Clowns to the Left of Me (and Open Thread)

 

"Stuck in the Middle with You" - Stealers Wheel

Articles like this make me happy that I missed Netroots this year.  It's a description of a panel consisting of Jane Hamsher, John Aravosis, Dan Choi, and Felipe Matos denouncing the Obama Administration for being insufficiently zealous in its support for gay rights and immigration reform.  In light of what has gone on since the 2010 elections -- a plethora of anti-immigrant and anti-gay initiatives in places where the Republicans have gained control of state governments -- I find this a bit astonishing.  Not to mention the fact that Republicans stand in the way of gay marriage legalization in New York, Maryland, and New Jersey, as well as DOMA repeal.  It also seems more than likely that the Republican Platform and any successful presidential nominee will call for restoration of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  But heaven forbid that practical concerns should stand in the way of our righteous panel members. 

Now Choi and Matos can be excused for this foolishness I suppose, given the fact they are both political novices and deeply personally affected by these issues.  Hamsher and Aravosis, on the other hand, should know better, but that would require them to possess intellects larger than their egos.  Aravosis is quoted as saying "I would probably vote for the president in the end, but I'd also do everything I can to shame him" and that "we always say we simply expected what he promised - the White House would rather not engage at all, at least with the big stuff.  We were told that he would be a fierce advocate, and he's not been fierce at all, and not much of an advocate."

So the President who systematically laid the ground work to get the military brass to endorse Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal and helped steer it thorough a Senate filibuster, who had his Administration withdraw from legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by Jane's good friend Bill Clinton) in courts across America, and who has undertaken a variety of other gay-friendly initiatives is not worthy of support.  The excuse now seems to be Obama's failure to embrace gay marriage -- now I think the time has come for this step -- but the fact is Obama never promised any such thing and he has more than followed through on the things that he promised.  Both Obama and Hillary Clinton made a tactical error in the way they positioned themselves on gay marriage in 2008 -- neither wanted to embrace something that they saw as a political loser, after the issue was viewed as being instrumental in helping George Bush beat John Kerry in Ohio.  But rather than stake out the position that "marriage is between a man and woman" they would have been better off characterizing it as an issue to be determined by the states.  I know, not exactly profiles in courage stuff, but a dodge with a whole lot more wiggle room to adjust to changed circumstances.  And circumstances have changed, with lightning speed really.

It seems pretty clear to me that Obama is moving toward a pro-marriage equality stance.  In the meantime, though, he has done more than enough to earn the spirited support of the gay rights community.  However, even if you don't agree, a quick look at where the Republicans are on these issues and it seems to me that this should generate a sense of compelling urgency. Instead, you have someone like Aravosis pretending that there is some realistic tactical alternative to going all in for Obama and the Democrats.  It's as if in 1964, the leaders of the civil rights movement were disappointed because LBJ had delivered only the Civil Rights Act and not the Voting Rights Act, and so, even in the face of Goldwater, decided to grudgingly and half-heartedly back Johnson, all the while diminishing the enthusiasm to vote of their followers.

As for immigration reform, I think a similar analysis follows.  As I have written before, I believe that the Obama Administration made a major tactical mistake in not trying to get immigration reform through early in his term.  But there were a whole lot of competing priorities at the time and, sadly, a lot of overconfidence in the ability to get things done in a methodical fashion.  Again, however, one simply has to look at the agenda of the other side -- see, e.g. Arizona and Alabama, among others -- to know that there is no choice here but to back the President and the Democrats to the fullest, because there is literally no alternative.

Most importantly, Hispanics, unlike gays, have sheer numbers in strategically located states that if they will get out and vote in proportion to their numbers in the population, they can, in the end, force the Republicans to change their positions or face annihilation.  If Hispanic voters turned out to vote in huge numbers in 2012 in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina -- and they voted 70-80% Democratic, they would deliver a landslide to Obama and serve notice to the Republican Party that they bash immigrants at their peril.  If they do so to the point where Texas appears to be in imminent future play, a state that the Republicans simply cannot win the presidency without, then some fairly prompt reassessment of Hispanic-bashing (it may take a couple of election cycles) by Republicans will have to happen. 

In other words, with enough patience and a strategic campaign aimed at a huge and concentrated vote for the Democrats, immigration-reform advocates hold the cards to bring about what they want.  

Pro marriage equality advocates are on the cusp of a similar demographic wave -- in this case, in the person of younger voters, who overwhelmingly favor their position.  If these young people can be motivated to go out and vote in large numbers and to support pro-gay rights Democrats in force, marriage equality will sooner, rather than later, be the law in a large number of states.

If, however, people like our holier than thou panelists, convince Hispanics and young people and other progressives that there is no real point in backing Obama and other Democrats, then we can revel in our purity while watching a repeat of what is going on in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, et al. on a national scale.   

Update: One of the FDLers does a parody of what I am talking about.  And the comments -- Sweet Jesus are these people stupid.  Jane should be very proud of the fucking loony bin she's created over there. 

 

Comments

[Toast]

Jane Hamsher's a worthless, self-promoting bag of shit.

[Sir Charles]

Toast,

Yeah, well, there's that too.

And the thing is Jane will be just fine -- she can play out her little self-important games and will still be rich, while the people foolish enough to follow her path are going to fid themselves SOL under Republican rule.

[big bad wolf]

but jane has given so much to our culture.

great post, SC. my only quibble would be the need-an-intellect-bigger-than-their-ego line. given the manifest size of their egos, your line suggests their intellects might also be huge.

things have changed: rome was built in a day. now obama can't build a new country in three years. wanker. :)

[Sir Charles]

bbw,

See my update. These people boggle the mind.

[nancy]

pm carpenter is also mightily impressed . Comments are pretty priceless too. :^) . Nader in 2012?

[willf]

Sadly, Obama is worse than Bush on civil liberties. And Obama's administration has gone out of its way to publicly insult its own base. Is it so hard to understand that some people might get fed up? Dan Choi was right on the money, no matter what you think of his tactics.

Don't know that I agree with the rest of what is said on that site, or any other. Yes, overenthusiastic commenters say stupid things.

