Tenzin Dorjee, executive director of Students for a Free Tibet, has a must-read piece in the Global Post on non-violent resistance in Tibet. It’s a great piece that outlines the efforts made over the last two years by Tibetans inside Tibet to peacefully resist China’s military occupation through both new techniques and methods that date back to Gandhi and King.
Month: February 2010
Meyerson on Democrats & Unions
No nation has ever been home to a middle-class majority absent a sizable labor movement. In their failure to advance labor’s prospects, the Democrats condemn themselves to a future of fewer Democratic voters and their nation to a future of mass downward mobility.
Harold Meyerson is right – it’s about damned time Democrats were responsive to the needs of working Americans in labor unions. Meyerson points out that Carter, Clinton and now Obama have all turned their back on labor’s key legislative and policy needs. And to what end? A declining labor movement, a declining middle class, and a reduction in benefits for American workers. Political timidity is, in this case, a clear recipe for economic failure in America.
Moreover, labor is a key constituency for the Democratic Party and one that is ignored at their own peril. I’ve made the case in the past that the primary reasons Democrats won big in 2006 was because of labor’s bodies for field turnout and voting and the netroots messaging in opposition to Republicans. While labor’s war chest is a fraction of what big business brings to the political table, it is still the biggest constituent of the Democratic coalition. At a time when Democrats political prospects for 2010 don’t look good, giving the middle finger to one of your political firewalls is not a good idea.
Ben Nelson
So, is Ben Nelson going to jump ship to the Republican Party some time before January 2011? After all, his opposition to some of President Obama’s key legislative issues (health care reform and labor reform) is now being compounded by his opposition to President Obama’s nominees. Steve Benen writes of Nelson:
In other words, a senator who claims to be a Democrat will not let a Democratic Senate vote, up or down, on some of a Democratic president’s nominees. It’s not enough to vote against them, Nelson wants to prevent his own Democratic colleagues from voting on them at all.
This doesn’t look like the actions of a Senator who is planning on staying within his party’s good graces for years and years to come.
Now, to game it out, Nelson is too junior on Ag, Appropriations, Armed Services & Rules to benefit from a seniority bump by switching parties. He’s exercised a lot of control over what happens with this Democratic caucus by being one of the last votes for any issue; switching parties would probably remove him from the cat bird seat of swing vote largess.
The real question regarding Nelson is whether Harry Reid or the White House will start getting tough on him. Will he be punished for opposing Craig Becker? Will he be forced to pay a price for demanding such a high price on his support for health care? If Senate leadership and the administration don’t get tough on Nelson, I’m sure he’ll be happy to keep being a problem child for years to come. But if Reid and Obama show some backbone and decide to stop getting pushed around by Nelson, they may give him an excuse he’s looking for to bolt the party and go help out the GOP full-time. That outcome may matter to some Democrats, but it certainly wouldn’t bother me a lick.
Obama’s Small Circle
I think Steve Clemons is right about how President Obama should respond to the critique by Edward Luce in the Financial Times of his tight inner circle of Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs. Clemons recommends Obama take Luce’s piece seriously and evaluate how the White House decision making structure is failing, particularly in replicating the best parts of his campaign.
Governing is not the same as running a political campaign. In this case it means that Obama can’t rely on a tiny inner circle to make all decisions and dominate access to him. He has to open up to expert and advisers with a range of opinions. On the other side, though, Obama has to make his White House more like the campaign, wherein there was a broad acceptance of challenging Conventional Wisdom and listening to new ideas. This was facilitated by a campaign rule of “no assholes,” which opened lines of communication and fostered creativity.
It’d be one thing if Obama’s small inner circle had helped him achieve great things in his first year, but they haven’t. Instead the administration has floundered, failing to pass health care reform, climate policy reform, immigration reform, labor reform, or banking regulation. Even if the President loves his inner circle and wants them to be the ones running the show, he has to at least recognize that this team hasn’t gotten the job done.
