Month: August 2009

The Possibility of Left-Wing Governance

Chris Bowers asks “if, given the current structure of our federal government, it is even possible to have the federal government operate to the left of national public opinion in the way that it often operates to the right of national public opinion.” While identifying some key obstacles to left-wing governance — de facto requirement of 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, massive corporate donations to elected officials, small-state bias & difficulties even with large Democratic majorities — Bowers isn’t optimistic. To me, though, the only one of these that is impactful in any sort of ontological way is the influence of corporate money in politics and the disproportionate power corporate money has in small states (as Nate Silver’s analysis shows).

Stronger leadership from the Senate could create a dynamic where the consequences of reactionary filibusters on every piece of liberal legislation have consequences. There was a time, namely that of Republican majority throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, when it did not take 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. Only with the return of the Republican Party to the minority did we see this radical turn that has effectively changed the rules of the Senate. A Democratic leader with more spine than Harry Reid and a caucus with less bias towards conservative policies pushed for twenty years by the DLC would surely respond differently to this scenario.

The same can be said about the level of energy needed to pass liberal legislation even while we maintain large Democratic majorities, as we do now. An untangling of Democrats from the Republican-Lite model pushed by so many operatives and observers within the Beltway would enable a different set of ontic possibilities. Gradually shifting the behavior patterns of conserva-Dems who vote far to the right of their district would enable far more to be possible in the House. This can be achieved either through strong-arming Blue Dogs by leadership or successful primaries by more liberal Democrats. This would either diminish the functional power of the Blue Dog caucus or shrink its size. Simultaneously, a strengthening of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, along with the liberal tri-caucus, would create a much different environment for legislation. If the CPC and tri-caucus could exert power over legislation the way Blue Dogs currently do, we would immediately see a leftward shift in the output from the House. This is something we are seeing the CPC try to move towards in a very concerted effort in the healthcare fight; their success would have the potential to leave lasting marks on the ideological shaping of legislation under large Democratic majorities. Put this together with stronger Democratic leadership in the Senate and punative measures that discourage reactionary filibusters to the point of neutering them and you’re very likely to see better left-wing governance based on the removal or reduction of two out of Bowers four areas of concern.

But the scope of corporate influence on politics, especially their wholesale ownership of so many small state senators, is a fundamental problem that is nearly impossible to counter. The obvious path to remove these obstacles to left-wing governance is to push for public financing of federal elections. There is no chance that the corporate world, nor conservative politicians would let this happen without a massive fight, as they know that their money is the biggest obstacle to reform in any area.

Before we can adequately assess the likelihood of major campaign finance reform, we have to recognize that at no point in time has an American president or a majority of the Democratic Party pushed for public financing of federal elections. Today public financing may not be possible. But it is impossible to suggest that it is fundamentally impossible while the issue has lacked any meaningful advocacy from the people with the largest microphones. Change is surely possible if there is meaningful leadership on the issue. The question really becomes, who has the courage to stand up to America’s corporate interests? Who will stand up for the public in the face of campaign contributions? This is an issue that will be defined by the courage or lack there of found in Democratic leaders.

There’s no doubt that Bowers is right and there are huge fundamental hurdles to left-wing governance in America. But they are not insurmountable, at least not with leadership. The question I have isn’t whether left-wing governance is possible, but is left-wing leadership possible? That, in many ways, precedes any question about governance, for without leadership we will never get to see governance actualized.

17 Year Old vs Sarah Palin

William Nelligan has something to say to Sarah Palin about her brand of divisive politics. Nelligan is seventeen and he’s penned Alaska’s former governor an open letter on YouthRadio.org (cross posted on Huffington Post). While Nelligan isn’t offering a brand new slate of charges against Palin’s unique style of self-righteous willful ignorance, he writes with the clarity driven by his strong convictions of what is good in America. He writes to preserve the vision of America as a land of hope and opportunity that he was taught in school. Despite coming of age entirely in the Bush administration, Nelligan shows the poise of an educated and commited progressive.

It’s not so much that you and I see two different Americas, or that we just have different perceptions of the same core American ideals. It’s that you fundamentally misunderstand America’s ideals. Every time you talk about freedom, or the future, or “the wisdom of the people,” I only have one question: what the hell are you trying to say?

…

You’re right in asserting that government can’t make us happy, just like it can’t tell women what they can and can’t talk to their doctors about, and can’t tell gays and lesbians what kind of love is moral. However, you are wrong in saying that government can’t cure the sick and insure their families; that it can’t educate our children and reform our adults; or that it can’t generate employment for those who need it and lift those who don’t have it out of poverty. Government has done all of those things for a very long time, and will continue to do them for even longer.

…

I have had to grow up in this country, the land Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy, under George W. Bush. A man who demonizes being smart and educated as “elitist,” and who somehow manages to make being uninformed and unengaged into something honorable. I’m lucky enough now to have a President who does none of those things, and quite frankly I don’t want to turn back the clock.

