• Friday Cat Blogging – 31 December 2010


    I think it’s probably daft to pretend that I’m going to find something worthwhile to blog about today if I just keep staring at the computer long enough, so let’s get straight to Friday Catblogging and call it a year. Unfortunately, even though I’ve had two weeks to get my act together, I haven’t taken any fresh pictures of the furballs lately. So last night at 8:59 I decided instead to treat you all to a bit of cinéma vérité: Inkblot and Domino at snack time. Unfortunately, they didn’t really put on a very good show. Still, vérité is vérité, and this is truly a slice of real life, dramatic qualities be damned. Sometimes life just isn’t very dramatic. But still cute.

    And with that, happy New Year, everyone. See you on the other side.

  • Convex Mirrors Coming to America?


    Here’s an entry from the annals of “things I’ve always wondered about but never had the energy to bother checking on”: Why don’t cars in the United States have convex driver’s side mirrors? They sure seem to make sense to me, but who knows? Maybe there’s something unsafe about them that I haven’t thought of.

    As it turns out, I still don’t know. The proximate answer, of course, is that they’re illegal, but I don’t know why they’re illegal. The reason is probably buried in the mists of time. However, according to the New York Times, the Department of Transportation, after a grueling three-year process, is thinking about maybe, just possibly, allowing carmakers to use them. Mike O’Hare, who is a positive sink of information about the most obscure topics imaginable, comments:

    Thinking about bureaucrats in DOT taking three years to make a decision worth maybe half a day, having spent a couple of decades to even engage the question, through all of which millions of drivers outside the US have been running an enormous demonstration program showing the superiority of convex driver’s-side mirrors, can make a libertarian’s day.

    ….There’s more to the convex mirror than the Times story records. Not only is the field of view wide enough to cover the left-hand blind spot, but a convex mirror doesn’t have to be dimmed to prevent cars behind you from blinding you at night. Now, if we could get them in the right place, which is on the fender, visible through the dashboard so you don’t have to take your eyes off the road to be aware of what’s going on behind you, we’ll be making some real progress. For this location, they have to be convex, because at that distance, the field of view of a flat mirror is much too narrow. I’ve had convex fender mirrors (very hard to find, and it’s a nuisance to make a flat panel to replace the stock abortions on the doors) for twenty years and would never go back. I suppose I’m courting a ticket, but so far, no problems.

    I still don’t know why flat driver’s side mirrors have been mandated in the U.S. for so long, so be sure and enlighten us in comments if you happen to know the answer. In any case, it looks like our long national nightmare may soon be over. Just please don’t tell any conservatives that DOT is considering this change so that U.S. rules will be “harmonized with European requirements.” You know how they feel about euro-weenies.

  • Snowy LA?


    This was posted a few minutes ago on Andrew Sullivan’s blog:

    WTF? Is this a window facing a backlot at Universal Studios? We’ve had monsoon-like rain around here lately, but I haven’t seen any snow yet. Or perhaps this is somewhere on the Tejon Pass, just barely within LA County and therefore technically “Los Angeles” even though it’s 40 miles from the actual city?

    Beats me. It’s a pretty picture, though.

    UPDATE: Turns out the picture is from Virginia Beach, not Los Angeles. Good to know that I’m not going crazy.

  • Krugman’s Waterloo


    Paul Krugman on NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s hapless response to the city’s recent blizzard:

    He just faced a major test of crisis management — and it’s been a Brownie-you’re-doing-a-heck-of-a-job moment.

    Krugman, again, a few minutes later:

    Update: Commenters are right: I shouldn’t have been so casual about the comparison to New Orleans, where so many people actually died. I was thinking too narrowly of the political aspect, of the collapse of an undeserved reputation for competence; but the dead deserve more respect.

    Can I vent? Krugman’s crack wasn’t in any way disrespectful to New Orleans, it was just a comparison that used a cultural touchstone that everyone would instantly recognize. Likewise, if you tweet that the world would be better off if someone were dead, it’s not “eliminationist” rhetoric, it’s just water cooler conversation from someone whose temper is frayed. No one thinks you really want to take out a contract on someone. And analogies to World War II aren’t meant to trivialize Nazis, they’re just handy comparisons that most people will understand because World War II is really famous.

