Print this article
Mike Lane, Cagle Cartoons
A few days ago I posted about my experiences on various web blogs and used two of them (Red State and Daily Kos) as examples of the good and the bad on the net. In my post I complimented both sites on being very informative during the campaign but also took them to task for being a tad intolerant of opposing views.
To make it clear I obviously did not expect such sites to promote the opposition or to have their views changed by my own feeble postings, but I was upset at the lack of basic respect and tolerance of debate. I had no issue with a firm and vigorous debate but did have issues with open faced personal attacks and being banned from commenting for expressing opposing views.
To their credit, Kos took me up on the comments and someone there started a thread to discuss the issue. While some of the comments were the same boring personal type attacks, most were a respectful and well intentioned debate of the subject and I give them real praise for doing that.
I’d also like to respond to a couple things that were said. First off it seems that I misunderstood how posters are banned from the site and I would like to apologize for that. None of us are perfect and I made an error there and freely admit it.
As to the types of comments that got me tossed (I’m not sure what the proper term to use would be since it seems I’m not entirely clear on the system for banning/tossing/etc) they largely occurred during the Convention period and involved either my saying I thought McCain or Palin did an ok job with their speeches or that Clinton/Biden/Obama did not do as well as some others thought.
I also ran into problems when I expressed views similar to those of these last 2 threads where I said that I didn’t think talk of crushing/destroying/etc the enemy (IE Republicans) was a good idea. Again coming to the idea that while obviously you want your side to succeed, you should respect the right of the other guy to have his views.
As to what my personal views are, I suppose the best way to find out would be to read TMV and look at my posts. In this last campaign I was sharply critical of the GOP and did not support Senator McCain but at the same time expressed concern about the Democrats having unbridled power (IE cloture proof majority in Senate/etc versus reasonable majority to govern).
In any event I compliment Kos on giving my views a look. I haven’t heard from the man himself but expect I’m a bit too far down his radar to get one.
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
The word progressive has an interesting and storied history, and according to this article, in Obama’s victory, the word and its meaning have been snatched back by the left, from the right - who had “stolen” it from them.
For France’s Liberation, Laurent Joffrin writes in part:
“The election of Barack Obama has another meaning just as decisive to our fate. Since the 1980s, the progressives of the planet have been on the defensive. The forces of individualism and money confiscated the very idea of progress. Business and finance, combined with technology and free trade, were the engines of a revolution that shook the planet, changed work habits and transformed the relationships between people. The exuberance of the markets and the energy of individual selfishness have pushed humanity forward without it knowing where it was going. Capitalism, according to Marx’ theory, revolutionized life. Suddenly, the words changed and reform, innovation, audacity and creativity moved to the right. Although the term doesn’t have the same meaning in the United States, and even if Barack Obama, somewhat like the Kennedys, is also a proven politician, centrist in many ways, a tough competitor and able to maneuver, these words have now come back to the left. By a huge margin, without question, Americans wanted to say that this society is too hard on people, that inequality is not the ideal for citizens of globalization, that the Earth is not infinite and indestructible, and that the rich must lose at least some of their arrogance. Progressives had the idea of progress stolen from them. Now they have taken it back.”
By Laurent Joffrin
Translated By Kate Davis
November 6, 2008
France - Liberation - Original Article (French)
The future has changed sides. For over 20 years, the conservatives had a corner on it. They just lost it. We have celebrated the victory of a man who represents the pariahs of American history, the emergence of a messenger of the new century which is mixed, globalized and where the West will no longer be the center of the world.
We had a hundred reasons to feel right. The tears of the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who saw the dream of his mentor Martin Luther King materialize before his brimming eyes, will remain in the memory of all marginalized people. A land of discrimination and relegation, the United States has taken a major step toward redemption.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news about our nation.