[kathy a.]

nice link, nancy, but your use of the N word is giving me hives.

these kinds of arguments just make me so tired. they cannot possibly believe any potential republican candidate will be better on LGBT issues, civil right, education, health care, social safety nets, consumer protection, environmental issues, etc. they cannot possibly believe that obama has just been hiding his magic wand, or that he has personal control over the legislative function, or that the depth and breadth of the mess he inherited is of no consequence when assessing where we are at present.

i can't spend the next 16 months being pissed at people who value a righteous rant over trying to move forward on the myriad problems we face collectively. i already raised my own teenagers.

if the choices are between less-than-ideal and profoundly bad, a responsible person should be able to distinguish the two and deal with that.

[kathy a.]

willf -- can you give examples of obama being worse than shrub on civil liberties? i don't read everything, but i really don't see it that way.

[Sir Charles]

willf,

I would rather strongly disagree that Obama is worse on civil liberties than Bush.

I would also argue that there are a host of issues of concern, not simply civil liberties, and that Obama is decidedly superior to any Republican on all of them, especially gay rights and immigration reform.

Lastly, what Cho said was not "right on the money" - it was remarkably juvenile. His notion that party loyalty should not be a constant and guiding force in people's political lives is ridiculous. The party to which a politician belongs is by far the most important indicator of where he/she will come down on an issue. To discount it is to fundamentally misundertand the nature of politics.

We have many commenters on this site -- many I'd like to think of as enthusiastic. I do not expect "enthusiasm" to translate into idiocy.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

I liked Carpenter's post too.

[kathy a.]

willf, sure -- everyone understands feeling disappointed when their priorities are not advancing fast enough or thoroughly enough. there are lots of things i'd like to see moving along more decisively.

i don't think it is fair or accurate or helpful to sum it up as "there is no difference between the parties." sure, it's firey rhetoric. so is most of what we hear from the other side. i'm just generally in favor of talking about specific issues, and of looking at where we are, where we want to go, how to get there -- and very importantly, how much damage will be done by other candidates. there isn't a single GOP prospect who doesn't scare me.

[Crissa]

I don't understand this. Yes, he's not a perfect president for those of us on the left...

...But what do we gain from letting the Republicans win by sinking our tepid allies?

And it's not like he's managed to keep his promises even with the least number of appointees appointed and every bill of his filibustered?

Heck, has any President in our history had all his bills filibustered?

[Sir Charles]

Crissa,

I think it is fair to say that the number of filibusters during 2009-10 was unprecedented by a huge order of magnitude.

The "thinking" from the geniuses at FDL seems to be a variant of the old Leninist principle of "heightening the contradictions" i.e. our enemies will make things so bad that inevitably the masses will turn to the forces of good.

In the meantime, of course, actual human beings will have the shittiest of lives, but hey, it's all for the greater good.

[willf]

kathy a.

Here's John Stewart's take on Obama's civil liberties. It's probably the least offensive way to make my argument.

If you want something more substantive, (and I suspect that you do) here's the EFF from back in 2009 on Obama's arguments for keeping warrantless wiretapping, which exceed what the Bush administration tried to do. Here's Gleen Greenwald's take on the same decision

In 2010, the head of the ACLU said that he's disgusted with Obama's policies on civil liberties. He doesn't use the words "worse than Bush" but he does talk about Bush admin policies that have been continued and strengthened.

A more recent example: John Nichols of The Nation wrote about Obama extending and expanding some of the most abusive parts of the Patriot Act, beyond even what the Republicans want. In particular, the FBI is expanding the guidelines on who can be surveilled without a warrant, without evidence of a crime, even without suspicion of wrongdoing. You can read or hear a program Amy Goodman of Democracy Now did on the topic here.

I'm not even going to go into Obama's ramped-up prosecution of whistleblowers, or the fact that even liberal bloggers like Digby - who still support Obama - have noticed that his once famous regard for constitutional checks and balances is discarded once it conflicts with the executive gaining and holding even more power.

It is sad to say it, but on civil liberties Obama is objectively no better than the previous administration.

[willf]

Sir Charles, you have a much different take on what party membership means than I do. I find your idea that party membership gives you an easy identifier for what policies an elected official would advocate to be kind of quaint. I do not go so far as to say that the two main parties are identical, but as you ascend each party's hierarchy, you see that it's the wealthy party at the top of both institutions.

I reiterate that Choi's action was the right one. If activists and motivated party members cannot find a way to influence our elected officials, what hope do we have of ever seeing our country become a fairer, more liberal place? The man who addressed Choi was saying to his face that he didn't consider Choi to be worthy of equal rights, and that the president was't likely to do much about it, but that Choi should support him anyway. This is not a recipe for advancing your policy goals. As a matter of fact, I would argue that it was the LGBT community's in-your-face activism and unwillingness to play nicely that forced Obama to move on DADT.

I'll go further, and postulate that once you say "Well I'm going to vote Democratic because what else can I do?", then nothing you say after that can possibly have any impact. You might as well just write "Shut up and leave me alone, and call me when it's time to vote".

[Sir Charles]

willf,

So I guess if these are the paramount issues for you then you can go out and vote for the Republican nominee, who will no doubt show far greater concern about them than Obama has.

I am not happy with all of the Administration's decisions on this score myself -- although I find the notion of Bradley Manning as a whistleblower to be comical. Oddly enough, members of the military are actually not allowed to leak classified documents to journalists.

And I do find that Greenwald, et al, have this tendency to ignore the existence of any actual threats out there. Because of the abuses of the Bush Administration, the assumption becomes that there really isn't groups actively trying to inflict violence on the American public -- and that strikes me as wishful thinking.

[Davis X. Machina]

But what do we gain from letting the Republicans win by sinking our tepid allies?

You're coming at politics as if it were, you know, politics.

Think of it as a form of social signalling. Of declaring to your friends who you are and what you're all about through your public consumption of one name-brand product rather than another, or going no-label.

