We're forgoing our regular weekly candidate chat this week to talk about another the choice voters have to make in November-- the choice between Austerity and Prosperity. Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and Co. have brought back Voodoo Economics under a new, more respectable (in certain non-C&L circles) name: Austerity. Yeah, that thing failing miserably in every single European country that's ried it, including the U.K., which is currently experiencing a double dip recession. The alternative, Prosperity Economics, is what our candidates have been talking about all year.

Progressives are in an awkward position right now. It's pretty essential the our most important task is to help as many progressives as possible win seats in Congress. And we have to do what we can-- those of us in swing states-- to prevent Wall Street from imposing their anti-democracy ticket, Romney/Ryan, on the country. But after that we're still going to have to contend with a Barack Obama who doesn't quite live up to the progressive approach we need to move the country forward. In fact, certain people-- if you accept Romney's definition of "people"-- are already looking forward to a post-election "bipartisan" lame-duck session in which Obama and Boehner will sell out working families to Big Business. Over the weekend, the president did a major interview with AP's White House correspondent Ben Feller which sounds, on first glance, like some standard reelection stuff about how radical the GOP has become. But digging just a little deeper you find some scarier stuff than that... stuff about Washington's conservative consensus that threatens America almost as much as Romney/Ryan.

Obama's view of a different second-term dynamic in Washington, even if both he and House Republicans retain power, seems a stretch given the stalemated politics of a divided government. He said two changes-- the facts that "the American people will have voted," and that Republicans will no longer need to be focused on beating him-- could lead to better conditions for deal-making.

If Republicans are willing, Obama said, "I'm prepared to make a whole range of compromises" that could even rankle his own party. But he did not get specific.

Those last 6 words should chill you to the bone. Judging by actions he's taken in the past-- particularly in appointing Wall Street shills, from Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to Simpson/Bowles to key economic positions-- the kind of compromise the president is talking about leans very heavily towards thos same failed Austerity programs being pushed by Ryan and Romney and their Wall Street masters. It's the wrong way to go. And that's why that video of Jacob Hacker talking about Prosperity Economics is up top. I hope you watched it already. If not, please do so now. I'll wait; don't worry.

Obama didn't get specific... but he should-- and he should in exactly the way Professor Hacker has laid out, in the video and at the Prosperity Economics website. Short version:

Continue reading »

I deeply respect Dennis Kucinich. He is an unapologetic liberal and was an indefatigable Democratic presidential candidate both in 2004 and 2008. His presence--when allowed by the traditional media,who too often ignored or made fun of him--served the necessary purpose of moving the conversation towards more progressive ideals, even as a longshot candidate.

So it's no surprise that Rabbi Michael Lerner brought up the idea of primarying Barack Obama as a way to keep him honest to Democratic ideals, he named Kucinich specifically as the kind of primary candidate we need.

But there is a real way to save the Obama presidency: by challenging him in the 2012 presidential primaries with a candidate who would unequivocally commit to a well-defined progressive agenda and contrast it with the Obama administration's policies. Such a candidacy would be pooh-poohed by the media, but if it gathered enough popular support - as is likely given the level of alienation among many who were the backbone of Obama's 2008 success - this campaign would pressure Obama toward much more progressive positions and make him a more viable 2012 candidate. Far from weakening his chances for reelection, this kind of progressive primary challenge could save Obama if he moves in the desired direction. And if he holds firm to his current track, he's a goner anyway.

I fundamentally disagree with Lerner's thesis, and I think history backs me up. Ask Jimmy Carter how getting primaried by Teddy Kennedy helped him. But either way, this kind of left jab against the President has to go on without Dennis Kucinich, who declined officially on Lawrence O'Donnell's program any interest in primarying the President in 2012.

But Kucinich is not going quietly into that good night. Just because he won't primary Obama does not mean that he thinks liberals should sit quietly by. He recommends that we speak loud and long about helping the middle class, about getting out of Afghanistan, free trade and our monetary system, injecting our values into the debate.

That's a campaign I think we all should get behind.

Yes, I'm going to a great conference hosted by Campaign for America's Future this week. I'm flying to DC Sunday.

David Neiwert and Susie Madrak will be there also so we can have a little C&L powwow. Progressive politics is the life blood of our country and I'm down for participating in the process and trying to get together with the people that feel the same way. CFAF has some of the most talented people in politics and I couldn't be more excited to be part of it.

I'll be on a cool panel with some very progressives minds at the AFN:

Tuesday, 9:30AM Ends 10:40AM Tea Parties, Beck, Bachman and Blarney

Tea Parties, Beck, Bachman and Blarney

Palladian Room

Eric Burns
John Atlas
Alex Zaitchik
John Amato
Digby
James Rucker

I've had a short video made to illustrate how right wing extremism has found its way from talk radio, radical religious figures and paranoid militia groups into the halls of Congress.

After the panel David and I will be doing a book signing which should be very different. David has done this a few times, but for me it's a first so...

I hope I see you there if you happen to be in DC.

[Note: I'll be appearing on David Sirota's radio show Tuesday at 8:35 am PST to discuss Beck and his attacks on progressives.]

It's been pretty interesting watching Glenn Beck ratchet up the eliminationist rhetoric in his attacks on progressives in the past couple of months.

The storyline, as you may have gathered, is that the "progressive movement" is the root of all evil in American politics, a "cancer" and a "virus" and a "parasite" that has "infected" both parties. Beck has been doing a lot of fake "history" reporting when it comes to these attacks -- indeed, it tells you everything you need to know that he considers Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as the presidential wellsprings of this Great Evil.

Well, as we observed some time back, there's a great deal of real history that Beck has to omit from his narrative in order to make these claims stick -- particularly the reality that progressive politics created the great American middle class consumer society that he and other right-wingers take for granted now, not to mention the conditions for average Americans before the arrival of progressive politics.