CQ says former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack has emerged as the frontrunner for Agriculture secretary in the Obama administration. Ezra Klein speaks to dashed hopes:
Anyone who cares about food policy, or who was excited by Barack Obama’s offhand reference to Michael Pollan’s food policy manifesto [that’s me], should be extremely skeptical of this pick. [I am!] Iowa, of course, is a corn state. For the last 14 years, they’ve been the leading corn producer in the nation. In 2006, they grew almost 2.1 billion bushels. But they don’t just grow corn. They also demand subsidies. And they get them. Tens of billions of dollars of them. And corn subsidies are far and away the worst of our food policy abominations — they make processed food cheaper, meat cheaper, sweeteners cheaper, and create a market for ethanol that would not naturally exist. They endure, in part, because of a quirk in our political system. The power of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential Caucus is used to force candidates to swear fealty to ethanol and corn subsidies. This bit of civically disguised blackmail has become so routine that the West Wing did an episode on it. But it’s one thing to make promises during campaigns. Putting a former governor of Iowa in charge of the Department of Agriculture, however, seems like a solemn oath that the subsidies will continue far into the future.
BERLUSCONI: ‘Young, beautiful and tanned is a compliment.’
OBAMA: Yeah, so is ‘Old Jerk’!
[Courrier International, France]
The ripples of Barack Obama’s rise continue to be felt across the world. In France, a petition calling for major changes in how French and Europeans think of race - and a call to forcibly open up the political process - is circulating. And France’s first lady, former ’super model’ Carla Bruni-Sarkozy - a former Italian - has written this article in Le Journal du Dimanche au Quotidienin in support of the manifesto [which we will post later today or tomorrow].
First Lady Sarkozy says in part:
“Power has often had the same face: White men of a certain age. Our habits, in the end, have turned into sclerosis! We must help the elite to change … or force them a little, because psychology alone won’t do. … The voters are ready. I think the political parties are ready to accept the imposition of certain standards, a charter or a pact. The Obama effect should propel us. … When I hear [Italian Prime Minister] Silvio Berlusconi joke about the fact that Obama is ‘always tanned’ … I am very pleased to have become French!”
By Claude Askolovitch
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
November 8, 2008
France - Le Journal du Dimanche au Quotidien - Original Article (French)
Exclusive: After “the call for genuine equality of opportunity” launched by Yazid Sabeg in the Le Journal du Dimanche - already endorsed by several politicians - the wife of the President is also committing herself. She can’t sign it because of her position, but Carla Bruni-Sarkozy explains why she supports this document. A neo-French, the First Lady emphasized that her husband is also a child of immigrants. And she invites France to change.If I were only Carla Bruni the singer, I would sign this manifesto for equality. But I’m Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, and my name is not completely my own. It would be strange to communicate with the power, my husband, via petition! But this doesn’t prevent me from being engaged. And it doesn’t prevent me from agreeing with the manifesto you have published …
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news about our nation.
Attention continues to focus on President Elect Barack Obama’s possible selections for his staff and Cabinet, and some of the questions I’m hearing center on the dearth of Republicans popping up on the list. Today I’d like to address a couple of potential issues with this debate. It’s a tricky high wire act for Obama, with barriers being thrown up on both sides of the aisle.
The first question centers on how to make the offer in the first place. One thing that the President Elect can’t afford in this highly charged, partisan political environment is to make a public offer of a position to a Republican who then runs out in front of the media and says, “Are you kidding me? There’s no way I’m working for you!” He needs to thread the needle and feel people out to determine if they would even be open to the offer.
The second, and perhaps tougher question is the effect this has on the the Republican who considers such an offer. Would accepting a position in Obama’s Cabinet, be it ever so prestigious, effectively burn their bridges in their own party in terms of any future elections? Would they be viewed as a traitor who crossed over into enemy territory and can no longer be trusted. A brief look at the debate raging over Joe Lieberman should be an object lesson for anyone considering such a post-partisan position.
I would very much like to see the new president live up to his claims and build a team which draws the best and brightest ideas and people from both parties. It might go some ways to heal the current Red-Blue divide and get Congress working in an effective manner again. But the real Republicans available to Obama may be older warriors who are already out of office an no longer worried about future battles. This may be why Colin Powell is one of the only names in contention. His bridges are long since burned and he would have nothing to lose. Sadly, this limits the talent pool considerably.
