Blogs

The Golden Rule

THE GOLDEN RULE....Ross Douthat is skeptical that things are (yet) really that bad in the Republican Party:Oh, the pundits will fight, as they have been for a while, but for a serious circular firing squad you need the activist groups...

| Mon Nov. 10, 2008 2:34 PM EST

THE GOLDEN RULE....Ross Douthat is skeptical that things are (yet) really that bad in the Republican Party:

Oh, the pundits will fight, as they have been for a while, but for a serious circular firing squad you need the activist groups to turn on one another. You might think that a defeat like the one the GOP endured last week would prompt Grover Norquist to argue that the Republican Party needs to ditch its warmongers and its theocrats, or prompt Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council to argue that the GOP needs to ditch its flat-tax obsessives, or prompt the Federalist Society's Leonard Leo to complain about all those anti-intellectual hicks who loved Sarah Palin. But in practice the incentives probably cut the other way: Nobody wants to fire the first shot against their fellow movementarians, because then everybody else might just close ranks and train their fire in your direction. So the social-conservative activist groups will stand by the economic-conservative activist groups, and so on, lest they all hang separately.

He's probably right, but that's because the single-issue activist groups mostly don't have any beef with each other. They're pretty much on board with the entire movement conservative agenda, and are convinced that they just need to make their case to the American people and everything will be fine again.

The business community, however, is both more practical and more ruthless than the activist groups. Richer, too, and at some point they're going to conclude that Something Must Be Done. They don't want Dems writing new regulations and taking away their offshore tax shelters and making unions more powerful, and if the activist groups are in the way of getting Republicans back in power — well, they're just going to have to be dealt with. If that means backing more moderate Republicans with huge fistfuls of cash, then that's what they'll do. If it means more direct threats, that's fine too. And if James Dobson and Grover Norquist get caught in the crossfire, that's unfortunate, but you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. It's nothing personal, guys. Just business.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Sarah Palin Talking Nonsense on Medical Records

She's speaking to reporters in an attempt to clear her name. Here's one statement she made Sunday, about the gossip...

| Mon Nov. 10, 2008 2:34 PM EST

She's speaking to reporters in an attempt to clear her name. Here's one statement she made Sunday, about the gossip that swirled around her candidacy:

"Some of the goofy things, like who was Trig's mom. Well, I'm Trig's mom, and do you want to see my medical records to prove that?"

Um, yes. We asked for your medical reports repeatedly. Andrew Sullivan talked about little else for a while. You refused. Your campaign stonewalled. And ultimately all you did was pass around a letter from your doctor asserting you were in good health the day before the election. Are you serious right now?

Will Obama's Cabinet Favor Whites?

The Wall Street Journal ran a cheat sheet of the powerful blacks who may wind up in the Obama administration....

| Mon Nov. 10, 2008 2:19 PM EST

The Wall Street Journal ran a cheat sheet of the powerful blacks who may wind up in the Obama administration. But check this:

Of those hoping for access and government stints, some may be disappointed. Loyalties aside, Mr. Obama, according to people familiar with his thinking, may be constrained in the number of blacks he appoints to avoid any charges of favoring African-Americans.

So, he can appoint white folks for days—but just a Negro here and there. Why won't that be seen as 'favoring whites'?

A white reporter covering a small town, McCain-area called me post-election for comment, appalled at hearing whites in the local diner angrily fretting about being demoted to the back of the bus, the Muslim Obama giving their hard-earned money to "those who refuse to work," etc. Don't worry white folks: Situation normal. A brother may be president, but he's still got to eenie-meenie-miney-mo among us blacks, his own judgment be damned. And of course, he wouldn't be the President-elect if he didn't understand these things. But it still sucks.

Whenever blacks find themselves in a group larger than three or four at work, invariably someone will 'joke:' "Better break this up. More than four and the white folks get nervous." I guess that joke ain't going anywhere. And I bet Obama's administration will blacker than any other in history but that won't take much, will it? An under-secretary here, a deputy assistant there, and soon you've got yet another quarter-step toward full equality.

But it's all good. Obama won. I can wait a little longer.