But one of the most interesting omissions from Beck's parade of progressive evils is one of the real achievements of progressive politics in the past half-century -- namely, the advancement of civil rights for minorities, beginning with the civil-rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s. These movements ended Jim Crow and made life better for millions of nonwhites, and created a more just and civil society along the way.

And you know, civil rights was a progressive cause. It still is. The opposition? It has always -- ALWAYS -- been conservatives.

Yet all the time Beck has been bashing progressives, he has simultaneously been hosting shows with audiences of black conservatives wherein they sit around and complain about how mean liberals are to them for being conservative and Beck gets to ask dumb white-guy questions like: "Why not identify yourself as Americans?"

Even more to the point, in both of these shows, Beck has glowingly quoted Martin Luther King -- who was, you know, a leader in the progressive movement.

So here's our question for Glenn Beck: If the progressive movement, as you claim, has been so relentlessly evil and has consistently taken America down the wrong path, what about civil rights?

Was Martin Luther King secretly evil too?

Should we return to pre-progressive policies -- you know, the "separate but equal" status quo of Jim Crow and segregation?

Indeed, your hatred of the "progressive movement" and its effects on American life raise a whole host of similar questions about your views on civil rights.

And we're just wondering.

And in more terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad news, Air America filed for bankruptcy and ceased live broadcasting today:

It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of our Board, that we must announce that Air America Media is ceasing its live programming operations as of this afternoon, and that the Company will file soon under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out an orderly winding-down of the business.

The current economy and state of media upheaval is to blame, but we'll miss this terrific voice of progressive politics. A dirty rotten shame, is what it is.

(h/t Heather at VideoCafe)

Big thanks to Shoq for tipping me off to this segment.

It's hard to cogitate when you're immersed in the cesspool that passes for political debate nowadays that this country has actually seen worse days than this. Our economy has been worse, unemployment was higher and journalism was just as yellow.

But as documentarian Ken Burns points out, we also had a president who was willing to invest in our country, to invest in American "shovel-ready" jobs and put them to work developing our beautiful national park system. And as a result, we all share in the beauty of Yosemite and the Grand Canyon as well as the historical significance of sites Monroe Elementary and Manzanar, which do not necessarily reflect a time where America is at its best.

Burns does a great job of smacking down the GOP's completely nonsensical cries of "Socialism!" and reminds us of how tragic it would be if those in Washington had been so similarly cowed during Roosevelt's day, instead of understanding that the creation of the National Parks system brought Americans together, made these areas accessible and available to every American, thereby democratizing our very best idea.

Nate Silver has written a piece called "Why Progressives Are Batshit Crazy To Oppose the Senate Bill." He says we need to stop being "polite" (who's polite these days?) and start being "real." In the spirit of impoliteness and reality (realness?), he offers some numbers in order to argue that the Left is nuts not to embrace the Senate health reform bill.

In that same "no-politeness" spirit, here's my response: Garbage in, garbage out. Is that "real" enough for ya? Progressives - and everyone else, for that matter - should keep fighting.

Silver's heart may be in the right place, and his math is right, but many of his assumptions are flat-out wrong. More importantly, he fails to place his work in the proper human and political context. It's like this: You can build the best model in the world for predicting the outcome of hockey games. But if you knew that sometime during the third period Rahm Emanuel was going to drive out on the ice in a Zamboni and flatten your team's entire defense, wouldn't that change your model a little? And if you knew half the hockey players would wind up bleeding and broken ... (Oh, wait - they do. Bad example.)

Progressives would be insane to do as Silver suggests. He tells us that "a picture's worth a thousand words" (and then gives us 1,795 words - but who's counting). Let's review both his analysis and his conclusions.

Continue reading »

As you’ve no doubt noticed, election day was brutal for Congressional Democrats--especially in the House, where it appears we’ll lose roughly 60 seats and the majority. Now that most of us have uncurled ourselves from fetal position, there are a few things to note as we plan for what we do next:

First, the brutality was not evenly spread. Progressives fared pretty well, while Blue Dogs and New Democrats bore the brunt of the losses. The Congressional Progressive Caucus lost only three of their 76 House members: Reps. John Hall of New York, Phil Hare of Illinois, and Alan Grayson of Florida. By contrast, it looks as though the Blue Dog Coalition will lose 30 of its 55 members and the New Democrats will lose 27 of their 69 members. This will make progressives a much larger portion of the Democratic Caucus, with almost 40% of the Democrats in the House and roughly three times as many members as the remaining Blue Dogs.

It’s clear that the economy-- specifically unemployment-- was the major factor. With the unemployment rate hovering just under 10% and no light at the end of the tunnel, neither the Administration nor Congressional Democrats managed to clearly describe their plan for putting Americans back to work. Republicans were even more incoherent, but they could run against the failure, arguing Democrats had run up deficits without creating jobs.

In addition, the turnout and voting patterns strongly suggest that a degree of demoralization among the Democratic base played a significant role in the outcomes. Younger voters stayed home—not merely compared to 2008, but with a significant drop-off from 2006 numbers when the last Congressional midterm election was held. The same is true for blacks and Latinos. Women shifted sharply towards Republicans, from favoring Democrats by 14 points in 2008 to splitting evenly on Tuesday.

Suffice it to say for the moment that flagrantly throwing women, gays, organized labor, and Latinos under the bus, breaking campaign promises around which significant elements of your base have organized, abandoning the lofty rhetoric of the campaign to cut backroom deals with the people whose greed and bad faith created the messes we’re in, and actively and repeatedly insulting the people who communicate most often with your key supporters is probably not the optimal strategy for resounding political success. (But hey, bygones, right?) So what do progressives do now?

Continue reading »