[Sir Charles]

willf,

And yet, if one looks at a host of issues, from tax policy to Social Security to gay rights to abortion rights to collective bargaining rights, in almost all instances all you need to know about a politician is what party he/she belongs to to know there position on these issues. The most liberal Republican in Congress these days will typically be to the right of the most conservative Democrat in terms of voting records.

I am not suggesting that people not actively try to shape the Democratic Party and make it a more progressive institution. What I am suggesting is that pretending that party doesn't matter, as Choi suggests, or to be unwilling to go about the hard work of institutionally working within the party for election after election until you get some of what you want, will condemn you to perpetual impotence and frustration.

I think that activist need to be both zealous and smart. I am not opposed to holding politicians' feet to the fire -- I am opposed to foolishly engaging in self-destructive activities, like voting for Nader or the Green Party, and pretending that that is going to advance the cause one iota.

[Sir Charles]

DXM,

I buy all my politics at a hip place in Williamsburg.

I see that at Balloon Juice you actually pointed out the origins of the heighten the contradictions school and that it wasn't Lenin. I bow to your superior knowledge.

[nancy]

I am reminded of the twin hobby-horses that are not always acknowledged as such in American politics. The "myth of the self-made man" on the right, and the "you've got to earn my vote--I'm an independent" on mostly the left. These perennial "man of the people" arguments are distractions on the left and useful to the right. I have friends who voted for Nader in 2000, and I hope they wouldn't repeat that error, but when I get email forwards from them looking to the "good fight", I do worry. Especially if our young folks who are in "survival mode" don't seriously gear up for national politics again due to looming concerns about loan re-payments, job searches and once again losing the healthcare protections, which for many, kicked in with the help of this President.

FDL--seriously? Who are you kidding?

[big bad wolf]

i am in with the work with the better of what we have group, as i've said many times before. that said, the obama adminstration has been abominable in its use of the espionage act. it had, as the jane mayer article i linked to a couple weeks back discussed, five espionage act prosecutions going until recently. that doesn't sound like much but it was more than any other administration ever. and the cases are not linked to what one would think of as espionage. the drake case fell apart on them, thankfully, so now there are four. that's still too many.

drake, though we mightn't share much of his politics, was, i think, a much more sympathetic defendant than manning is. some of that may not be manning's fault---he's been turned into a symbol by both sides and overstated as symbols often are. there are real dangers, but obama has been a big disappointment on the police powers front. we need him back and we need more dems to make the social progress we are making and the more we shall make. but we should be more active in voicing intra-party disagreement about prosecutions and police powers.

[big bad wolf]

i knew i was old, or eternally sick of social signaling, when PBR became hip for a time years ago. good god, we fought wars and had sitdown strikes so our children wouldn't have to drink things like PBR

[willf]

Well, I'n not sure where the last comment went, so I'll summarize.

My first point was Obama has an atrocious record on civil liberties. I think that has been borne out.

More importantly, it is necessary that everyone who is genuinely and sincerely interested in making the Democratic party more democratic step up their pressure on their elected officials.

Saying "where else ya gonna go?" is abdication of responsibility.

Dan Choi offers a fine example of the kind of activism that bloggers including some on this site claim that they want to see. At this point in the inter-party dialogue about making it more democratic it is incumbent upon those who criticize their more active counterparts for their supposed unhelpful behavior to step up with some actual on-the-ground examples of real results that they have gained, or at the least, some kind of map on how they plan to get there.

As it is, the feircest critics of the activist left are offering nothing to the comversation but their disdain. We need more than that.

[low-tech cyclist]

i can't spend the next 16 months being pissed at people who value a righteous rant over trying to move forward on the myriad problems we face collectively. i already raised my own teenagers.

Well said!

[big bad wolf]

willf, i think SC laid out in his post how much good has been accomplished since jan 09. is it less than we might like? it sure is. is it headed in the right direction on most social issues? it is. was it worse under bush? for the very most part, yes. the problem is not so much that the left wants ponies and rainbows (though part of it does), but that it wants things yesterday. this is not the way the world works. the hard fact is that a lot of people with "bad" (i agree they are bad) political views are not bad people. they may have to be persuaded and brought along, but i, a liberal northerner living in a red, red state will tell you that many of these people with bad voting records are better people, face to face and in terms of reliability and trustworthiness than are many righteous, educated liberals, including my friends (these may reflect poorly on me). in troubles that did not involve julian assange, i'd expect more help from a lot of these republican voters than i would from jane hamsher or my local liberals. too many liberals are like me and graham greene--more comfortable with humanity than humans. programmatic solutions are absolutely essential, but so too is a sense of the local, the next door. liberals don't do that well. a hard truth, but a truth i think after 20 years in a red state. there is a core, a not insignificant core (probably 25%) that cannot be reached but there is another 25% that can be. if all we do is condemn them, they will never ever consider being with us. if we coax, cajole, appeal, and shame them gently, we may get a lot of them. as long as we stand astride history and say "yesterday and no later if you don't want to be condemned" we will never get them. we must love one another and die, as auden correctly put it.

[big bad wolf]

RIP clarence clemons. i don't mourn his passing; i wouldn't have wanted him to linger painfully. it is only the tiniest understatement to say that bruce and clarence saved my life. as a morose teen (soon to grow into a morose adult), the greatest excitement and joy i experienced was at two concerts in the fall of 78. the camaraderie and happiness on stage, the sense of friendship and purpose lifted me then and forever (if not very high for long, being, as i said, morose by nature). bruce and clarence clearly loved one another and loved what they and their other friends together. in 78 in providence and boston, at the end of thunder road, bruce ran across the stage and slid into clarence's embrace. in 80 in providence and boston, bruce ran across the stage, slid into clarence's arms, and they shared a long kiss. this was beautiful then, and uncelebrated. also, among the audience unremarked upon except positively. it didn't change the world. it didn't change them. it didn't even get remembered. it was beautiful. life is like that. clarence, of blessed memory.

[Sir Charles]

willf,

I want to compliment you on making your points well and gracefully.

I think we probably are divided more by points of emphasis than actual policy positions.