First Things First

FIRST THINGS FIRST....The first thing any new president does is to reverse his predecessor's rules on support for international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid. As part of this tradition, Obama will be rescinding Bush's regulation, which itself was...

| Mon Nov. 10, 2008 1:53 PM EST

FIRST THINGS FIRST....The first thing any new president does is to reverse his predecessor's rules on support for international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid. As part of this tradition, Obama will be rescinding Bush's regulation, which itself was a change from Clinton's policy, which in turn was a repudiation of the original rule put in place by Ronald Reagan. Starting January 20th, the mere mention of the word "abortion" will no longer make you ineligible for American aid.

But that's not all. The Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal all ran stories over the weekend about the hundreds of other Bush-era executive orders Obama plans to overturn as soon as he's in office, and John Podesta was on TV Sunday morning saying the same thing, which means that this is pretty obviously something the Obama team is eager for the world to hear about.

So what's on tap? Changes to federal funding rules for stem cell research (which makes California's stem cell initiative from a couple of years ago redundant — thanks, initiative process!), some drilling decisions near national parks, and several other things. The most interesting one, however, is probably this:

The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.

California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California's rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation's automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.

....Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.

This, along with an EPA that decided to obey the law and classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant, could have extremely far-reaching effects. Pair them up with something close to the energy policy that Obama campaigned on and it would finally send a message to the world that the United States is no longer in denial about global warming.

And not a moment too soon. Julia Whitty explains why here.

New Hampshire the Apex for Gender Equality in Politics

At the state level, New Hampshire now has a woman Speaker of the House, a woman Senate president, and a...

| Mon Nov. 10, 2008 1:40 PM EST

At the state level, New Hampshire now has a woman Speaker of the House, a woman Senate president, and a female majority in the Senate. It had a female governor from 1997-2003. At the federal level, it has a female Senator-elect (who happens to be that same ex-governor). That's a remarkable record of accomplishment on gender equality in politics.

Now if we could just recreate something even remotely close to this at the national level! As of 2006, the United States ranked #83 in the world in terms of percentage of seats held by women in the national legislative body. That is four spots below Zimbabwe.

Mahdi Army Update

MAHDI ARMY UPDATE....Ned Parker of the LA Times reports that Muqtada al-Sadr has fallen on hard times:In a telling measure of the militia's power, the U.S. military credits Sadr's decision more than a year ago to call a cease-fire as...

| Mon Nov. 10, 2008 1:30 PM EST

MAHDI ARMY UPDATE....Ned Parker of the LA Times reports that Muqtada al-Sadr has fallen on hard times:

In a telling measure of the militia's power, the U.S. military credits Sadr's decision more than a year ago to call a cease-fire as one of the chief reasons for the sharp drop in violence in Iraq.

But Sadr's fortunes have also plummeted, and his followers now contemplate a world where they are on the run and their Shiite rivals have the upper hand.

....Sadr's troubles are rooted in the fighting between his militia and Iraqi security forces that erupted in March after Prime Minister Nouri Maliki ordered the army to clear the militia's strongholds in the southern city of Basra. The clashes there ended only when Sadr commanded his militia to stand down, and then did the same in Sadr City six weeks later.

....With his armed wing formally frozen, Sadr looked to repair his movement's image. He announced in June that his fighters should form a new social and religious education organization, named Mumahidoon, which aims to teach Iraqis about Islam.

...."To avoid having his organization continually targeted, he had to do something with them, so he followed the Islamic Brotherhood and Hezbollah model," a U.S. military intelligence officer said, referring to other Islamist movements that provide charitable services and enjoy popularity in the Arab world.

At the time, I was skeptical that the Basra operation was a big win for Maliki, but obviously I was pretty spectacularly wrong about that. It's still not clear to me exactly what happened in Basra — did Sadr get beaten? did he sincerely decide that the violence had gotten out of hand? did he take direction from Iran? — but there's not much question that the eventual result was an enormous drop in influence for Sadr and a victory for Maliki and his Badr Organization allies.

In any case, read the whole thing if you're interested in the current lay of the land in Sadr City. It's certainly possible that Sadr could someday Hezbollah-ize his operation and end up more influential than ever, but in the meantime the cease-fire looks like a pretty permanent decision.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Michelle Obama Touring DC Private Schools Today

Alas, public schools don't seem to make the short list for the Obama girls. Michelle Obama is slated to visit...

| Mon Nov. 10, 2008 1:17 PM EST

Alas, public schools don't seem to make the short list for the Obama girls. Michelle Obama is slated to visit Georgetown Day School (where many of her husband's close advisers send their kids) and the Maret School today, and is also apparently considering Sidwell Friends, which Joe Biden's grandchildren attend. No big surprise here, really. But this should come as welcome news to many of our commenters who seem to think that public school is too much of a security risk for the president's kids, a sentiment I find sort of odd given that many DC schools already have metal detectors installed at the front door. DC schools know quite a bit about security, but apparently not enough about VIPs to make the cut.