    This kind of “How dare you!” reaction is way too common in response to casual comments. Sure, we should all be careful with our smart remarks, but the outrage brigade needs to ease up. Either that or they need to start getting equally upset over “_____’s Waterloo” formulations. A lot of people died there too.

  • Five Books


    This was kind of an odd year in books for me. I actually read a fair number of books that I liked, but not very many that I really liked. For example, at the beginning of the year I inhaled a whole slew of books on the financial crisis: Too Big To Fail, This Time Is Different, Fool’s Gold, 13 Bankers, Econned, The Big Short, and Ship of Fools. They were all pretty good, and they all focused on different aspects of the crisis. But I don’t know that I’d really recommend any one of them as the book to read on what happened. For me, the whole year was a bit like that.

    Still, with that said, here are my picks for the best five nonfiction books I read this year (though not necessarily published this year):

    1. Winner-Take-All Politics, by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. In this book, Hacker and Pierson explain the political foundations of growing American income inequality by focusing on the rise and fall of institutional pressure groups. I wish they’d spent more time on the mechanics of how legislation and regulatory changes have affected income distribution, but overall it’s a masterful explanation. More here.
    2. Stayin’ Alive, by Jefferson Cowie. This is primarily a book about the decline of organized labor in the 70s. Cowie intersperses this with chapters about music in the 70s (thus the title), and I don’t think this conceit actually works very well: the music stuff is often interesting in its own right, but I don’t think it illuminates the rest of the story the way he thinks it does. But that’s a nit. The bulk of the book is a detailed and engrossing political history of a decade that too many people either ignore or misunderstand, and it’s an excellent, highly readable primer for anyone whose knowledge of politics basically starts with Reagan. Highly recommended.
    3. The Promise, by Jonathan Alter. There were several books published this year about Obama’s first year in office, and this was the only one I read (because the publisher sent me a free copy). So I can’t say for sure that it’s the best of the lot. But it’s pretty good: a nicely written, deeply reported look at the world as Obama sees it. For political junkies a lot of it is inevitably a recap, but there’s new stuff as well, and it provides a pretty good sense of why things happened the way they did during 2009.
    4. How Soccer Explains the World, by Franklin Foer. This is several years old, but I only got around to reading it this year, just before the World Cup started. As it turns out, it doesn’t really explain the world, but it does explain a lot about soccer, including my perennial favorite: why the hell are soccer fans so crazy? I’m still not sure I know, but at least I’m closer to knowing.
    5. How Wars End, by Gideon Rose. This is just what its title says: a book about how American wars have ended over the past century and why they’ve ended (or continued to sputter on) the way they did. Rose’s basic thesis is that (a) politicians routinely screw up by not thinking hard enough about what to do after wars end, and (b) they’re too obsessed with not repeating the mistakes of the previous war, which blinds them to ways in which the current war is different, not just a rerun of some previous fight. In some ways I think his take on (a) is a little unfair, simply because the complexity of planning well for a postwar environment is really, really hard, but his illumination of (b) is pretty compelling. I’ve noticed the same dynamic myself over and over, but this is the first book I’ve read that really laid out the problem methodically.

    They’re all good books, but the top two are the best books I read all year. So if you’re only going to read one, read one of those.

  • Big Cars


    Atrios:

    From talking to a few parents, the SUV craze is at least in part due to the perceived additional safety given that everyone else on the highway is driving a giant car. Probably stuck there. In fairness, my most frequent form of transport is a rather large bus.

    This goes back a long way. Even when I was a kid, I routinely heard other parents say they felt better with “a lot of steel” around them, not tooling around in some little tin can. In that sense, SUVs are just replacements for the full-size land yachts that everyone loved in the 50s and 60s. As it happens, I’ve always suspected that the safety/comfort argument is largely a pretense for people who just like to drive big cars, but it’s a hard one to kill since there is, after all, a kernel of truth to it. Other things equal, a big, heavy car really is a bit safer than a small one if they hit each other.

