Kevin Drum - September 2010

Illegal Immigration Way Down

| Wed Sep. 1, 2010 2:44 PM EDT

A new Pew report says that illegal immigration into the United States is way down. From the LA Times summary:

Fewer illegal immigrants came to the U.S. every year between 2007 and 2009 than in the years in the first half of the decade, the study found. About 300,000 illegal immigrants entered the U.S. each year between 2007 and 2009, a drop from the 850,000 new unauthorized immigrants that entered each year between 2000 and 2005.

Is this because of stricter immigration enforcement or because of tough economic times? Probably both. But if 600,000 immigrants have entered the U.S. illegally in the past two years while the total population of illegal immigrants has fallen by 900,000, that means about 1.5 million of them have returned to their home countries. There's no way that enforcement has ramped up that much. This seems like it's almost certainly primarily a reflection of the bad economy.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Quote of the Day: Mum's the Word

| Wed Sep. 1, 2010 2:31 PM EDT

From Linda McMahon, the former World Wrestling Entertainment executive who's now running for the Senate in Connecticut:

I can certainly tell you I’m not adverse to talking in the right time or forum about what we need to do relative to our entitlements. I mean, Social Security is going to go bankrupt. Clearly, we have to strengthen that....I just don’t believe that the campaign trail is the right place to talk about that.

Quite right. After all, people might not vote for you if they knew what you actually thought.

American Taliban Not So Talibanish After All?

| Wed Sep. 1, 2010 2:17 PM EDT

Over at the American Prospect, Jamelle Bouie goes to town on Markos Moulitsas's new book, American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right. His review starts off like this:

Given the subject matter and his own influence, Moulitsas is sure to find a large audience for American Taliban. This wouldn't be a problem if the book were a careful comparison of populist nationalist movements, highlighting similarities, underscoring differences, and generally documenting points of congruence between the U.S. conservative movement and populist nationalist groups around the world. But it isn't.

Like [Jonah Goldberg's] Liberal Fascism, American Taliban is another entry in the tired genre of "my political opponents are monsters." Indeed, Moulitsas begins the book with the Goldbergian declaration that "in their tactics and on the issues, our homegrown American Taliban are almost indistinguishable from the Afghan Taliban." And he fills the remaining 200-plus pages with similar accusations.

I haven't read American Taliban and don't plan to. I figure I already dislike the American right wing enough, so there's little need to dump another load of fuel onto my own personal mental bonfire. But here's what's interesting: this review isn't on a fringe blog site. It's not from a reviewer for the DLC. It's not written by some apostate liberal like Mickey Kaus. It's written by a mainstream liberal writing in one of America's premier mainstream liberal publications. Did Liberal Fascism get any similarly incendiary reviews from mainstream conservatives writing in any of America's premier mainstream conservative publications?

Genuine question here. Maybe I missed the bad reviews from fellow conservatives. But the only one I remember on the way to Liberal Fascism becoming both a huge bestseller and a conservative bellwether was a gentle, academic scolding from fascism scholar Michael Ledeen. Does anyone remember any others?

McConnell's Mush

| Wed Sep. 1, 2010 1:09 PM EDT

Over at Outside the Beltway, Dodd is unhappy with the mushy brand of campaigning he's seen so far from the Republican leadership:

Assuming (as I do) that the GOP will take at least the House, and possibly the Senate, the party must run on specific proposals in order to garner the leverage necessary to roll back the last few years of Democratic excesses. If they stick to their current (apparent) game plan and just run on not being Democrats, they will have neither a mandate to repeal Obamacare, et al, nor the will.

Unfortunately, despite a series of “Establishment” Republicans being sent packing by the base, all the signs so far indicate that McConnell and Co. just want to get their power back, not to actually do anything with it. Boehner’s been better, but the resistance to campaigning on a theme of, say, Paul Ryan’s Roadmap is unmistakable. The party need not endorse the specifics of Ryan’s plan in every particular to set forth a plan of action along those lines.

Well, yes, except for one thing: if they did that, they'd lose. The public doesn't want to hear about spending cuts except in the most general, stemwinding terms, and a concrete plan of action "along those lines" would be massively unpopular with the electorate. McConnell and Boehner know this perfectly well. So instead they serve up mush.