"That the Palin absurdity should follow the two-term presidency of another individual utterly out of his depth in national government is particularly troubling; 46 percent of Americans voted for the possibility of this blank slate as president because she somehow echoed their own sense of religious or cultural 'identity'. Until we figure out how this happened, we will not be able to prevent it from happening again."
Promoting an over-aged cheerleader with no political substance whatsoever for 2012, as William Kristol and others are doing, is a sign that the diaper division of the Republican Party has no interest in going back to its Goldwater-William F. Buckley roots and offering principled opposition to the new Democratic majority.
Palin's ascension is highlighted by the decline and fall of Ron Paul who, in his own idiosyncratic way, identified some of the issues that his party should be considering and debating. As Paul now writes:
"In the rise and fall of the recent Republican reign of power these past decades, the goal of the party had grown to be only that of gaining and maintaining power--with total sacrifice of the original Republican belief in shrinking the size of government."
Instead, the GOP focus is on Palin's "star quality" and her media blitz this week to make GOP true believers forget how her vast emptiness and arrogance helped bring down John McCain's campaign.
Add Henry Paulson to the list. After pushing Congress into a panic to let him buy toxic mortgage assets, Bush's Treasury Secretary today said maybe not, announcing the plan is on hold.
At a news conference, Paulson said the $700 billion will be used instead to bolster the financial markets and, in turn, make loans more accessible for creditworthy borrowers:
“During times like these with a slowing economy and some deterioration in credit conditions, even the healthiest banks tend to become more risk-averse and restrain lending, and regulators’ actions have reinforced this lending restraint in the past.”
Four federal agencies, including the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, joined in by issuing a statement practically begging banks to step up: “Lending to creditworthy borrowers provides sustainable returns for the lending organization and is constructive for the economy as a whole.”
Paulson's turning on a dime is analogous to what the Bush Administration might have done five years ago if, after getting Congress to authorize invasion of Iraq and starting the shock and awe, they suddenly decided to stop and bomb Iran instead.
No wonder, in the face of all this fumbling, the stock market keeps going down, waiting for a signal about where all this confusion is heading.
The naming of Obama's Treasury Secretary, along with a clear statement of intentions about the financial markets, gets more urgent with each passing day.
As the presidential campaign was nearing its end, as the Republicans were getting more and more desperate amid prospects of doom, the McCain-Palin fear- and smear-mongering focused not just on Obama’s “socialism” but on how horrible so-called “one-party rule” would be for the country. McCain himself put it this way: “We’re getting a glimpse of what one-party rule would look like under Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Apparently it starts with lowering our defenses and raising our taxes.”
Two things:
1) A new CNN poll finds that “59 percent of those questioned said Democratic control of both the executive and legislative branches will be good for the country, compared with 38 percent saying such one-party control will be bad.” In other words, the American people are, contra McCain, fine with one-party rule, as long as the one party is the Democratic Party.
2) What does “one-party rule” even mean? In a parliamentary system, where the party with the most seats in the legislature is usually the one that forms the government, a party with a majority of seats can indeed rule as one. It forms the government, formally linking the executive and legislative branches, and, for the most party, can control its caucus. As members of the party require the party’s, and the party leader’s support, there are only very rarely any defections from the party line. There may be so-called “free” votes, where members are free to vote as they please, but, on major legislative items, such as the budget, or other so-called “confidence” matters (where a vote against the government means a lack of confidence in the government, generally forcing it to step down or call an election), there is strict party-line voting.
There can be no such “one-party rule” in the American presidential system.
Yes, as we saw under Bush, a party that controls both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue can effectively rule as one, and there is often a good deal of arm-twisting by the whips, and defectors can be punished by the party, but, for the most part, members of Congress, both Senators and Congressmen alike, are free to vote as they please. This is why, on most votes, there is crossover voting, with members of each party voting with the majority of the other.
Simply put, the two parties are not monoliths. This was true of the Republicans pre-2006, and it is certainly true of the Democrats now. McCain and other Republican fear-mongers may talk up the Obama-Reid-Pelosi alliance, as if they are all essentially one and the same, but, though they may agree more often than not, they are not in any like the governing party in a parliamentary system. Obama is not about to do what Reid and Pelosi want without question, Reid and Pelosi are not about to be Obama’s rubber-stampers (like the Republicans were under Bush), and Reid and Pelosi are not about to unite on all matters.