President Bush was rightly criticized for living in a news bubble and maintaining a tiny inner circle – Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzalez and a few other interchangeable figures over the years. He was cut off from reality and voices that cast doubt on what the inner circle was advising him were pushed aside. While no one is suggesting that President Obama is operating in a bubble, the critique of maintaining a tiny group of core advisers is a serious one that should be listened to attentively by the President.
Fifty-nine
It’s remarkable: one year ago, when the Obama administration started, Democrats had fifty-nine votes in the Senate (though two were in the hospital (Kennedy & Byrd) and one, Al Franken, would not be seated because of frivolous Republican lawsuits). At the time, we were at an historic moment where big ideas were not only necessary, but possible. As such, the administration and Congress charged forward with plans for economic stimulus, labor reform, and health care reform.
A year later the economic stimulus has begun to work, labor reform has been moved to a back-burner about 900 miles from the President’s kitchen, and health care reform is perceived as a legislative impossibility…because Democrats have a mere fifty-nine votes in the Senate.
Fifty-nine votes is not a hurdle today any more than fifty-nine votes, which really meant fifty-six votes, was a hurdle in January, 2009. Fifty-nine votes, when used as a stated or implicit excuse for not accomplishing Democratic goals, is pure bunk. Not getting things done is solely going to be attributable to failures of leadership by the White House and the Democratic Senate leadership team. What is leadership? Partly it’s making an effective public case for a policy issue. Partly it is making clear to your caucus that they are safe to support the agenda you want them to support. Partly it is whipping votes through horse-trading, cajoling, and threatening senators to vote the right way. As far as I can tell, none of these things have been happening, particularly since the loss of the special election.
To wit, see this article in today’s New York Times. While it has an optimistic title, “Obama Maps a Way Forward for a Health Overhaul,” the title actual is belied by the text of the article, which includes this line: “Mr. Obama still did not chart a specific legislative strategy for moving a bill through Congress.” I’d hazard that it’s hard to “map a way forward” without “chart[ing] a specific legislative strategy”. I suppose Obama’s map for health care legislation since the Massachusetts loss look something like this:
- Have a real debate on the issues
- ????
- Sign the bill into law!
This isn’t leadership. Fleshing out #2 would be leadership. And let’s be clear: Harry Reid could do a whole lot to fill in the details here, but he isn’t either. The blame isn’t all Obama’s, but a preponderance of it, at this point in time, certainly is. After all, he was one of the loudest voices for saying that when Democrats had fifty-six functional votes in the Senate that this was the moment in history to pass health care reform. That he cannot muster the same confidence when he has three more voting Senators in the Democratic caucus is a disaster of, to borrow his word, historic consequences.
Democrats are looking for excuses to fail, but I for one do not buy it and I’m tired of it being sold to me by people who I and millions of people like me in the Democratic base have spent years working for, donating to, and voting for. Forget explaining to me why forty-one is greater than fifty-nine – this bit of idiocy is so solidified in Democratic conventional wisdom that nothing can dislodge it now. Explain to me why fifty-six is greater than fifty-nine. Maybe then I’ll understand why this President and this Party have effectively abdicated their responsibility to get done the things they promised us they would get done.
Question Time
While I certainly think having a regular dialogue between President Obama and the opposition would be a good thing, I hope that if he’s going to give time to the GOP, he also gives time to Democrats, particularly progressive Democrats, for public questioning and debate. This can’t be just about engaging his conservative opponents. He has progressive ones too, progressive Democrats whose legislative agenda he has repeatedly undercut or opposed.
I enjoyed watching Obama swat down dumb Republican talking points last week in Baltimore, but hearing a centrist Democrat tell me why positions slightly to his right are wrong is not interesting to me. Hearing him justify why he is not fighting for health care reform nor labor reform nor immigration reform, on the other hand, would be educational.
Good Faith FAIL
Apparently the Chinese government doesn’t know what it means to negotiate in good faith. A round of talks between the Tibetan Government in Exile and the Chinese government just concluded. It’s the first round of talks since 2008 and an important step for these two nations. However, it looks like the Chinese government is not negotiating in good faith:
It was the ninth time the two sides have met since 2002, but Mr Zhu said the positions of both sides remained “sharply divided” – a situation which had “become a norm rather than an exception”.
