The funniest thing over the last couple of weeks in the world of politics is no longer the Republican Presidential nomination, which for several months in a row has been the best sitcom on TV. But the building panic from conservatives about Occupy Wall Street has replaced the presidential race as the most delightful show to watch. Eric Cantor is talking about mobs in the street, and Glenn Beck is doing maybe his best meltdown ever (and that’s saying something, because Beck has had some doozies). Conservatives by the truckload are freaking out all over the place.

What makes it even more fun for me is that their panic exactly echoes the kind of panic conservatives have always shown about the idea of democracy and taking on the monied interests throughout American history. In my book on the history of the American political debate, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, I discussed how conservatives throughout our history have always echoed each other on these subjects no matter what the era. Here’s a sampling:

1. Written in 1776 by a pro-British Anglican Bishop: “If I must be enslaved let it be by a King at least, and not by a parcel of upstart lawless Committeemen. If I must be devoured, let me be devoured by the jaws of a lion, and not gnawed to death by rats and vermin.”
2. In the 1790s, friend of the big New York bankers of his day Alexander Hamilton was at a dinner party, and yelled at a pro-democracy advocate: “Your people, sir – your people is a great beast.” An ally of Hamilton’s wrote: “A democracy is scarcely tolerable at any period of natural history. Its omens are always sinister. … It is always on trial here, and the issue will be civil war, desolation, and anarchy. No wise man but discerns its imperfections, no good man but shudders at its miseries. No honest man but proclaims its frauds, and no brave man but draws his sword against its farce.”
3. In the 1830s, conservative hero John C. Calhoun (who first forged the bond between the idea of states’ rights and conservative politics) wrote: “The will of the majority is the will of a rabble. Progressive democracy is incompatible with liberty.”
4. In the post-Civil War era, where the right-wing philosophy of Social Darwinism reigned supreme, conservatives were distressed about the idea of poor and working people voting and then taking from the rich. Charles Adams wrote, “Universal suffrage can only mean in plain English, the government of ignorance and vice – it means a European, and especially Celtic, proletariat on the Atlantic Coast; an African proletariat on the shores of the Gulf, and a Chinese proletariat on the Pacific.” And his contemporary Francis Parkman added, “There is probably no sweeter experience in the world than that of a penniless laborer … when he learns that by casting his vote in the right way, he can strip the rich merchant … of a portion of his gains.”

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (69)

PLAYS: (209)

Embed

I'm not seeing a lot of buzz about this, but there should be. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has unveiled their framework for jobs, which augments and expands upon the President's American Jobs Act.

The CPC's Rebuild The American Dream Framework has six parts to it. Specific policy proposals will be forthcoming, but here is the high level overview:

• Make it in America Again - focus on bolstering U.S. manufacturing
• Rebuild America - focus on infrastructure as a larger part of the jobs policy than the White House proposal
• Lead the Green Industrial Revolution - blending the first two elements into a focus on green industries and products
• Jobs for the Next Generation - Job training and education for young people
• Not Just Jobs – Good Jobs - Reinforcing Americans' right and access to collective bargaining, promoting jobs that provide wages, benefits and security that will preserve the middle class
• Fair Taxes – Shared Sacrifice - Pay for the program by taxing the wealthy in this country

At a time when poverty in this country has risen to one in six Americans, where joblessness among young people is at its highest level since the Great Depression, and jobs are the single biggest issue on the table, this framework is most welcome. It's the product of discussions caucus members had during the summer as they toured the country and spoke to people about what most concerned them.

While I haven't heard all of the specifics yet, I think there are some cues to be taken from progressives' budget proposal released earlier this year, which proposed a 45 percent tax rate on the wealthiest earners in this country, ending the wars, and preserving the social safety net for generations to come.

It's important to recognize that progressives are not trying to compete with the American Jobs Act, but instead have offered proposals which dovetail and augment his. I interpret that message as one of support not just for his plan, but for a larger vision of what can be done with the support of the American people.

Continue reading »

President Obama's speech Thursday night was one of his best ever delivered, and thank goodness he is making a huge political push on the all-important jobs issue. It was a good night for him, and he needed this badly for his political standing. But progressive activists should neither fall into a posture of uncritical support, or just focus on the negative sides of the speech, policy, and political strategy, as sometimes is done by our more hardcore brethren. We should take a critical eye to what is good and bad about the policy, and enthusiastically support the good side while strongly opposing what is bad; we should applaud that he has gone bigger and bolder than conventional wisdom in DC said he would or should, while calling for even more boldness because this package isn't enough to get this economy out of the deep, deep hole it is in. The President needs to have a left flank, not just because of political positioning but because progressives have a moral imperative to stand strongly for what the right thing to do is.