What’s more, even where these three agree, there is no guarantee that they will be able to secure the support of enough Democratic members to do what they want. Consider, for example, the Blue Dogs, the coalition of right-leaning or otherwise conservative Democrats in the House. With influential members like Jane Harman and Heath Shuler, and with representation from all over the country, they are not about to go along with the party leadership on all matters. Indeed, they are likely to try to block any sort of liberal-progressive legislative agenda (or at least much of it). In the Senate, too, there are moderates and conservatives who are not about to go along with Reid. And as popular and powerful as Obama is, there is only so much he can do.
And so the whole idea of “one-party rule” is basically a myth. While the Republicans were able, more or less, to maintain party unity, especially after 9/11, given Bush’s immense popularity (for a time), the Democrats remain a divided party (in what I hope is a dynamic and productive way) with members who will not simply do what they are told.
It’s called the American way.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
You don't like Sarah Palin. We got it. She lost the election. Enough already.
Thanks,
Dyre42
*Update*
It looks like at least one other reader agrees with me.
I’ve been focusing much of my attention lately on the still-unresolved Senate races in Minnesota and Alaska, but, lest we forget, there is still one undecided state in the presidential election: Missouri. Here’s the latest:
[T]he vote count in Missouri is tightening.
Republican John McCain’s statewide lead has shrunk to fewer than 5,000 votes, as various counties have recounted and revised their totals from last Tuesday’s election.
Since Election Day, Obama has gained almost 1,000 votes statewide, most of it from St. Louis County.
County election officials have recovered almost 3,200 additional votes in the last few days. Most of them came from various electronic voting machines where the votes had apparently not been tallied by polling place workers during the initial collection of votes.
Missouri remains the only state where it’s officially unclear which candidate carried the state. And it may take another two or three weeks before a winner is declared.
McCain’s latest lead is 4,968 votes, out of more than 2.9 million cast.
Yet to be counted: an estimated 7,000 provisional ballots — most cast in Obama-leaning areas — that are just now being examined to determine which ones were cast by properly registered voters in the correct polling place.
Even after these and other votes are counted, there could still be a state-wide recount.
Does it matter how Missouri voted? Not in terms of the outcome of the election, of course, but it would be good to know the accurate count.
First, for the sake of Obama’s mandate: A win is a win, and a win in Missouri would be that extra blue state in the middle of the country (great optics).
Second, for the sake of history: It’s important to know the truth.
Third, for the sake of Missouri’s reputation: It’s the bellwether state, but it wouldn’t be much of one if it voted for McCain even though Obama won.
Fourth, for me: I got every other state right. I’d like to be able to say my projections were 50 for 50 (plus DC, of course). Although, Obama may still pick up one electoral vote in Nebraska. (I don’t think it’s been called yet, but it looks good for Obama.) Hey, no one’s perfect.
The WSJ is reporting that “Obama is leaning toward asking Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remain in his position for at least a year, according to two Obama advisers. A senior Pentagon official said Mr. Gates would likely accept the offer if it is made.”
I’m sorry, but that’s not change I can believe in.
(To those of you who think I’m now turning on Obama because he’s not progressive enough, I’m not. It’s just that I’m not so rigidly ideological that I can’t accept moderation and compromise. I also don’t intend to sit through Obama’s presidency cheerleading his, or the Democrats’, every move.)
**********
Actually, I don’t feel too strongly about this one way or the other. I would certainly like to see Obama start over at the Pentagon, not more of the same, but Gates has done pretty well — well in absolute terms, but even better relative to Rumsfeld. And I suppose there is a case to be made for continuity.
The problem is, Gates supports an escalation of the war in Afghanistan (more troops) and the continuation of the war in and occupation of Iraq (no timetable for withdrawal). I am much more sympathetic to the former position than to the latter, but what is needed now is fresh thinking. As the WaPo reported yesterday, Obama plans “to explore a more regional strategy to the war in Afghanistan,” which is promising, but keeping Gates would be a clear sign that the old ways, the failed ways, are still in play.