Quote of the Day, 11.10.08

Today's installment in an occasional series (stolen from Kevin Drum) comes from reader DG at TPM: "I can't believe Obama...

| Mon Nov. 10, 2008 12:40 PM EST

Today's installment in an occasional series (stolen from Kevin Drum) comes from reader DG at TPM:

"I can't believe Obama is already sitting down with an unpopular, aggressive world leader without preconditions."

Obama visits the White House today.

Military Contractors Are Here to Stay, Report Concludes

First some numbers. The size of the US military was cut 30 percent between 1990 and 2005, which led to...

| Mon Nov. 10, 2008 12:30 PM EST

First some numbers. The size of the US military was cut 30 percent between 1990 and 2005, which led to increased reliance on private companies to provides services previously thought of as "inherently governmental." The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan accelerated the shift. Pentagon contracts have grown 31 percent in the last few years, from $241 billion in fiscal year 2004 to $316 billion in fiscal year 2008, and the Congressional Budget Office reports that, by year's end, the US will have shelled out over $100 billion to contractors in Iraq. One out of every five dollars spent in Iraq now goes to private industry, and there is one contractor for every US soldier in the country. (During the Gulf War, the ratio of soldiers to contractors was 50:1.)

These figures come from a New America Foundation report released Friday, called "Changing the Culture of Pentagon Contracting" (.pdf), which acknowledges the "inevitability of contractors," while making recommendations for integrating them more effectively into the US force structure. Among the report's admonishments:

Obama and FDR

Did the New Deal actually get us out of the Depression?

| Mon Nov. 10, 2008 12:26 PM EST

OBAMA AND FDR....Paul Krugman writes today about the New Deal and the American economy:

Now, there's a whole intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse. So it's important to know that most of what you hear along those lines is based on deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. The New Deal brought real relief to most Americans.

That said, F.D.R. did not, in fact, manage to engineer a full economic recovery during his first two terms. This failure is often cited as evidence against Keynesian economics, which says that increased public spending can get a stalled economy moving. But the definitive study of fiscal policy in the '30s, by the M.I.T. economist E. Cary Brown, reached a very different conclusion: fiscal stimulus was unsuccessful "not because it does not work, but because it was not tried."

....F.D.R. wasn't just reluctant to pursue an all-out fiscal expansion — he was eager to return to conservative budget principles. That eagerness almost destroyed his legacy....What saved the economy, and the New Deal, was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy's needs.

I'm curious about something. I've read a number of conservatives recently taking liberals to task for thinking that the New Deal fixed the Great Depression. Some of them are the folks Krugman talks about, who like to pretend that the New Deal made things worse, but others are more moderate, insisting only that liberals stubbornly overestimate the macroeconomic impact of FDR's policies.

But here's the thing. I'm a liberal and I grew up (academically speaking) in the 70s and 80s. I wasn't an economics major or a history major, so everything I learned about FDR and the Great Depression came from a bog standard layman's viewpoint. And the conventional wisdom I learned (apparently based on Cary Brown's 1956 work, though I didn't know that at the time) was that although the New Deal was a fine thing that helped a lot of people etc. etc., it didn't get us out of the Great Depression because, in the end, FDR wasn't a Keynesian and the New Deal just didn't provide enough economic stimulus. What got us out of the Great Depression was World War II.

In other words, exactly what Krugman says. But if that's how I learned this stuff 30 years ago, it's not exactly a big secret, is it? Surely most liberals do, in fact, know this?

I'm also curious about why conservatives are so enamored with this argument in the first place. After all, the conclusion one draws from it is that the New Deal wasn't big enough. Hoover shouldn't have raised taxes, Roosevelt should have spent even more, and deficits should have been even bigger. I can see how they'd like the tax part, but do they really want to convince everyone that the New Deal was too timid? Doesn't that make the argument for an enormous stimulus to address our current mini-depression all the more forceful?