We should not let the fact that we are conflicted on the President's proposal slow down our willingness to take action to fight for what we believe in, either. We need to be strong and clear in what we are calling for, and fight for everything we believe in with every muscle we have.

Let's start with the negatives:

• The President using right-wing talking points on how Medicare and Medicaid have to be cut is unconscionable. The fact that he wants to focus on jobs is wonderful, but claiming that we need to make cuts in Medicare and Medicaid benefits to pay for it is a terrible Sophie's Choice: who do you want to sacrifice, workers or seniors? It's terrible politics and terrible policy, and should be completely rejected. The problem with Medicare and Medicaid costs has to do with the health care industry -- many providers, drug companies, insurers -- driving up both public and private health care costs. We don't need to cut benefits, we don't need to squeeze already hurting states on Medicaid costs, and we don't need to raise the retirement age.
• This Georgia "jobs" plan the President has adopted as his own is right-wing economics at its worst: make unemployed folks work for free, and rob unemployment benefits to pay for it.
• No analysis I have seen of the trade deals the President is supporting as part of his jobs package suggest that these trade deals will produce a net increase in exports. More exports, sure- but it's the net number that matters in actually producing more jobs. The way these trade deals are structured, they are not likely to be a net plus in producing new jobs.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (956)

PLAYS: (1688)

Embed

Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart has taken after Cornel West's remarks in an interview at Truthdig.com with strident disagreement.

From the interview:

No one grasps this tragic descent better than West, who did 65 campaign events for Obama, believed in the potential for change and was encouraged by the populist rhetoric of the Obama campaign. He now nurses, like many others who placed their faith in Obama, the anguish of the deceived, manipulated and betrayed. He bitterly describes Obama as “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it.”

Capehart responds:

What West said is no less offensive, harmful and wrong than what Dinesh D’Souza said — with an assist from Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee — about a presumable anti-colonial and un-American mind-set possessed by Obama. Whereas these folks tried to deny the president his citizenship, West is trying to deny him his inherent blackness. By indulging in the “Obama-as-other” narrative, West is no better than a birther. By making petty complaints in that Truthdig interview about the lack of returned phone calls and not getting Inauguration tickets, West is no different than Gingrich in 1995 , when his displeasure over his seat on Air Force One led to a government shutdown.

Melissa Harris-Perry and Adam Serwer weighed in, too with similar reactions.

I don't understand what the goal is when it comes to Cornel West's opinion. He says in that same interview that if the only backstop against fascism is Barack Obama, he'll go with that. If the goings-on in Republican states and the United States Congress doesn't convince you of that, then look to the Supreme Court's future to understand what's at stake. So why come out and call President Obama a tool of the oligarchs? It makes no sense, and is suppressive in nature and intent.

DOWNLOADS: (467)

PLAYS: (4927)

Embed

Representative Keith Ellison came to the House floor tonight to explain what the Progressive Caucus stands for. In the process, he drew some sharp, biting, well-deserved distinctions between conservatives and progressives. It should be required viewing for every Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh fan.

In this short excerpt, Ellison gets very specific about his view of the American Dream. You should watch the whole speech if you get the chance over on CSPAN, but this was where he really got passionate and animated.

The American Dream, but the dream I'm talking about is rooted in the Pledge of Allegiance. I've got to confess to you, Mr. Speaker, I love coming here to say the Pledge of Allegiance whenever I'm privileged enough to be on the House floor at 10 AM or 12 or whenever we open. I always feel good about saying the Pledge of Allegiance. I teach it to my children.

Note: for those who still doubt Muslims' loyalty to this country, please read that and view the clip over and over till you get it.

Continue reading »

In a remarkable exchange on Lawrence O'Donnell's The Last Word, Tennessee Rep. Phil Roe says he supports the repeal of ObamaCare and the Congressional health care plan, which he doesn't use because he's on Medicare now.

It was amazing and surreal all the way around. Mark Meckler, Tea Party Whore Extraordinaire, was on claiming that the "American People" supported repeal on a 2:1 basis. Adam Green of Bold Progressives did a great job challenging Phil Roe to allow them to conduct a poll of progressive versus conservative ideas, which I think Roe agreed to. Green also corrected Meckler's misstatement about people's attitude toward the health care bill, pointing out that most people think it didn't go far enough.

