Dissent

My former co-blogger Austin Evers sent me this quote from law professor Cass Sunstein.

Conformity is often a sensible course of action; we do our best, by our own lights, if we do what others do.  One reason we conform is that we often lack much information on our own, and the decisions of others provide the best information we can get.  If we aren’t sure what to do, we might as well adopt an easily applied rule of thumb: Follow the crowd.  The problem is that widespread conformity deprives the public of information that it needs to have.  Conformists are often thought to be protective of social interests, keeping quiet for the sake of the group.  By contrast, dissenters tend to be seen as selfish individualists, embarking on projects of their own.  But in an important sense, the opposite is closer to the truth.  Much of the time, dissenters benefit others, while conformists benefit themselves.  If dissenters are punished for expressing nonconforming views, they will fail to disclose what they know and believe, to the detriment of society. [Why Societies Need Dissent, pp. 5-7]

The tagline on our old blog was a riff on a Bernard Henri-Levy line: “Writers, hence dissidents.” Austin and I both viewed the act of blogging about what was happening in the world and engaging in political writing an important act of dissent. I think Sunstein would agree.

Moreover, I think Sunstein’s quote should be used as ammunition against anyone who thinks bloggers should not participate in critiquing the Democratic Party, or more specifically, President-elect Barack Obama. There’s been a fairly heavy pushback around the blogs, primarily from commentors but from bloggers as well, against people who have written critically about Obama’s cabinet and staffing picks. For the Obama administration to be as great and successful as we all want it to be, there must be expressions of nonconforming views and criticism of a popular leader.  Hopefully those that express dissent about Obama will have a welcome place in the Democratic Party’s discourse over the next four to eight years.

What Dean Said

Dean Baker is spot-on in his analysis of the connection to the lack of national health care to the current troubles the Big Three auto companies are experiencing.

The Big Three are also not responsible for the broken U.S. health care system. If we paid the same amount for health care as Canada, G.M. would have accumulated an additional $22 billion in profits over the last decade.
That would be the savings if we assumed that General Motor’s health care expenditures were reduced by roughly 48 percent to be in line with expenses in Canada. Of course, not all the savings in this counterfactual would have gone to profits. Some of it would have gone to workers in the form of higher wages or to consumers in the form of lower car prices.

On the other hand, G.M. is also picking up the tab for many spouses and dependent children. It would not have to pay these health care expenses in a Canadian type system. So the $22 billion figure is probably not a bad first approximation of the additional money that G.M. might have today if the United States had a more efficient health care system.

The economic crisis we’re currently in, as well as the threat it poses to the short-term survival of a vital US industry should force Congress and the White House to move quickly towards universal, single payer healthcare. Sadly I don’t think our political elites of either party are so intellectually nimble as to grasp the necessity of real universal healthcare in the time needed to ensure a return to economic strength.

Australian Internet Censorship

The Australian government is about to introduce nation-wide internet censorship, starting with a list of upwards of 10,000 banned websites and a second tier for controversial content, like pornography.

The proposed system consists of two tiers. Under the first, all Australian service providers must block access to around 10,000 Web sites on a list maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the federal monitor that oversees film classifications.

The second tier would require service providers to provide an optional filter that individuals could use to block material deemed unsuitable for children, like pornography or violence.

The government says the list, which is not available to the public, includes only illegal content, mostly child pornography. But critics worry about the lack of transparency and say the filter could be used to block a range of morally hazy topics, like gambling or euthanasia.

I don’t know what forces are compelling the Australian government to censor the web for their citizens — though I’d take a shot in the dark and guess conservative, likely religious groups, are seeking to stop people from accessing pornography. But when even Australia’s biggest internet provider, Telstra, is opposed, you know that the idea is  coming from a very conservative place. Censorship is a blight on free societies.  When done without transparency in a medium that allows for the greatest access to information ever known to man, citizens should be very concerned. The Chinafication of western societies is happening.

Conservatives here in the US often talk about not trusting the government with the ability to adequately spend taxpayer money. I’ll say this: I am willing to place a decent amount of trust in my government knowing how to spend my money to make our country better, but as soon as the government starts making decisions about what I can and cannot know, I become very distrustful.

