Lost Optimism

Back in April, I predicted that Democrats would actually shape up to be in a good position heading into the November election:

It feels really weird to write this, but as of today, April 22nd, 2010, I’m not that concerned about the fate of Democrats in midterms. Granted, they haven’t done much to make me care too deeply about the size of the Democratic majority in either chamber or even holding on to both. If I had to guess based on where we are in late April, Democrats will lose a couple seats in the Senate and a low two-digit number in the House, but maintain legitimate majorities in both chamber.

In addition to healthcare, I expect Wall Street reform and immigration reform to pass in some state. There’ll probably be a number of smaller jobs bills that are passed before the fall too. Take into account that Republicans continue to abide by a doomed-to-fail strategy of mistaking their base’s disappointment with Obama with independents’ disappointment with Obama and this doesn’t look like it will be a catastrophic election for Democrats. I don’t expect gains, but given where we were six to nine months ago, I think it’s a pretty good place to be, if you care about the electoral fate of Democrats.

From where we are today in early September, this prediction was massively off-base. The economy has stayed south and there has not been a lot of good legislation moving forward from Democrats. We don’t really know today what the administration’s plan for fixing the economy is, nor do we see any urgency about solving the unemployment crisis. This has lead to a truly awful environment for Democrats. While people aren’t really in love with the Republican brand, “Anyone Else” is winning out over “The Guys We’re Not Happy With.”

We are about to come off another brutal August where Republican messaging dominated the media. Congress will come back soon and that will change, but from where we are today, I’d predict that Democrats lose the House. If they hold the Senate, it will only be by 2 votes. Things still have ample opportunity to get better for Democrats, but more importantly, there is still opportunity for them to get worse. And right now, I’d bet the Under.

Lessons, Learned?

Krugman:

The actual lessons of 2009-2010, then, are that scare stories about stimulus are wrong, and that stimulus works when it is applied. But it wasn’t applied on a sufficient scale. And we need another round.

That certainly is the lesson. But has anyone who wasn’t saying in 2009 that the planned stimulus was going to be too small learned this lesson? Or is it just that the stimulus pessimists have been confirmed right, but, still no one in power is listening to them?

Westen on Populism

Drew Westen has a big piece in Alternet about the current political climate and the anger fueling populist backlash. First, I think this is spot-on:

The “Obama Doctrine” should have been that Americans who want to work and have the ability to contribute to our productivity as a nation should have the right to work, and that if the private sector can’t meet the demand for jobs, we have plenty of roads and bridges to fix, new energy sources to develop and manufacture, and schools to build and renovate so our kids and workers returning for training can compete in the 21st century global economy.

And Westen’s natural follow-up is right on too (and useful for determining why so many progressive activists are feeling dissatisfied with the administration’s course of action):

But it’s too late for that. The administration opted for an alternative doctrine, which Larry Summers enunciated on This Week several months ago: that unemployment is going to remain high for the foreseeable future and eventually come down — as if there’s nothing we can do about it — and that they will push here and there for small symbolic measures whose symbolism tends to escape people who are out of work. It’s hard to be excited by symbolism when your children are hungry or the bank is repossessing your home — although you didn’t do anything to deserve it — while the people who did are once again making out like bandits.

Westen describes the current mood in America as populist anger, something that I agree with. I disagree that this anger from the left is because of missed opportunities – sure, that may be part of it with activist Democrats. No, I think the populist anger from the left stems from the fact that the economy remains broken, people don’t have jobs and are suffering because of it.

There’s a lot in Westen’s analysis of the timeline of the Obama administration and choices made. In many ways, Westen provides a comprehensive narrative of that is tossed around in progressive circles of missed opportunities and the progressive critique of what it means, particularly in terms of depressing the base and diminishing electoral prospects in 2010. I do think one paragraph is particularly worthy of quotation:

The underlying psychological assumption of these moves is that if you mix policies from the right and left in equal parts, you win the center. In fact, no one has ever won the center that way. It appears weak, opportunistic, and incoherent to the average swing voter, which is particularly problematic at a time when people in the center desperately want to know that their leaders have a vision and a coherent plan for what to do (which is why both FDR and Ronald Reagan were so effective in moving voters in the center). It doesn’t win any votes on the right. But it does have one predictable effect: It sucks the motivation out of your base, who feel demoralized and betrayed (if they’re part of the “professional left”) or less likely to vote (if they’re average voters who don’t follow politics carefully but just don’t feel very enthusiastic anymore, even if they don’t really know why).