I don't have a transcript available of the entire exchange, but it's worth the time to watch it, if for nothing more than the big laugh at the end when Roe says "repeal it all because he's on Medicare."

Digby's take on the repeal effort nails it:

I suspect that the health care reform will be the Republicans' most valuable hostage in the next two years. Indeed, it will be the one thing that both the administration and the Senate will fight to the death to preserve --- it is Obama's most important legacy and the Democrats spilled a lot of blood to get it through. It remains to be seen what the Republicans will extract from them in the negotiations.

The repeal vote will be purely symbolic, as O'Donnell points out. But there will be a budget battle royale over funding the exchanges, the subsidies, and other provisions. That's where Republicans will begin to unwind the hairball that is ObamaCare.

enlarge

Credit: Tom Tomorrow

In the wake of President Barack Obama’s premature capitulation in the tax wars to the Republicans -- a party who I might remind you controls neither congressional chamber at this moment (they will take over the House in January) -- once-muted criticism of the Commander-in-Chief on the Left has suddenly erupted into a full-scale flurry of condemnation.

There have been calls for other Democrats to primary him in 2012, jeremiads that Progressives should have been treating him as an adversary, and a feeling on the Left, put into words by a Congressman (Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York), that Democrats "can’t trust him."

So you could say it’s been a somewhat bad month for the president - although that might be akin to saying the guys attending South Carolina's "Secession Ball" will only be missing some of their teeth. The president has not only caved on eliminating budget-busting tax cuts for people who have toilet plungers more expensive than your house, but has backed off long-delayed (but promised) environmental regulations to govern smog and toxic emissions from industrial boilers.

He also negotiated a new Korea Free Trade Agreement that isn’t free from deleterious affects on American workers, enacted a freeze in pay for federal employees for reasons nobody can figure out, and was ready to listen to recommendations to cut Social Security from a committee of rich, irrelevant Beltway primates so old they look like they should be starring in Weekend at Bernie’s 3.

This turn of events would probably explain why in a new McClatchy Poll, President Obama’s approval among liberals has fallen from 78% to 69%, while his disapproval among self-described Democrats has nearly doubled, from 11% to 21%.

That Obama doesn’t have much of a stomach for a rumble as president, this much many liberal commentators can agree upon. Yet, perhaps for political reasons, or maybe due to the glorious rose shade the passage of time can deliver to one’s glasses, many have looked admiringly back to a moment that never existed to call on Obama to be someone he never really was.

A Fighter.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (544)

PLAYS: (898)

Embed

Last week, Laura Tyson laid out what everyone knows is needed to get the economy properly on track: a second stimulus package:

The conventional wisdom about the stimulus package is wrong: it has not failed. It is working as intended. Its spending increases and tax cuts have boosted demand and added about three million more jobs than the economy otherwise would have. Without it, the unemployment rate would be about 11.5 percent. Because about 36 percent of the money remains to be spent, more jobs will be created — about 500,000 by the end of the year.

But by next year, the stimulus will end, and the flip from fiscal support to fiscal contraction could shave one to two percentage points off the growth rate at a time when the unemployment rate is still well above 9 percent. Under these circumstances, the economic case for additional government spending and tax relief is compelling. Sadly, polls indicate that the political case is not.

Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO says the same thing. And he's far from alone. Everyone with a bare understanding of Keynesian economics knows we need a second stimulus -- and real leadership would make it happen.

Unfortunately, that's one thing we won't find with the Obama White House:

"There have been a lot of reports and rumors on different options being considered -- many of which are incorrect," said White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage.

"The options under consideration build on measures the president has previously proposed, and we are not considering a second stimulus package. The president and his team are discussing several options, as they have been for months, and no final decisions have been made," she said.

Great, that's just swell. As Susie observes, these kinds of half-assed measures are only going to ensure continued unemployment and economic malaise -- which also means there's going to be a lot of Democratic seats lost this November unless someone begins taking bold action now to reassure voters that jobs really are their highest priority.

Already, the DCCC seems to be treating this as a kind of eventuality. But it doesn't have to be that way.

This is about defending progressive policies because we know they work. Just because President Obama isn't willing to expend any political capital to make a difference in the coming elections doesn't mean the rest of us have to sit still.

