the country. Markets respond to action, not symbolic milestones. One hundred days in to Obama’s administration, at least one thing hasn’t changed: Republicans are still trying to pass the buck.

Justice Scalia: Inveterate Culture Warrior

I respect Justice Scalia. Hell, I even have a bobblehead of him by my books. While I’ll disagree with him on a whole host of issues, his consistency on the bench is a rare commodity. Especially reading cases that sound in federal courts jurisprudence or civil procedure, one gets the impression that, say what you will of Scalia’s convictions, but he follows them honestly, candidly, and apolitically.

Most of the time. In more than a few high-profile cases, though, Scalia’s candor reveals dangerous biases and prejudices that do, in these cases at least, detract from his stature and seriously undercut the objective qualities of his reasoning. In the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), Scalia argued against gay rights from a nakedly partisan perspective, going so far as to write the “Focus on the Family” catchphrase “homosexual agenda” into the U.S. Reporter:

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. [. . .]

It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream.” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 602-03 (emphasis added).

Why does the majority’s subjective judgment matter? It emphatically shouldn’t. And the pages of a Supreme Court dissent are not the place to spout far-right talking points.

The same bizarre, prejudiced, hyper-partisan rhetoric was on display today, when the Court announced the decision in a relatively low-profile case on the FCC’s ability to regulate “fleeting expletives” on live television. Had it been a first amendment case, this would’ve been big news; instead, the Court resolved it on administrative law grounds. But catch this line from Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court:

We doubt, to begin with, that small-town broadcasters run a heightened risk of liability for indecent utterances. In programming that they originate, their down-home local guests probably employ vulgarity less than big-city folks; and small-town stations generally cannot afford or cannot attract foul-mouthed glitteratae from Hollywood.

This wholly unnecessary paragraph reads like the detestable anti-city narrative of Palin’s stump speech, mixed with typical Pat Robertson anti-media invective. I worry about a judge who not only enters the courtroom with certain preconceived notions of the parties before it – as all judges probably do – but allows these ideas to enter his reasoning. Such prejudices, when set to paper, add nothing to the opinion, and detract greatly from the Court’s public image as an impartial body.

Stakes Rise for Coleman’s Lost Legal Battle against Franken

While I’ve cautiously exulted in the Republican Party’s increasing marginalization – commenters have been right, the same was said of the Democrats in ’04 – it’s now official. With the loss of Arlen Specter (D-PA), the Republican Party no longer has a moderate wing, which any part needs to be competitive in the modern era.  Because Specter gives the Democrats the magic number – sixty, but not on all issues – expect Norm Coleman to continue to drag out the Minnesota election, to keep the Senate from seating the now-victorious Senator Franken. And expect Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota governor and the GOP’s best shot in 2012, to be forced into risking his political future on a nasty stall campaign.

Teleprompters as Talking Points: Fallacy Somewhere, I Suppose…

…for all you Gilbert & Sullivan fans out there.

Among a whole laundry list of things the right has decided to just start caring about – like, say, executive power – is, unexpectedly, the President’s rhetorical image. When President Obama paused yesterday, mid-speech, to wait for the teleprompter to catch up, conservative message boards lit up with delight and a surprising degree of schadenfreude:

I’ll be the first to argue that a President’s speaking abilities ought to matter. In fact, while Obama remains one of the best speakers in recent memory when it comes to grandoise events of state (inauguration, nomination, etc.), his off-the-cuff, daily speaking style still leaves some to be desired. For those occasions, I’d give him .75 standard Bartlets, or (for those of you on the other side of the Pond) perhaps .63 metric Blairs.

That said, it goes without saying that he’s a far cry from his immediate predecessor, which makes the right’s selective mockery worse than hypocritical.

Besides, the teleprompter kerfuffle isn’t about Obama’s specific speaking style, skill, or intellect, which emphatically do matter. Whether Obama can remember things, or follow a teleprompter, goes to his memory, and the time he has available for daily speech preparation. Frankly, I don’t care about either of those, and neither should you. In a time of crisis, we want the President’s mind engaged with solving real-world problems, not behind his desk poring over the index cards for his speech to this high school, or that agency. The American people elected President Obama for his decisionmaking abilities, not his similarities to a rewritable disk.

Let’s call the teleprompter jokes at the President’s expense what they are: emblems of another sophomoric stunt, meant to divert attention away from the opposition’s utter inability to generate substantive solutions. Conservatives can’t fault Obama for the substance of his speech – his promise to make science matter for the first time in eight years – and this is their sad, telling alternative. Anyone who reads that speech and sees a teleprompter joke instead of an important message about science in America is, for all they represent, everything that is wrong with our country.

BREAKING: Obama to Commit to Expand Research & Development

It’s been a long road, and a long time coming:

PRES. OBAMA: A half century ago, this nation made a commitment to lead the world in scientific and technological innovation… That was the high water mark of America’s investment in research and development. Since then our investments have steadily declined as a share of our national income — our GDP. As a result, other countries are now beginning to pull ahead in the pursuit of this generation’s great discoveries. [. . .]

I believe it is not in our American character to follow — but to lead. And it is time for us to lead once again. I am here today to set this goal: we will devote more than three percent of our GDP to research and development.

For the record, the US’ current GDP hovers above $14 trillion, making 3% of our GDP a staggering $420 billion. By comparison NASA received $1 billion from the recovery bills, for a 2010 budget of less than $20 billion. The Apollo program cost roughly $135 billion in 2005 dollars, over thirteen years. A manned mission to Mars might cost something around $120 billion over ten years, or potentially as low as $55 billion. The Human Genome Project cost taxpayers a measly $3 billion.

All this is to say, you can do a lot of science with $420 billion. It’s not Kennedy’s Apollo speech, and it’s not action (yet), but it’s a start: the turnaround for American scientific hegemony starts today, less than 100 days after Bush left the White House.

The GOP at 100 Days: the Party of Publicity Stunts

Last week, the Republican Party took a bold new step – by asking Michael Steele to pressure the Democratic Party to formally change its name to the “Democrat Socialist” Party.

RESOLVED, that we the members of the Republican National Committee call on the Democratic Party to be truthful and honest with the American people by acknowledging that they have evolved from a party of tax and spend to a party of tax and nationalize and, therefore, should agree to rename themselves the Democrat Socialist Party.

Obviously, this is a non-starter, just barely above fourth-grade namecalling. But it’s also the most substantive action the GOP has taken since Obama took office, almost 100 days ago. With the exception of the RNC budget proposal – a hack job reliant entirely on useless diagrams & deliberately misleading estimates – each time Obama’s loyal opposition has taken the podium, it has been to publicize and capitalize on a perceived public relations gaffe. Not once to lead.

Take Handshakegate. Bowgate. The enduring (but failing) “socialist” narrative, epitomized in GOP-funded sham “tea parties.” And the myriad other culture war talking points that comprise Karl Rove’s incessant attempts to distract the public. This is the sum-total of the GOP’s 100 days pushback, a rehash of the same shallow criticisms (“unpatriotic!” “conciliatory!” “socialist!”) that failed catastrophically in November.

For eight years, America was governed by an administration more concerned with scoring culture-war “points” than protecting the nation. Even vital national security work, the lifeblood of a wartime Presidency, was implemented so as to maximize division and ideological conformity, with no heed to effectiveness or efficacy.  It didn’t work for America and, eventually, it stopped working for the GOP.

It’s easy to stand on the sidelines and criticize – almost as easy as it is to treat the entire White House as a press office, and neglect the hard work of government. But it’s bad politics and, for the GOP, a bad way to convince the electorate that you’ve learned your lesson. Not that I’m complaining…