“You got the Belgians running Europe?”

| Wed Sep. 1, 2010 12:43 PM EDT

Tony Blair on George Bush:

One of the most ludicrous caricatures of George is that he was a dumb idiot who stumbled into the presidency. No one stumbles into that job, and the history of American presidential campaigns is littered with the corpses of those who were supposed to be brilliant but who nonetheless failed because brilliance is not enough....

To succeed in US politics, of that of the UK, you have to be more than clever. You have to be able to connect and you have to be able to articulate that connection in plain language. The plainness of the language then leads people to look past the brainpower involved. Reagan was clever. Thatcher was clever. And sometimes the very plainness touches something else: a simplicity that is the product of a decisive nature.

And then there are the other times:

In his new book, A Journey, Mr Blair writes that the former US president was confused by the presence of Guy Verhofstadt at the 2001 G8 summit in Genoa.

“He didn’t know or recognise Guy, whose advice he listened to with considerable astonishment,” Mr Blair writes. “He then turned to me and whispered, ‘Who is this guy?’ ‘He is the prime minister of Belgium,’ I said.

Belgium? George said, clearly aghast at the possible full extent of his stupidity. ‘Belgium is not part of the G8’.”

Mr Blair explained to Mr Bush that Mr Verhofstadt was there as “president of Europe”. Belgium held the presidency of the EU council at the time.

Mr Bush responded: “You got the Belgians running Europe?” before shaking his head, “now aghast at our stupidity”, Mr Blair writes.

OK, fine. This doesn't mean Bush was dumb. Just....what's the right word to describe this? Uninformed? Incurious? Provincial? "A simplicity that is the product of a decisive nature"?1 I mean, I know the guy was good at recognizing people, so it's not that. I guess he just didn't give a damn.

But I admit that this is mostly just an excuse to have fun taking a potshot at Bush. I kinda miss that. Sarah Palin is too easy a target.

1Really, you have to give Blair credit for this phrase. I wonder how many alternatives he had to cross out before he came up with it? What it means, obviously, is that Bush was a shallow idler who was allergic to learning any actual facts that might get in the way of doing whatever he wanted to do in the first place. But Blair's formulation sounds so much better, doesn't it?

Breaking Down Unemployment

| Wed Sep. 1, 2010 11:43 AM EDT

Is our current sky-high unemployment structural or cyclical? Roughly speaking, cyclical unemployment just means the economy sucks and everyone is doing badly. Structural unemployment means that certain industries are doing badly, and the economy needs time to adjust as people leave declining industries and get retrained to work in healthier ones. Policywise, the difference is simple: we think we know how to attack cyclical unemployment: looser monetary policy, more federal stimulus spending, and so forth. But structural unemployment is a tougher nut. There are things you can do to address it, but not much. Mostly, you just have to gut it out.

So which do we have now? I think Annie Lowrey has the right take:

The problem seems to me to be both: The unemployment is cyclical and structural. Most sectors have suffered from the turndown, but job losses are concentrated in some industries: In residential construction, they are down 38 percent since 2006. (Between Aug. 2007 and Dec. 2009, unemployment in construction quintupled from about 5 percent to about 25 percent.) In health care and education, however, jobs are up.

Here is a chart I made from Bureau of Labor Statistics data that shows the phenomenon. (The chart shows total jobs in major sectors since 2005.) Most sectors — retail trade, business services, wholesale trade, finance — have had moderate job losses one could reasonably chalk up to an economy-wide lack of demand. Let’s think of those as sectors characterized mostly by cyclical job loss. Then, there is manufacturing and construction. Jobs there have taken a nose dive, and the problem seems to be structural. Moreover, the job gains in education and health might thought to be structural as well.

The "normal" unemployment level is about five points less than it is today. I wouldn't be surprised if perhaps three of those points are cyclical and two are structural. Unfortunately, too many people look at the structural component and throw up their hands. There's nothing we can do about that! But we can do something about the part that's cyclical. And even if we can't get back to normal immediately, isn't it worth it to get from 9.5% unemployment to 7% unemployment while we wait for the construction industry to rebound — or for all its excess workers to eventually find new lines of work? Of course it is. So what are we waiting for?