There are a lot of relatively fundamental critiques of this administration, but this strikes me as one of the core ones – the penchant to be post-partisan and find agreement in the ideological lacuna that is the American center. Sure, it makes David Broder happy to see the White House try and strike an incoherent balance, but it just isn’t a political method which understands what voters want, which policies work, and how actions akin to ideology present themselves to the country. Strength wins, not alchemy.

Westen provides a serious playbook for the administration and Democratic leaders to use to describe how we got to where we are economically and who is to blame for it. Not enough of this is being done currently and as a result, Democrats are missing an opportunity to harness populist anger against Republicans and for better governance. There are still massive economic needs – job creation, state funding, green energy development, infrastructure repair, etc – and ample opportunity for Democrats to do things to address these problems, blame Republicans for opposing the success of the American economy, and actually get things on track. All it takes is building a narrative about who is to blame for today’s problems and who doesn’t want them to be fixed, while establishing Democrats in contrast to this. It’s time to do something.

It’s easy to read Westen’s account of the first year and a half of the Obama administration and be depressed. But this is prescriptive analysis. He provides a clear path forward for the administration to both achieve great things and have continued electoral success. Whether or not the administration is interested in pursuing Westen’s recommendations is obviously another question. But being where we are now is not determinative of future failures, but for the extent that the administration is unwilling to change course. Looking at the economy and at the political peril Democrats are facing electorally, it’s hard to imagine a situation where the President doesn’t start acting like his shoes were on fire.

Nonetheless, that unimaginable situation is the one we continue to find ourselves in. The time for change is now. Westen provides a good playbook. I hope the administration uses it.

Vanity Fair on Palin

There are a lot of posts up already in response to Vanity Fair’s long expose by Michael Joseph Gross on Sarah Palin. Ben Smith and Dave Weigel have spotted on small factual error, though both seem to take it as a basis to dismiss the entire work. Dismissing a piece of many quotes and anonymous stories because one of them is wrong is as absurd as basing an entire story around one anonymous anecdote – something that Gross does not do. What makes Gross’s piece so terrifying is how many stories of the same vein he is able to get people to talk about, particularly ones which suggest that Palin may have some sort of personality disorder akin to being manic or bipolar.

When I was living in Alaska, I heard a lot of stories about Palin. Many of those stories ended up being told by various reporters and political operatives during the 2008 general election. In my experience with what went public, most of the rumors had a much higher basis in truth in Alaska than they do in the Lower 48. It’s a small state and people know each other well – including their dirty laundry. Of course, the shotgun wedding story that Smith and Weigel highlight as debunked is something that didn’t originate in Alaska, but with McCain campaign aides.

Obviously there are other Palin rumors that never panned out – specifically the rumor that Sarah was not in fact Trig’s mother. That rumor was started by Republican opponents of Palin’s in Alaska. The problem with this as it stands now is that the rumor went after a bogus issue. The real hit on Palin for Trig’s birth was how she made reckless choices to take multiple long flights and a long drive to give birth to Trig not just in Alaska, but in Wasilla.

Gross’s piece is really scary and damning. If you have a problem with the number of anonymous quotes or stories conveyed in it, his reasoning is there to explain it: people are scared of Palin’s wrath for speaking out on the record about her to reporters. This is a real phenomenon and not one to be overlooked. If a subject can intimidate those around her into not talking to the press, it has a deliberate chilling effect on journalists who seek to cover her.

Ben Smith’s conclusion is that “you can really write anything about Palin.” Sure, you can – she’s an interesting figure who a lot of people want to read about either because they hate her or they love her. But that’s not to say that everything written about her is falsified or sensationalistic. She did get hundreds of thousands of dollars for her and her family paid for by the RNC. She did have essentially zero grasp of contemporary current affairs, foreign affairs, economics, or political history. She did and does continue to have an open disdain for intellectualism. She is crafting an Us versus Them narrative, wherein she occupies a major leadership role in the course of American events. She does have an (arguably typically) dysfunctional family. And, perhaps most importantly, she quit her job as Governor of Alaska after only two years to pursue media and speaking opportunities that are netting her upwards of $13 million per year. She may well have presidential ambitions, though I will believe she will voluntarily step off the Conservative Icon gravy train when I see it.