Nelligan clearly recognizes Palin as what she is: a politican who would seek to turn back the clock on the progress of the 20th century by dividing Americans against each other. Palin’s path to political power is one that she has set to be laid out through outrage and anger, two things that have not tended to produce the best our nation has to offer. Hopefully Nelligan is right and Palin will continue to recede from public life. But for the sake of today’s youth, in case she is thinking otherwise, I hope this open letter finds it way to her so she can see how dramatically she stands in contrast to the hopes and dreams of America’s youth.

MLN Interview with Senator Dodd

Senator Dodd speaks to the MyLeftNutmeg community about his current health issues, reforming healthcare, and the importance of having good coverage and regular checkups. The video was shot by Connecticut Man1, a disabled vetern who writes his own blog on CT politics, as well as regularly contributes on MLN. He talks with Dodd about the possibility of a single payer healthcare system. Dodd points out that he has to deal with the realities of the Senate and getting a public option through is going to be hard enough. He prioritizes getting reform done now over holding out for single payer. Dodd recognizes that this healthcare legislation isn’t going to be the end of the debate on healthcare reform. He closes with the promise that “more will happen in years to come.”

Pushing Back on Rightwing Lies

One of the problems we’ve face in the healthcare fight is the relative silence from the White House regarding what the positive output of Congress on reform legislation should be. While there can be a thorough discussion of the merits and flaws in this silence on positive legislation, there shouldn’t need to be any dispute that the administration would be best served by responding to smears of President Obama and the policies he is pushing (or not pushing).

The video above is an example of good work by the White House to rebut smears that the rightwing has used to create a sense of fear in their rabid base. Linda Douglass, who leads WH communications on healthcare, responds to the false accusations that President Obama is seeking to abolish private health insurance and is pushing for legislation that would prevent individuals from choosing their own doctors. Obviously both are false and Douglass does a good job of going point by point to defend Obama. What is even more effective is the video features cuts of President Obama himself stating clearly what he thinks reform should and should not do. Not surprisingly, the rightwing doesn’t have much legs to stand on when they are left dealing with facts and not fantasies.

McCain Campaign: Not Getting Women or Palin

Today’s Washington Post piece by Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson on the McCain campaigns machinations regarding their vice presidential pick really confirms what many Democrats and political observers thought: the McCain campaign had zero understanding or respect for how women make their decisions of who to vote for. Balz and Johnson report that the McCain campaign believed Palin would help McCain win the vote of former Hillary Clinton supporters and women more broadly because Palin was a woman.

As McCain approached his convention, his advisers saw the challenges as overwhelming — and contradictory. First, he needed to distance himself decisively from the president. Second, he needed to cut into Obama’s advantage among female voters. Despite the bitterness of the primaries and some of the mutinous talk among Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most vocal holdouts, the polls showed Obama consolidating most of the Clinton vote. By midsummer, this had become an acute problem for McCain.

Is it any shock that picking an unqualified governor from a tiny state with less than a term of service failed to draw women to support McCain for president? Picking Palin was a cynical ploy, bread out of a fundamental lack of respect for America’s women. I mean, seriously…did these same McCain staff also worry that Obama’s pick of Biden would cost McCain male votes because, hell, men vote for men?

The arrogance and stupidity of the McCain campaign is only born out further by the fact that they only gave themselves “12 hours to compelte the vetting process, take a face-to-face measure of their leading candidate, decide whether McCain and Palin had the chemistry to coexist as a ticket, and make a judgment about whether she was ready for the rigors of a national campaign.” I wouldn’t buy a car or a house or pick a school for my kids with such little research, but the McCain campaign thought that sufficient to pick the person who would be second in line to the presidency.

The story goes on to report that while Palin was deemed legally suitable for candidacy (something which I or most any other Alaskan political blogger could have told you was untrue), she never received adequate evaluation of the political risks she carried. They really only looked at her incorrectly perceived upside. It’s not new information, but McCain himself made the decision to pick Palin after only an hour long meeting with her.  In the end, this fact and the clear lack of detailed vetting that emerged during the course of the campaign, likely sorely cost him. That it was driven by an underlying desperation to shake things up and reclaim women voters seems to have produced an even less strategic, more risk-prone John McCain than we knew throughout the campaign. It’s no wonder that the end result was a crushing defeat, as Americans rejected both McCain and Palin.

Balz and Johnson reveal other intriguing insights in the McCain vice presidential selection process, notably how seriously Joe Lieberman was considered for the spot. I wonder what sort of “stunned” Holy Joe was when McCain told his pal that he’d picked a no-name from Alaska over him. If there’s anyone more self-righteous and egotistical than Sarah Palin, it’s Joe Lieberman and I can’t imagine he swallowed this bitter pill easily. Not that I feel bad for the man or anything…