According to China, at this latest round of meetings the Tibetans again reiterated their hopes for the introduction of greater autonomy in the Himalayan region.
But Mr Zhu said there was no possibility of the “slightest compromise” on the issue of sovereignty in Tibet.
He also attacked the Dalai Lama, whom he said was a troublemaker.
“He should make a thorough self-examination of his words and deeds and radically correct his political positions if he really expects results of contact and talks,” he said.
How can these talks be viewed as anything other than a stalling tactic by the Chinese government if they are publicly saying there is zero chance of productive talks unless the Tibetan Government drops all of their demands for a resolution to China’s occupation of Tibet by instituting meaningful autonomy? They are ruling out any and all compromises, other than the TGIE simply giving in.
Throw in the fact that China is now “warning” the US government that we will face consequences if President Obama meets with the Dalai Lama.
The Chinese government is trying to bully the Tibetan Government in Exile, bully the United States, and bully anyone else who deigns to question their 60 year illegal military occupation of Tibet. Their behavior is embarrassing and yet another sign that they are not a legitimate member of the global community.
More Chinese Internet Espionage
Hey look, another story about the Chinese government spying on foreign companies through the internet, hacking accounts, and dropping malware on people!
This time the British intelligence agency MI5 warned a large range of British companies in 2008 about the threat of Chinese espionage and methods used by Chinese spies to entrap foreign executives.
But a starkly different picture emerges from the document circulated by MI5, Britain’s domestic security service. The Sunday Times account, quoting from the document, said that officers from the People’s Liberation Army and the Ministry of Public Security had approached British businesspeople at trade fairs and exhibitions with offers of “gifts” that included cameras and computer memory sticks that were found to contain bugs that provided the Chinese with remote access to the recipients’ computers.
“There have been cases where these ‘gifts’ have contained Trojan devices and other types of malware,” the document said, according to The Sunday Times. The accuracy of the paper’s citations from the document was verified by the two people contacted by The New York Times who said they had seen the document.
The MI5 report described how China’s computer hacking campaign had attacked British defense, energy, communications and manufacturing companies, as well as public relations companies and international law firms. The document explicitly warned British executives dealing with China against so-called honey trap methods in which it said the Chinese tried to cultivate personal relationships, “often using lavish hospitality and flattery,” either within China or abroad.
“Chinese intelligence services have also been known to exploit vulnerabilities such as sexual relationships and illegal activities to pressurize individuals to cooperate with them,” it warned. “Hotel rooms in major Chinese cities such as Beijing and Shanghai which have been frequented by foreigners are likely to be bugged. Hotel rooms have been searched while the occupants are out of the room.”
At this point, I’d be shocked if American intelligence agencies haven’t distributed robust documents warning of the threat the Chinese government poses to their industrial secrets and risks associated with traveling in China. The bigger question, though, is how long will the press, the public, and Western governments treat this as they do now – just the cost of doing business with China or a predictable byproduct of China’s rise as an economic power. Spying, hacking, cheating, stealing, and blackmail are not appropriate or acceptable behaviors for any member of the global community, be it individuals, nations, corporations, or terrorist cells. Some things are just plain wrong and need to be identified as such. Moreover, if Chinese spy agencies are the ones hacking and blackmailing foreign business leaders as MI5 suggests, Western governments need to deal with this directly and have it impact the outcome and progress of dealings with the Chinese government.
Kowtowing to the Chinese economy is not going to produce desired outcomes on human rights and peace – that has long been clear. But this sort of espionage and blackmail perpetrated by the Chinese government shows that obsequiousness towards China will not give Western corporations or governments any advantage in the pursuit of economic success with Chinese markets. As a result, the pretense of economics superseding all other needs must be dropped when it comes to Western dealings with China. The Chinese government must be dealt with directly and on our terms – regarding human rights, labor rights, and the rule of law. Anything less is blind idiocy in the face of the lie of balanced economic progress.