There may be one or more bad anecdotes in Gross’s piece. But dismissing it out of hand seems nuts to me given everything that is documented about Palin in the public record.

Sort of Odd?

Adam Serwer, writing at Greg Sargent’s place, writes:

It’s sort of odd that in an election where Democrats are doing badly because they failed to do more to revive the economy, they’re foundering for a message while facing opponents who are promising to do even less.

It is something more than sort of odd. It’s a demonstration of a truly massive failure to seize their opportunity, fix the economy, and make the Tea Party (or, even better, the Republican Party) electorally insignificant. And as a result, it’s likely that voters will end up voting in a party who only promises to make their lives and this economy worse. Yes, this is more than sort of odd.

Songs About Tibetan Unity

High Peaks Pure Earth has posted translations of two popular Tibetan songs about unity by prominent Tibetan musicians. Here’s a piece of the analysis:

Both songs share the same topic of unity amongst Tibetans but are markedly different in style. Whilst these two songs indicate that Tibetan identity and unity amongst all Tibetans were themes in songs both before and after the turbulent year for Tibetans with the protests of 2008, “Mentally Return” is the more cautious of the two songs in terms of the way the messages of the song are conveyed and the lyrics are arguably even more powerful and poetic in their subtlety. For example, in “Mentally Return”, the word “Tibet” (in Tibetan, bod) is never mentioned and instead, Tibet is referred to as the “bountiful land on the roof of the world” or the “Land of Snows”. The metaphor of the Tibetan circle dance is used to indicate unity and Tibet is also called both the fatherland and the mother – a place of comfort with the feeling of home. Tellingly, the singers are also from various parts of this “bountiful land”, Yadong, Kunga and Tsewang are from Kham and Gangshuk is from Amdo. Their places of origin in themselves are at odds with the map – none of them are from the place marked today as “Tibet” (Xizang in Chinese, known by Tibetans as U-Tsang, central Tibet).

On the other hand, Sherten’s 2010 song “The Sound of Unity” directly addresses “Tibetans” and boldly uses politically loaded phrases and words such as “three provinces”, “nation” and “freedom” – all studiously avoided by “Mentally Return” but implied nonetheless. Whereas “Mentally Return” inferred a unity that was related to an inner geography, “The Sound of Unity” literally calls on Tibetans traditionally of all three provinces Amdo, Kham and U-Tsang to unite and to draw strength from each other.

Today in Tibet, the cultural has become political. Music, art, poetry, film and writing have all become major channels for Tibetan political self-identification and expression. In response, the Chinese government has jailed dozens of leading intellectuals and artists, as well as prominent community leaders. But as the Chinese government’s crackdown on art and intellectual life with political intonations has increased, so too has the pace with which Tibetans are turning to culture as a means of expression.

It’s hard to imagine a situation in Tibet, short of the Dalai Lama returning, that is more frightening to the Chinese government than the one that is ongoing today. Culture is fueling a political awakening in Tibet and in turn, an increasing politicized Tibetan populace is turning to art, music, and poetry to express their political views in the open.

Beck-a-Palooza

I watched almost all of Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally this past Saturday from the comfort of my living room. I’m not a conservative Christian and am obviously not the target of his speech, but it struck me as phenomenally long, rambling, and incoherent. There was no arc to it. The only takeaway in this ostensible non-political speech was that Beck thinks America is turning its back to God and, you know, America shouldn’t do that.

Greg Sargent has a great piece evaluating what Beck (and collaborator Sarah Palin) sought through their demagoguery. On the apolitical nature of the event, he writes:

Beck repeatedly claimed that his rally wasn’t meant to be “political.” As high-minded as that may sound, the real point of stressing the rally’s apolitical goals was political in nature. The idea was to relieve himself of the responsibility to pinpoint who, precisely, he wants his followers to blame for leading us away from God and for tarnishing our honor. Beck wants this all to be drawn by inference — classic political demagoguery.