I just joined this Facebook group ,”We Won’t Accept It – No To Mandatory Internet Censorship In Australia” — I’d hope you do the same if oppose massive internet censorship in Australia.

Populist Caucus

Matt Stoller reports that Iowa Congressman Bruce Braley is starting a Populist Caucus in the House.

This is an interesting internal shift in the House, and suggests that no current ideological caucus is quite capturing the moment.  The plank for this group is economic justice, universal health care, affordable college education, consumer safety, fair trade, and good paying jobs.  Culturally, though, this has more of a rural farmer and union feel than the progressive caucus, with its heavily New Left and multi-ethnic approach, but policy-wise it is substantially different than the Blue Dogs.

…

This is an interesting development, and I suspect there’s going to be some strong caucus reorganization going on as an expanded Democratic majority finds its sea legs.

I think it’s great news for two reasons.  First, the Progressive caucus in the House seems disorganized and feckless. It isn’t a useful organizing body, whereas the Blue Dogs and New Democrats find ways to bend a more-liberal Democratic House caucus to their will with infruriating frequency. If Braley’s Progressive caucus can develop into something that bends legislative progress to their wills, then it will be a huge asset for Democrats in Congress.

Second, from a messaging standpoint, I think it’s time for people who identify as progressives to be honest about how the progressive brand has been subsumed by very non-progressive interests and organizations. Progressive has become, in my view, a substitute for Democrat. Politicians still shirk “liberal” and use progressive as a stand-in. But it’s hard to look at many self-identified progressive elected officials, include President-elect Obama, and see actual progressivism. Braley, on the other hand, is positing a populist brand that is actually populist. It’s also in line with how I think of myself when I identify as a progressive. And by creating a new caucus, Braley has created an opportunity to move the Overton window to the left in terms of how House Democrats talk about issues and identify policy to larger narratives. I’ll be very curious to see if Braley is able to grow the new Populist caucus.

Wankers of the Day

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Bob Bennett (R-UT).

…Adding, the inauguration is not the place for neo-Prohibitionism. Nor should senators be concerning themselves with temporary ordinances that help local business in the District of Columbia. The DC inauguration bar and restaurant ordinance passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the city council. Feinstein and Bennett should stop grandstanding and back off.

Liberal Lawyers

The Washington Post has a very interesting profile of the American Constitution Society, an organization which in many ways is developing into the liberal answer to the Federalist Society. Key Obama administration nominees and appointments, including future Attorney General Eric Holder, have connections with the ACS. ACS is an important, growing institution in the liberal community. Hopefully they will continue to find ways to have impact in the law and government during the Obama administration.

Obama Raised Nearly $1 Billion

Holy schnikes.

Republicans have two choices if they want to have a shot of beating Barack Obama:

  1. Find a billionaire willing to spend at least $2 bil. of his own money;
  2. Get real public financing passed for all federal elections.

It’s safe to assume that Obama will raise over $1 billion for his campaign alone next cycle. The GOP is in serious trouble and watching them try to deal with this is going to be fun. The bar has been raised out of their reach and they’ll have to do better than proposing to steal the “change” brand. But again, I’m all for Republicans hanging their hopes on branding and whining about how awful it was that millions of small dollar donors carried Obama to victory.

The Brand Problem

Republican online guru David All tweets:

 I’m taking bets on how quickly O switches away from the “Change” theme once he’s inaugurated. That day, the message becomes ours. Game on.

First, Obama isn’t going to switch away from the “Change” theme any time soon. I won’t be surprised if change remains his theme for the 2012 reelection — and it will be true as long as he’s continuing to reform, renew, and restructure government so that it works better for the American people.

The bigger thing is this: Obama didn’t win because of a brand. He won because he ran on better ideas and the change he talked about was a change from failed Republican ideas (perfectly enacted by 8 years of Bush and an entirely compliant Congress) to new Democratic ideas. The challenge facing Republicans is not one of branding, but I have no problem if their top strategists like All think it is.