I am very much in favor of moving the Democratic Party further to the left. However, I am also in favor of effective political action. Attacks on the President or on the Dems generally can have the affect of promoting apathy and incorrect political equivalence snd concomitant frustration.

I am opposed to any tendency that makes people think that there is no substantive difference between voting for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

[Beckya57]

I'm surprised that nobody's made what seems to me to be an obvious point here. This perfect-as-the-enemy-of-the-good thinking is part of what got us Bush in the first place. Anybody remember Ralph Nader in 2000? Lefties defecting to him, and otherwise failing to support Gore, made that election close enough for the SC to steal it. The right-wing is much smarter on this than we are: the cultural conservatives get frustrated with the Republicans, but always stick by them, because they know they have much more power working within the party then they would outside of it.

[kathy a.]

nancy alluded to nader upstream. yes, we have a solid example from the not-distance past.

[Kevin Zeese]

Willf comments that Manning is not a whistle blower. that is so comical! Give me a break, Manning is accused of leaking documents that show war crimes, crimes by the State Department (up to Hillary Clinton ordering diplomats to spy on UN diplomats); misbehavior of government officials including blackmail, threats, spying; plotting with oligarchs and royalists -- he is accused of blowing lots and lots of whistles -- which is why the government is abusing him so aggressively.

Of course, the military forbids leaking documents! They have a lot to hide. I wonder if Willf ever heard of Nuremberg? The Nuremberg Principles do not forgive members of the military who obey unlawful orders (like war crimes) and turns those who hide war crimes into being guilty themselves (as they should be). So, should someone like Manning just remain silent and let the crimes continue? He tried going up the chain of command but that proved fruitless. So, he allegedly went to the media -- thank you Bradley Manning for this heroic act!

Willf probably has no problem with Obama pronouncing Manning guilty before trial and remaining silent while people under his command held Manning in solitary confinement for a year, before Manning was even formally charged with anything. How does Manning get a fair trial when the commander in chief announces his guilt and the judge and jury are under Obama's command? Answer -- he doesn't. He gets a phony trial.

I'm sure if Bush did all these things, Willf would be howling.

[Kevin Zeese]

Apoligies to Willf, the comment above was intended for Sir Charles!

[Sir Charles]

KZ,

Members of the military operate under all manner of restrictions and constraints that are not applicable to civilians, including being subject to the military system of justice. Manning voluntarily agreed to such when he joined the military.

One gets the sense as well that this is a very troubled young man who probably should not have been retained in the armed forces.

I think the attempts to make him look like a hero will ultimately prove quite embarrassing. Although judging by the hysterical tone of your response -- which trivialize actual war crimes ("plotting with royalists?") you are not easily embarrassed.

Maybe Ian's site would be more congenial for you.

[beckya57]

Sorry Nancy, I missed your Nader reference the first time around.

Kevin, I don't always agree with the Obama administration on civil liberties, but the GOP is much, much worse.

[Sir Charles]

becky,

I think the Nader thing was much on everyone's mind.

As l-t c and I have discussed often here, there is no alternative to the Democratic Party -- we simply have to try to make the Party as progressive as we possibly can, while also understanding that in a country as large and diverse as the U.S. is, there will be places where we may back candidates who are not terribly liberal.

[beckya57]

I just was over at Tbogg's place, which of course is on FDL (he's the only one of their bloggers that I ever read) and he was chewing out his fellow FDLers on this very same issue. I'd post the link, but I'm a computer idiot and don't know how, sorry.

[kathy a.]

balloon juice expresses the view that it makes no sense to claim no meaningful difference between obama and romney.

[Sir Charles]

becky,

I've always really liked TBogg and was disappointed when he went to FDL -- first because I hated the aesthetics of the site and later because the tone at FDL became poisonous.

[oddjob]

Pam's House Blend also is moving to FDL.

[Sir Charles]

beacky,

The comments to TBogg's post, on the other hand, are quite depressing.

kathy,

Balloon Juice has really become one of my three or four favorite blogs over the last year or so.

oddjob,

Wasn't Pam posting over at Pandagon? I wonder what happened there? I would vastly prefer to see her with Amanda than at FDL, but such is life.

[beckya57]

I think I'll skip the comments. Tbogg should really move to Balloon Juice, or maybe Cogitamus?

Yes, Pam was on Pandagon with Amanda, but I think Pam's House Blend was a separate endeavor. She's got every right to go wherever she wants, of course, but FDL has really become a satire of itself.

P.S. Anybody else remember when BJ was a conservative blog? As Brad DeLong would say, John Cole was driven to madness by the Bush administration.

[oddjob]

I haven't paid close attention, but I think she was now that you mention it. I have no idea about the whys & wherefores of her deciding to move her blog to Jane Hamsher's place (beyond what she states in the post itself).

When Pam started blogging I was one of her most regular commenters, to the point that she recommended me for a "best commenter" award at some blog award site or other, but after she quit using Blogger for her blog (not at all that I blamed her, mind you!) my commenting frequency dropped off enormously. It's probably been more than one year since I last posted a comment on Pam's House Blend, even though I still peruse the posts once every few weeks or months.

I was a regular commenter with her on AmericaBlog back before she had a blog of her own (as I was also with The Dark Wraith and Shakespeare's Sister).

[scott]

I guess "political novices" are people who care more about the issues that matter to them than partisan or tribal loyalties (ie not tangible goods but feeling good about "our" side). Clearly you lot are far wiser and more practical than they are.

[Sir Charles]

scott,

Name the issue that your precious soul cares more about than the rest of us here -- seriously take your best shot -- collective bargaining rights? Abortion rights? Gay rights? Social Security? Medicare? Women's equality?

Then take your pet issue to which your pure heart is attached and explain to me in a series of coherent sentences how it will be advanced better in a world in which Mitt Romney is president rather than Barack Obama.

And show your fucking work you presumptious little twit.