Indeed, there is hope -- in boldness. Every progressive Democrat needs to read Drew Westen's analysis of the situation and take heart -- and heed:

Continue reading »

New York's governor weighed in on the Cordoba House yesterday, claiming his efforts at arranging an "alternate" site were close to fruition. Paterson might as well find an "alternate" bridge to cross the Alabama River -- why march through Selma when you can go miles out of your way and cross at Prattville? -- or an "alternate" lunch counter to Woolworth's, or an "alternate" drinking fountain, or even an "alternate" seat on the bus. As in the Civil Rights Era, there cannot be a neutral ground.

If I seem harsh, it's because I earned the right to be harsh about this. A few weeks ago I noticed a loss of feeling in three toes of my left foot; this is the latest sign of degeneration from the damage my lumbar spine sustained while serving my country. You'll excuse me if I take freedom very seriously, and not merely my own but that of others. To progressives, there is no difference; to regressives, the rights of one subtract from the rights of another. The relative distance of a mosque or community center or titty bar from 'ground zero' makes no difference to the zero-sum mindset, which is why regressives seem impervious to facts.

The president gets this. Last weekend he reframed the debate around Cordoba House by separating the question of whether Manhattan's Muslim community has the right to build Cordoba House from the question of whether it is right to build it at 51 Park Place. Polls show that most Americans get the first part, agreeing Muslims have a "right" to build at that location -- even though the same polls show a majority doesn't think it is the right thing to do. The difference is more than semantic.

Continue reading »

I had a good time in Vegas, so I didn't spend a huge amount of time at NN, but I did spend enough time to take in the mood, and it was schizophrenic. About half the people there are some combination of angry, disappointed and bitter with Democrats in general and Obama in particular.

This group sees him as not a heck of a lot better than George Bush, and in fact the Democrat who extended some of Bush's worst policies, especially in civil liberties. This includes a lot of feminists (angry at what they see as betrayals on abortion), many Hispanics angry at the continued harsh enforcement of immigration laws, gays who feel Obama has betrayed clear promises on gay rights, anti-war activists saddened by escalation in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and a mishmash of folks who think health care reform was a dog's breakfast and that the general way the economy and financial reform has been handled is a disgrace.

Then there are the folks who would characterize themselves, in general, as hard-nosed pragmatists and "realists". These range from the "Obama is the greatest liberal president since FDR" types, who think that the Obama is just wonderful and those progressives and liberals who don't agree are simply delusional to those who feel that a lot of what he's done has been watered down pap in general but that it's certainly better than nothing and that those who are disappointed are unrealistic idealists who simply don't understand the constraints Obama and Congressional Democrats are working under.

As regular readers know, I tend to the first camp, but I'm not going to go into why, I simply want to note that this divide is very real. It's occasioning a lot of anger on both sides. The first sees the second as tribalistic sellouts, willing to excuse horrible things they would never excuse in Republicans so long as they are committed by Democrats and lacking an understanding of just how bad Democratic policy has been. These are folks who tend to sneer at the "wins" as either illusory or so underwhelming as to be a parody of the "lesser evil" argument. (Reminding one inevitably of the T-shirts which say "Why Vote for the lesser evil. Cthulhu 2008.") To many of these folks the other side are, crudely put, sell-outs.

The second side is angry at what they see as fairy-tale thinking and deeply unrealistic. "Obama couldn't fix everything immediately, but he's better than the Republicans will be if they get back in power" is their mantra, ranging from "really, he's wonderful and you're insane for thinking otherwise" to "well, yes he sucks but he sucks less than what the Republicans will do when they get in power." Either way, they see the attacks from what they consider the "purists" as deeply damaging. Democrats may or may not be a ton better than Republicans, but either way, they are better, and there is a moral case to be made for sucking it up one more time and working hard to elect, as the old progressive battle cry runs, "better Democrats". This is a two-party state, with those parties having an unbreakable oligopoly on power. Dissing Democrats just helps the even worse party win, at which point they will do even worse things. So get over your problems, whether they are with economic policy or Obama's continued shredding of fundamental civil liberties like Habeas Corpus, jump back into the trenches with your bowie knife or bayonet and fight for Democrats, not against them because by constantly bad mouthing Dems all you do is make it more likely that Republicans will win, and if they win, well, that will be baaaaddddd. Very, very baaaaaddddd.

To put it crudely and unfairly to both sides, it's the sell-outs without principles against the purists without realism.

Continue reading »