I agree that this apolitical speech was actually very political in nature. But I think this isn’t about relieving Beck of responsibility for the conclusions his followers make vis a vis President Obama and the Democratic Party, though that is certainly a benefit of the speech. No, I think Beck’s apolitical rally was a massive call to the Religious Right in which Beck is saying: I am one of you, I have a soft side, I may be a Mormon, but I share the same concerns about God in American life.

It’s hard to imagine someone who is as high profile and as egomaniacal as Glenn Beck to not harbor some aspirations for higher office. He already casts himself as a martyr in waiting. Running for President (or Vice President) must not be too far from his mind. Unfortunately, the horse that is pulling his cart is the Tea Party, a political “movement” that is so far outside the American mainstream that association with it could be disqualifying for a national candidate. To soften his image and, more importantly, broaden his base, the “Restoring Honor” rally gave Beck the opportunity to embrace the Religious Right.

He’s made himself more of a mainstream Republican figure, at least on Saturday. We know that come tonight’s broadcast, he’ll be spewing the same hateful, dishonest invective against all Democrats (Christian or otherwise), labor unions, and progressive organizations. We shall see if the Religious Right welcomes him into their fold. We’ll see if his Tea Party supporters who shelled out hundreds if not thousands of dollars to travel to Washington to see Beck dish out red meat are still enthusiastic about his rambling sermonizing. We’ll see if this rally proves a jumping point for Beck to run for office. But for now, here are my predictions: The Religious Right won’t fully embrace Beck – sure, there will be some affiliation where there is common cause, but a Mormon isn’t going to become a figurehead leader of movement evangelicals. The Tea Party base that came out for Beck will stick around, because he’s going to be in Full Blown Hatred today about something or Other.  And in the end, Beck will talk about running for office at some point, but like most talk show hosts from Chris Matthews to Lou Dobbs, Beck will remember that it’s a lot nicer to sit in a comfy chair and talk than it is to put it on the line as a public figure. Time will tell, but I really hope that Beck comes nowhere near even thinking about running for higher office. It’s too scary a thought.

…Adding, Steve Benen points out that the early reception from thought leaders on the Religious Right is not going so great for Glenn Beck.

Scott McAdams

Steve Aufrecht of What Do I Know? shot this video of Alaska’s Democratic Senate nominee Scott McAdams in Anchorage on Wednesday. McAdams is the mayor of Sitka, Alaska, and though he isn’t widely known across the state like a couple other Alaskan mayors, he is the real deal.

Dave Weigel at Slate asks a good question:

Do you reach a point where $250,000 in Alaska is worth more than $250,000 to bail out Blanche Lincoln? I think you’re already there.

I hope the party is ready to get behind Scott McAdams. If he ends up facing Joe Miller there is no doubt that he can win. I met him briefly at Netroots Nation and was very impressed with him. All of the Alaskan bloggers I talk to think McAdams is a great candidate and a great Democrat. He would be a great representative for Alaska and a great addition to the Democratic caucus (especially when you think about what Joe Miller might do if he’s given a vote in the Senate).

I’ll be watching this race closely.

Chinese Police Shoot Tibetan Protesters, Killing 4, Injuring 30

This first broke earlier this week on Phayul, but Radio Free Asia now has more details. Chinese security forces opened fire on a crowd of Tibetans who were peacefully protesting in Palyul county. The Tibetans were protesting ” the expansion of a gold mining operation they say is harming the environment.” The shooting took place on August 17th and it is believed that 4 people were killed and as many as 30 more protesters were wounded in the shooting by Chinese security forces.

RFA reports that Palyul is being locked down by overwhelming Chinese security presence:

Drime Gyaltsen, a Tibetan monk living in India, said he was informed by sources in Palyul that additional security forces had been sent to the area to quell further unrest.

“Additional forces arrived from the neighboring Kardze and Dege counties. Right now all the roads leading to Palyul are blocked and residents are not allowed to move about freely,” he said.

An on-duty officer who answered the phone at the Palyul police station said he had only recently joined the force and was not fully informed regarding the confrontation.