[scott]

I cannot think of any specific instance in which BO has shown that he gives a damn about any of the issues you name. The Mittster wouldn't do any better either, but it's telling that you guys and the Balloon Juice crew see your mission in life to advance the narrative of the lesser of two evils rather than hold the administration accountable for half-assing on health care reform, giving the banksters a free pass, enabling and even cheering on "entitlements reform" (die Granny, die!), folding on EFCA, and endorsing massive spending cuts in the middle of what still seems to most of us to be a recession or depression. But, by all means, call any of us names who are unhappy with this and with the manifest lack of effort or desire to help ordinary people showsn by this administration. Because policing dissent on the left is your favorite sport, yours and Balloon Juice's. The hilarious part is that some of your post was a complaint about the uncivil ravings of commenters at places like FDL, whereas you and your commenters use civilized words like twit and bag of shit. I see that you and John Cole share a taste for the delicious tang of demonizing the Other and for eliminationist rhetoric. Sleep well, brother!

[Sir Charles]

scott,

I never complain about whether comments or posts are "civil" -- I complain about whether they are stupid and immature.

Your comment confirms that 1) you can't do what I challenged you to do; and 2) that you are a typical FDLer and don't know what you are talking about.

As someone who has devoted his enitre life to acting on behalf of workers' rights, I can tell you rather easily how Obama advances those rights -- 1) by appoinnting pro-labor member and staff to the National Labor Relations Board, see e.g. the recent move against Boeing; 2) by appointing people at the Department of Labor who actually take their mission seriously, from safety regulation to wage and hour enforcement; and 3) by putting judges on the bench who are sympathetic to these causes. No Obama could not get EFCA through in some magical fashion due to the filibuster and the presence of the Conservadems who would not vote for cloture. In this way Obama has been no different than Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter, all of whom had their attempts at labor reform stalled by filibuster.

What is the formula by which you would advance such legislation?

As for abortion and reproductive rights, the Obama Administration has advanced those through its regulatory powers within HHS and DOJ, both of which have recently intervened against the State of Indiana's efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. Such efforts -- being copied by Republicans in North Carolina and Kansas thus far -- will have crucial real world consequences for women. Obama has appointed political people in these departments who are committed to reproductive rights and Obama himself stood up in the recent budget battle against efforts to defund Title X. Finally, Obama has appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court.

I could go on and on in this vein, but I realize that this is just the dull prose of day to day governing that is beyond the interest of Jane's followers, because they are looking for something grander. But it is in this way, actually, that his administration is helping ordinary people.

Again, it has taken me about five minutes to sketch out why there is a world of difference in having Obama in the Oval Office versus Romney. And again, I challenge you to show me how -- if you care about workers' rights or reproductive rights -- the election of Romney is going to not deliver an enormous blow to such things.

I don't believe I have ever used "eliminationist" rhetoric -- I would like, however, to stamp out foolishness on our side.

[oddjob]

I cannot think of any specific instance in which BO has shown that he gives a damn about any of the issues you name.

In which case you simply don't know how to pay attention, or don't want to. On gay rights he has advanced our cause in ways no Republican, and most certainly not a President McCain, ever would have. Yes, it was dull behind the scenes quiet stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that it was done.

Gay federal employees now have the ability to purchase long term care insurance that covers their long term partners. Don't Ask Don't Tell has been repealed and the repeal is in the process of implementation. This is the fulfillment of a campaign pledge.

No, he isn't pushing for marriage equality, but he didn't promise to. Having said that, he isn't vigorously enforcing Section 3 of DOMA in court cases where it's being challenged, and he didn't have to opt out on that.

There are other changes, too, but those immediately come to mind.

If you can't see how these are steps - boring, quiet, dull, non-splashy baby steps as they are - that no Republican president would have dared take (even if he or she wanted to) you don't know how to analyze current American politics.

[oddjob]

If you want unicorns and rainbows instead, be my guest, but don't expect me to be impressed by your insistance on either unicorns & rainbows, or nothing at all.

[Paula B]

well said, oj. You could also point out to the all-or-nothing-at-all crowd that real leadership includes setting policies in motion, then stepping back and letting others move them forward. Fully orchestrated announcements crafted for television preach to the believers more than the atheists.

[Satchel]

Gah. Does no one remember hearing this identical rhetoric during the 2000 presidential campaign? And can anyone now seriously argue that George W. Bush was not "meaningly different from what President Al Gore would be or indeed would have been"?

[Sir Charles]

Sachel,

Precisely.

In 2000, it was an interesting combination of an immature and decadent mainstream media, including people like Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich at the Times, who were bored with the prosaic quality of day to day politics and decided to attack Gore for superficial reasons -- and the fringe left, who bought into the notion of no meaningful difference between the candidates.

As you say, you would think people would have learned a lesson.

Moreover, when you see how Republicans are actually governing now in states all over the country, you realize that Bush was a moderate by comparison to the likes of Walker, Kasich, Dodd, etc. These people are out to utterly destroy us -- if that isn't the wake up call we need, I don't know what will be.

The Republicans are looking to destroy unions altogether and to wipe out reproductive rights altogether. One would think that these two issues alone would prompt enormous alarm all across the liberal/left spectrum.

[Joe S]

The odd thing is that where the Obama Administration has really fallen down and where it may have actually been worse than that of a Republican is in managing the economy. Yet that panel didn't have anyone addressing the Administration's truly awful economic policy.

Has anyone been reading the profiles of Tim Geithner by Goldfarb in the Post and Rortybomb and Krugman's analysis of it ? It looks like we're going to have a true lost decade largely as a result of Tim Geithner and the President's preference for the rentier class.

[Crissa]

I was rather surprised that willf was able to come back and support his point. I liked that. I'd also accept an apology that he wasn't able to.

Personally, I think Obama's 'record' would be different if he were operating on a full team, instead of half of one.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/taking_a_hatchet_to_presidenti030376.php

[Crissa]

Of course, any Republican candidate will be worse, not better or the same, on all these issues.

Unless you think that it's better to capitulate to them as they tantrum they're not getting their way. Certainly some things - like willf's point and Joe S's points - wouldn't seem so bad when they happen behind the scenes in a Republican government.

No transparency or filibusters or blocked nominees to stand in Republican way, after all. The player that doesn't care about the results or ethics has the advantage, after all.