I’ve lived through and studied enough politics to know that — even as individual voters like me abandon the Republican Party — the chances of the GOP eventually turning itself around are still quite good.
Think about it: Who could have imagined darker days for the Republicans than those between Nixon’s exit and Carter’s triumph? And yet, a few short years later, a generation of Republican dominance began.
It could happen again, and if I were still inclined to contribute to the GOP’s future, I’d rely on that history to energize my flagging spirit. But as it stands now, I hope history cycles in a much different direction this time; that the GOP continues its rendezvous with atrophy. I hope this not because I wish to see the Democratic Party dominate, but because I wish both major parties to wither away until they are as marginalized and worthless as the Green, Libertarian, and Constitution parties.
And how, you ask, could the GOP’s demise lead to the Democrats’ demise? Easy: Without an equally well-heeled opponent, what fuel is there to fire up interest in the Democratic Party? If every viable candidate is a Democrat, why would anyone give money to the DNC or its offshoots? Today’s party boosters are motivated by a well-organized, well-funded opposition. If organization and funding abandon the opposition, then there’s no reason to counter-organize and counter-fund. And if there’s no reason to counter-organize and counter-fund, parties falter — leaving our politics to individual candidates or, at most, diverse caucuses.
That, in my estimation, would be a beautiful accomplishment because it would allow some of the purity of our competing branches of government to be restored, without the interloping and often corruptive influence of parties — a point on which we were long ago sermonized by none less than our first president, and more recently by former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards.
Now, before you mock my naiveté — as I know you will, because you did so the last time I raised these questions — know this: I have anticipated at least two categories of potential guffaws: The first will be uttered by those who believe the modern cost of campaigning makes it impossible for everyone except the wealthiest candidates to run without party mechanics behind them. And the second will be uttered by those, apparently in the minority, who fret about one-party control of government.
To those uttering the first guffaw, remember that political parties aren’t the only species of campaign mechanics. Consider what Obama just accomplished. When the so-called party apparatus favored Hillary, Obama and his advisers leveraged technology and messaging — and yes, a spectacular candidate — to build their own apparatus. Even after they vanquished Hillary, with all of her party-derived advantages, I saw evidence that the triumph over McCain might have had more to do with Obama’s organization than with the DNC or its state or local arms. During the last couple weeks of the campaign, as I continued to canvass for Obama on Saturday afternoons, the Obama volunteers were consistently better organized, more on top of things, than the Missouri Democratic Party and West (St. Louis) County Democrats. Granted, that’s rather slim, qualitative evidence, but the impression stuck with me, nonetheless.
Moving on to the issuers of the second guffaw: Frankly, your worries about one-party control fail to appreciate the unique construction of our federal government. In Russia and elsewhere, party equals government because power can be concentrated in a few hands. In the U.S. — thanks to the intricate beauty of our Constitution, the genius of its authors, and the innately dissenting nature of the American people — there’s so much competition and conflict that attempts to concentrate power for sustained periods of time are all-but-impossible. Consider what we saw happen earlier this month and two years prior: One party managed to control virtually all of government for a mere six years before several of their own members revolted and the unwashed masses started handing out pink slips. I don’t believe that’s an aberration. If the Democrats are stupid enough to make the same mistakes the Republicans did, a similar revolt will surely commence and a similar thrashing ensue. Of course, if the Democrats are not that stupid, they will continue to win the White House and seats in Congress — in which case we return to my original premise: With no organized or funded opposition, there is no motivation to keep parties alive.
Ironic, isn’t it? Fail to govern wisely and your party loses. Govern wisely and the need for your party dissipates.
Even in the face of these arguments, I realize doubts will persist. Many analysts will point once again to history’s cyclical nature — and the cockroach-like survival skills of the two major parties — and thus argue that my vision of a day when we move beyond parties is nothing more than that, a vision.
Seriously, do we have any reason to believe the Republicans will not repeat history; that they will fail in their pursuit of an eventual revival? Actually, we have several reasons to believe things might be different this time around.
— TO BE CONTINUED —