“That incident is not resolved yet. I don’t know the details. You can call tomorrow when our senior officials come to our office,” he said.

The cause of the protests were concerns by local Tibetans of the damage mining activities were inflicting on the area.

The group complained that gold mining operations by the Chinese-owned Kartin Company had led to an overcrowded population, severely degraded the fertility of their farmland, and adversely affected the local grassland habitat.

“The county officials refused to hear their plea and, instead of listening to them, had the petitioners detained,” Drime Gyaltsen said.

“The Tibetan villagers saw this as deliberate bullying, and about 40 additional Tibetans arrived at the Palyul county center demanding the release of those detained and calling for officials to compensate them for the destruction of their land,” he said.

The group picketed in front of the county government office for three days, and in the early hours of the fourth day police used an incapacitating gas on the crowd and attempted to take them away in waiting vehicles, Drime Gyaltsen said.

“When some of the protesters affected by the gas were being forced into the vehicles, their comrades who were unaffected … resorted to shouting and began protesting. At that time, the police fired their weapons,” he said.

Tibetans are not consulted when Chinese mining (or logging or drilling etc) companies come to Tibet to extract Tibet’s natural resources. When Chinese companies (or Western companies for that matter) come to take Tibet’s natural resources, they bring cheap laborers from China. There is no consultation about where the mining can and should take place, leading to the destruction of Tibet’s sacred lands and spiritual places. Throw into the mix the consequences of mining – polluted water, degraded soil, reduced grazing lands and so on – and you have a mix that almost guarantees that indigenous Tibetans will reach a breaking point. Unfortunately, while the Tibetans in Palyul expressed their frustration in peaceful protest, Chinese security forces used homicidal violence to quell Tibetan dissent.

While a crackdown is ongoing in Palyul, RFA reports that local officials are negotiating with Tibetans and the Chinese government may begin an investigation into how mining is affecting the area. This is a step in the right direction, though I doubt it would have happened in the absence of Tibetans protesting the mining and the Chinese forces then murdering them. The inability for the Chinese government to find ways to develop Tibet with consultation of and input from local Tibetans is one of the kinetic forces that is going to continue to drive protest and Tibetan self-identification. This is a huge problem for the Chinese government and their continued military occupation of Tibet.

Bad Bai

Matt Bai is back and playing his best Adam Nagourney role of concern trolling Democratic politics and policies. This time his target is Social Security and, not shockingly, Bai adopts conservative deficit hawk talking points which are devoid of any basis in reality in order to make the case that any Democrats who oppose Social Security cuts are nuts. Dean Baker takes Bai to task over his assertion that Treasury Bills are “often referred to as i.o.u.’s”:

This is of course absurd. The business pages of major newspapers are full of references to Treasury bonds all the time. The bonds are never referred to as “i.o.u.’s.” The article then includes the bizarre assertion about government bonds that the only way for the government to make good on the bonds it has outstanding: “is to issue mountains of new debt or to take the money from elsewhere in the federal budget, or perhaps impose significant tax increases — none of which seem like especially practical options for the long term.”

Bai’s opinion, it is radically at odds with perceptions in financial markets. These markets view it as almost inconceiable that the government will not honor its bonds, which is why the interest rate on long-term bonds is near its lowest level in the last 60 years.

Bai also describes the process of the government selling bonds in this absurd manner:

So this is sort of like saying that you’re rich because your friend has promised to give you 10 million bucks just as soon as he wins the lottery.

No, selling trust fund bonds is more like you gave your friend $10 million and he’s promised to pay you back $10 million, plus interest.

Scarecrow at FireDogLake (as well as Dean Baker above) both have problems that the Times ran Bai’s piece as news, when it’s clear he’s editorializing and advancing political opinions that aren’t based in reality. Scarecrow writes:

This is the big con, folks, maybe the biggest con in an era of big cons, and it’s all designed to take money paid by middle class and seniors and put aside for their retirements, and use it as a cover for tax cuts for the richest people in America. Matt Bai just told us he is a dupe in that con, but what excuse do the New York Times editors have?

I don’t think it’s surprising that a reporter who likes punching hippies is punching hippies on our key issue. But there is a real question about how some of this bunk slipped its way past the Times’ editors.