[Joe S]

Crissa, the Administration could work with Harry Reid and obtain a recess of the Senate for three days. The Administration could then be fully staffed up within a week if it chose to. Reid could order a three day recess of the Senate and the Administration could simply appoint all the vacant positions in a day to recess appointments. I honestly think that excuse for the Administration simply doesn't carry much water.

Moreover, the House and Senate could have included lots of the reform agenda in reconciliation instructions when the Democrats controlled both houses. Certainly nearly all types of stimulus are budget related and are proper use of reconciliation which would overcome the filibuster. Indeed, Cap & Trade (the selling of carbon permits and/or the taxation of carbon) could also have been properly brought through reconciliation.

The only place where the Administration and Congress have remotely good excuses for failing to appoint and/or pass legislation from 2008-2010 are: (1) confirmation of judges; and (2) the EFCA and immigration reform (neither of which are truly budget related).

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I agree that the Obama Administration made a mistake in not pursuing bigger stimulus when it could have -- and there are probably several people who share that guilt. Whether he could have gotten a second round of stimulus through later strikes me as doubtful, although I think it would have been worth the effort.

In the end, I think blaming Geithner is probably misdirected -- clearly Obama has had a variety of policy options presented and he has gone with the Geithner/Orszag approach rather than a more expansionary approach. He's the decider as they say.

Where I would strenuously disagree with you is that a Republican would have managed the economy better -- which Republican and what policies do you imagine that they would have embraced? The Republican orthodoxy -- an apt term, as it is virtually a religion -- is tax cuts and deregulation. When that doesn't work double down. If that doesn't work, double down again.

I also think that the overall management of the economy by Obama has been reasonably good under the extraordinarily bad circumstances he inherited. The auto bailout was a success, the stimulus ameliorated some of the worst effects of the recession, the dealings with the financial systems averted crisis, and a large measure of confidence was restored to the equity markets.

Yes, he has falled short in terms of stimulating demand via greater stimulus and he has not promoted a strong solution to the foreclosure crisis -- these are not minor mistakes -- but in comparison to his predecessor and measured against the policy choices that Republcians advocated, I don't think your overall assessment is completely fair.

Crissa,

The abuse of the filibuster has both deprived the President of necessary help at times and almost certainly kept the White House from considering additional stimulus, because they did not want to lose a futile struggle. I disagree with their calculus on the latter point -- sometimes fighting and losing is the way to go, but I suspect that there is no way that a big jobs bill ever would have gotten through the Senate.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I think you significantly overestimate the likelihood that Harry Reid and the Senate would dance to the Administration's tune on these matters.

Senators tend to resist any interference in their procedural prerogatives -- after all, they enhance the power of each individual senator -- and would not take kindly to being dictated to on such matters by the President.

[Joe S]

Sir C, the Bush Administration initially pushed the bailouts and obtained Congressional support for all of them. The Bush Administration supported the auto bailouts. The Bush Administration had no problem with deficit spending in the 2000's and neither did a Republican Congress (up to and including a huge increase in Medicare spending). The Bush Administration appointed Ben Bernanke who, in the case of dealing with balance sheet recessions, has, oddly, been better than anybody Obama appointed to the Federal Reserve. So I really don't think your claim that there would just be tax cuts for the rich holds water. When Republicans are in power, they depart from their rhetoric.

In dealing with a Democratic Congress, I think John McCain would have just gone balls to the wall and churned out a bunch of suboptimal stimulus in the form of roadbuilding and defense contracts and tax cuts. Can I be sure of that ? No. But there's no reason to believe that Obama's handling of the economy is any better than a mainstream Republican's would have been. McCain has/had no real principles when it came to domestic policy and he would have done whatever Greg Mankiw and the Chamber of Commerce told him.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I don't think there is any evidence of the Republicans ever pushing for direct stimulus in the form of job-creating programs. Tax cuts and rebates yes -- jobs programs no.

And remember, the bank bailouts were passed with Democratic votes, not Republican -- even in the face of an impending meltdown in the credit markets.

McCain never proposed anything along the lines you suggest, so I can't really see the basis for thinking that this is how he would have moved. The Republicans opposed the stimulus almost to a man in the Congress.

I think you have to have a little more to go on than proposing this kind of counterfactual.

The Chamber of Commerce is important, but has been unable to carry the day on further infrastructure stimulus, which it actually issued a joint statement of support with the AFL-CIO.

I agree that the GOP is completely and absurdly hypocritical on deficit spending. But I disagree vehemently that they would have ever embraced a New Deal-style jobs program -- never would have happened.

I also think that you aren't crediting the skill with which the Obama Administration handled the auto and bank bailouts -- I am deeply skeptical that a McCain Administration would ever have gotten the kinds of returns for the taxpayers that the Obama Administration obtained.

[Joe S]

And I really can't say that Obama's been reasonably good under the circumstances. He's done the absolute minimum a reasonably competent president would do. My guess is that, with the exception of an exceedingly weak and (soon to be completely gutted) financial reform bill, Bush or McCain would have done exactly the same thing-- except that Bush or McCain would have undertaken a lot more deficit spending.

I'd also point out that if Obama had appointed more federal reserve members who took their mandate to maintain employment seriously, there might have been more in the way of quantitative easing to go along with the stimulus. But again, Obama listened to the Geithner wing of his advisors. Everybody should settle in and enjoy their lost decade(except for the very rich who are going to make out like bandits). And the blame for that lost decade belongs squarely on President Obama and the Geithner/Summers/Rubin wing of the party. Moreover, that wing of the party laid the groundwork for this disaster by deregulating financial markets in the 1990's.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

Again, for the reasons I've laid out, there is no empirical basis to conclude that Bush or McCain or the Republicans would have purused expansionary policies at anywhere near the level of the ARRA.

I agree about the Rubin wings disastrous choice of financial deregulation (although the Republicans really pushed for that), although I don't think Obama can be held responsible for that -- I think Clinton has to own that one.

I disagree -- with whatever is beyond vehemence -- that Obama is to blame for the lost decade. I think that the blame for that has to be laid mainly at the feet of the Bush Administration and Alan Greenspan which allowed this debacle to occur.

You are totally blaming the guys who came to clean up an extraordinary mess -- based on the notion that there would be some easy solution to the havoc wrought in the mortage and financial markets. I think Obama could have sought more optimal approaches to undo the damage -- but to hold him solely or even primarily responsible for the damage is an incredible claim.

[Joe S]

Sir C, I put the blame for the failure to make appointments on both the Democrats in Congress and the Administration. Yes, I understand that Ben Nelson might (inexplicably) be upset at recess appointments. But after three years, the fact that the Administration can't make recess appointments is inexusable for both the Administration and the Senate.

[Joe S]

Sir C, George Bush is responsible for all kinds of wrong. But it was the Clinton Administration that deregulated the financial markets and especially the derivatives market. It was the Clinton Administration that set the stage for the real estate bubble by failing to regulate hedge funds and allowed investment banks to go hogwild. And it was the Obama Administration that then brought back the same clowns that got us where we are.

As for jobs programs akin to the New Deal, I don't know of any federal jobs programs the Obama Administration has put into place. I know there were multiple stimulus bills which had billions of dollars in tax cuts. I know there was some aid to the states early on. I know there was some aid to the states for infrastructure improvements (and aid to maintain state employee roles) early on. But a federal jobs program ? I guess if you mean the ramp up in Afghanistan and the wars in Libya and Yemen. Those were the only increases in federal spending which ended up increasing work for federal employees.

And yes, Republicans consistently passed road bills to the states throughout the 1990's and 2000's. The Republicans also passed No Child Left Behind which provided education aid to the states. There's no reason to believe that the Republicans wouldn't have done the same thing again if they had won the presidency.

In part the Tea Party was a reaction to the spending of the Bush Administration-- that the spending caused a loss of political power. It's a dumb theory, but I think the Republican Party would be very different if McCain had won the election (at least as to spending).

[Joe S]

Sir C, one more thing-- what kind of skill did it take to handle the bank bailouts and auto bailouts ? From what I can see, Congress voted for 700 billion dollars in direct subsidies and the Federal Reserve also gave the banks the ability to borrow money at near zero interest rates. Things like stress tests or nationalization or mortgage relief were tossed aside when it looked like it might hurt the big banks. As far as I can see, the Obama Administration continued to give direct money through TARP while the Federal Reserve gave the banks money for nothing which the banks then loaned out and charged interest for. Eventually, some of the banks paid back some of the money from TARP after the Federal Reserve gave the big banks almost zero interest loans long enough that the banks could pay back TARP funds (and earn huge bonuses along the way). How much skill does it take to give the keys to the treasury to a favored interest group ? It's not as tawdry as sending planeloads of taxpayer dollars to Iraq and then losing it, but to claim that there was exceptional skill involved ?

[Crissa]

And here we have it. You want a President that does things, and then penalize him for Republican intransigence.

Sure, whatever. Penalize the Democrat for the Republicans' actions. Then penalize the Democrats for not standing up to the Republicans.

No wonder there isn't Democratic majority!

PS: I hate the 'Republicans are better than Liberals' meme. This is why people identify as conservative - even when none of their positions match conservatives' positions. It's just not true.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I meant the substantial spending under ARRA for road, energy, and other infrstructure projects. There was also a huge amount of aid given to states and localities to keep employees working.

Although the Clinton Administration deserves some share of the blame for financial deregulation, remember that the initiative began with Phil Gramm and the congressional Republicans.

More importantly, the total collapse of regulatory enforcement occurred on the Bush Administration's watch.

(I don't think hedge funds bear much responsibility for the real estate bubble -- I think it was the banks and the bond bundlers who really brought about this disaster. And again, the regulators totally slept while it happened.)

My point about the lost decade is this -- there was going to be enormous economic dislocation due to the collapse of the real estate market, the and the need for consumers to deleverage on such a huge scale. Keynsian economics was only going to mitigate this damage to some degree. The enormous loss of wealth and the need to deleverage were clearly going to have a huge impact even with optimal economic policies.

[Crissa]

Joe, both the House and the Senate need to adjourn for recess appointments.

And recess appointments can't be appointed again - do you want our administration to be a revolving door or an empty seat? There's little we can do about this. And we can't recess appoint every position, nor court positions, else we'll end up in litigious limbo, with empty seats, mind.

I don't know where you think that giving sound bites to the guys who are willing to stretch the truth to the point where a growing economy is shrinking; taxes have increased when they're at their lowest in nearly a century; oil production is halted while it's actually increasing more than at any time in ten years; etc and so forth.

Oh, and the President can speak 'til he's blue in the face, in the real world the news channels tune away or whine about it rather than repeating it.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

With respect to the auto bailout there was a great deal of Administration involvement in terms of structuring the bankruptcy deal and getting a viable plan together.

With respect to the banks, the oversight of the process, including the programs implemented to encourage investments in the distressed assets were handled well and at a much lower cost -- by many orders of magnitude -- than the estimates made at the time that TARP passed.

There actually is a lot of value in good administration -- I think not nearly enough credit has been given on this score. Again, look at the ludicrously bad governance style of the Bush Administration to give you a sense of what the costs can be.

[Crissa]

Lastly Joe seems to have forgotten who had the Majority in Congress when those bills were passed... Blame the Democrat, again.

[Joe S]

Which bills, Crissa ? TARP was passed with a Democratic Congress. The auto bailout was passed with a Democratic Congress. ARRA was passed with a Democratic Congress. All of the bills we've been talking about (with the payroll taxcut) were passed with a Democratic Congress. I honestly have no clue what your arguments are. Moreover, the Clinton deregulations couldn't have happened without the President's active support regardless of a Republican Congress. I've read your arguments and they just seem like babble and invective which could be used against any person who criticizes any Democrat at any time. I also didn't condemn any of the 2008-2010 bills I'm talking about in their entirety. They were the minimum necessary to prevent a depression.

My problem has always been that they didn't go far enough and the bills in question were all designed to protect the financial elite while hurting everybody else. Was the Administration better than the Republicans in that regard ? I don't see how unless that you accept Sir C's argument that the transfer to favored interest groups was skillfully carried out.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

The auto bailout helped millions of people employed in the industry. And the bond holders took the haircut I don't see that this fits your point well.

The bank bailout kept the financial system going at a point where the possibility of a complete breakdown in the system was imminent. I know that this populist meme -- that not enough pain was extracted from the industry is an overwhelming one -- but the fact of the matter is that had the system collapsed, the pain would have been horrific throughout the society. We may well have faced near Great Depression levels of unemployment.

It is simply wrong to suggest that this bill was aimed at hurting everyone else -- it seems completely illogical to me. You might not be satisfied that the miscreants paid an adequate price for their malfeasance, but the entire society benefitted by not having the banks collapse.

[Joe S]

Sir C, the banks could have been nationalized during or after the crisis and the system would have been stabilized just the same. Instead we paid the cost of nationalization covertly and got banks with a stronger hold on the political economy of this country while the financial industry personnel who caused the crisis made out like bandits. Now we're in a recession where the financial industry is raking in record profits and working assiduously to destroy the meager regulations put on them in the financial reform bill. The bailouts without nationalization are the problem-- and nationalization would have neither caused collapse nor a new Great Depression. Bailouts without nationalization (which is really just a receivership) is the policy which was designed to protect the financial industry while hurting everyone else. It's easy to waive the red herring regarding what could have happened if the banks were simply allowed to fail in 2008 without any intervention -- but the Obama Administration had all of 2009 to nationalize when the threat of a financial collapse had long passed.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

Nationalization would have been vastly more expensive -- and far more destabilizing than what happened. I am not waving a red herring. You, I believe, are advocating an ideological rather than a pragmatic position here, due, I presume to justifiable anger at the financial class and their emerging relatively unscathed and unapologetic about what they did.

But in terms of a cost benefit analysis, I don't think there is anyone -- even Krugman -- who would tell you today that nationalization would have been cheaper than what was done.

Now, I would have tried to leverage the bailout to get bankruptcy cramdown -- and on that score I think the Administration made a mistake, although this is not quite as easy a call as many on the left pretend. Undermining the position of secured creditors under the law would almost certainly have resulted in credit being more expensive and less available to people. But I think on balance it would have been a better move than HAMP and other ineffectual attempts at mortgage relief.

Again, I don't know what you are saying when you are saying "hurting everyone else" with respect to the bank bailout though. What precisely was done that hurt everyone else?

[Joe S]

Sir C, nationalization would have been vastly more expensive than TARP. It's not clear if it would have been vastly more expensive than TARP + the massive subsidies given through the Federal Reserve to the banks.

Moreover, as to pragmatism, its not particularly pragmatic to leave a huge industry in place to sabotage every future effort at regulation which is what a failure to nationalize did. The failure to kill the big banks will hurt us in the long run.

Finally, as to "hurting everyone else" it's not simply the bailouts (which drained money from taxpayers without changing the political economy in this country for the better). It's the pro-creditor policies which were put in place after the bailouts at the behest of the big banks and Treasury. It's the lack of further quantitative easing; the lack of a legitimate mortgage relief program; the lack of having reasonable inflation targets at the Federal Reserve; the lack of any effort to take the requirement for monetary policy to be used to aim for full employment. Those are the policies which aid the big creditor banks and hurt everybody else. Those policies are in place because of the Obama-Geithner Federal Reserve Board. All of these things are killing workers; killing the unemployed; killing homeowners; and killing small business. I think that accounts for the "everyone else" statement.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I think there are separate aspects to each of these things. It seems to me, though, that the thing that is killing the broader public is a lack of aggregate demand.

I agree with you regarding the lack of a mortgage relief program (although as I note this is a closer call than many think). I think higher inflation targets would also make sense and that the Fed should take its mandate regarding full employment seriously -- although it has not done so in a very long time.

I am not sure that further easing would be all that helpful -- there has been a ton of easing and not all that much to show for it.

I would like Obama to have been more aggressive vis a vis the Fed -- both in terms of appointments and with respect to pressuring them with regard to the issues raised above.

I do feel safe in saying, however, that there is not a Republican alive who would have done any of these things.

[Joe s]

Yes-these are separate issues except that one interest group always gets it's way. Increasing aggregate demand generally means harming some creditors. Inflation and to some extent deficit spending harms creditors. I suggest you read Kuttner's recent piece as to why. That means in this administration, it's not going to happen.

[Paula B]

SC---you certainly earned your money yesterday as blog master and deserve a day or two off. but, when you're ready to step back into the fray, you might want to read this story in today's NYT about NJ politics and public employee unions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/nyregion/in-changes-to-unions-benefit-truth-is-scarce-betrayals-abound.html

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I like Kuttner a lot, but I think he has been a bit off in terms of the political calculus on some of this stuff. I think he has assumed that Obama had a lot more leverage than he did.

I also would agree that the Administration is too concerned with what Wall Street thinks. To me, it is indicative of one of the ill effects of the erosion of organized labor and its traditional power.

Paula,

I will check it out. I was just in the mood to do a non-political posting as a change of pace, but am always looking for additional input.

[Joe S]

Sir C, Kuttner may be off in terms of the short term political calculus, but he's not off on the political economy issue.

Also, recess appointments to the Fed which changed its complexion could have changed things up quite a bit. Moreover, the Fed is designed to be insulated from political pressures. Really, the only person to blame for not putting forward an aggressive response to this recession from the Fed is President Obama. He doesn't have to explain his thinking to anybody because most people don't understand macroeconomics and he has the ability to unilaterally recess appoint Fed Board members. I can't really see any reason other than the President's values for his determination to stack the Fed with the same pro-bank personnel who have been there for years.

[Joe S]

And here's another fact for the political calculus of the Administration. If unemployment is 9% November of next year, we're going to see President Romney, Bachmann, or Perry. So I hope this Administration made their buddies on Wall Street really happy because soon they'll be taking jobs at Goldman Sachs if this economy doesn't turn around within six months.