  • Losing Well


    Mike Konczal says two of his biggest disappointments of 2009-10 have been Congress’s failure to enact a carbon policy and Obama’s continuation (and in some cases, expansion) of Bush-era civil liberties policies. No argument there. But his other big disappointment is that he thinks Obama never learned to lose well:

    By losing well, I mean losing in a way that builds a coalition, demonstrates to your allies that you are serious, takes a pound of flesh from your opponents and leaves them with the blame, and convinces those on the fence that it is an important issue for which you have the answers. Lose for the long run; lose in a way that leaves liberal institutions and infrastructure stronger, able to be deployed again at a later date.

    [Example: ramping up deportation of illegal immigrants and then failing to get Republican support for the DREAM Act anyway.]

    This is losing poorly. It makes major concessions without getting anything in return, conceding both pieces of flesh and the larger narrative to the other side….This is true of many issues, ranging from unions fighting for the ability to unionize easier to the technology groups fighting for Net Neutrality. Why should these groups be happier with the past two years, even if they thought on day one that they wouldn’t win anything? How are either stronger for the next battle?

    This has indeed been a mystery. It’s never been clear whether Obama makes these pre-emptive concessions because he genuinely believes they’re good policy or because he genuinely thinks it will draw out Republican support down the road. Neither really seems to make sense. Even if he thinks they’re good policy, it’s still smarter to hold them back as bargaining chips for broader policy victories. And quite plainly they did nothing to endear him to Republicans, who are almost unanimously convinced that he spent the last two years ramming an ultra-liberal policy agenda down their throats using a combination of bald lies and Chicago-style thuggery. It’s hard to believe that Obama ever thought they’d react differently.

    In any case, I find this aspect of Obama’s presidency perplexing too. Compromise is one thing: it’s baked into the cake of mainstream American politics. But I expected that even as he inevitably compromised, Obama, with his famously long view of things, would steadily try to push the public in a more liberal direction. As Mike says, this may mean eventually compromising on a policy that appeals to the broad middle of the country, but doing it in a way that hurts your opponents and energizes your friends for battles to come. Obama seems to have done exactly the opposite. It’s hard to understand.

  • Regulations for All!


    Despite all the attention it received in the blogosphere during this slow holiday week, I’ve read about libertarians thoroughly enough already that I couldn’t sustain the interest to read Chris Beam’s recent take in New York magazine all the way through. Some libertarians are weirdo Randites, some are capital-L types with the usual pathologies of most small capital letter political sects, and some are just ordinary folks with a non-insane tendency in the direction of strong individual rights and minimal economic regulation. Meh. But speaking of that, here’s a tiny excerpt from a Dave Weigel post about how libertarian thought is doing these days:

    Voters like low taxes, and they hate regulation and policies that take away choices. Libertarians are winning on all of that.

    This is a common misconception. Actually, regulations are like lawyers: everybody hates them until they need one. Then your lawyer is suddenly a shining beacon of truth and justice fighting against a slavering horde of corrupt and greedy corporate snakes. Likewise, everyone hates regulations that restrict them from doing something that might harm other people, but they generally love regulations that prevent other people from doing stuff that might harm them. It all depends on whose ox is being gored and how different people define “harm.”

    But then, definining “harm” is the central problem of much of libertarian thought, so this is no surprise. In any case, the bottom line is that although you can whip up a fair amount of resentment against “gummint regulation” in the abstract, specific regulations are actually a lot more popular than most libertarians and conservatives would like to believe.

  • Why Liberals Compromise


    Erica Grieder wonders why Republicans always support their most conservative policies and political candidates with vigor, while Democrats generally shy away from full-throated support of their most liberal policies and candidates:

    There seems to be a certain temperamental difference between conservatives and Republicans on the one hand and liberals and the Democrats on the other. In broad strokes, Republicans, especially of the tea-party stripe, are typically proud, at least unapologetic, and sometimes belligerent about their beliefs. Democrats, in contrast, seem to adopt the defensive position by default.

    ….Why are Democrats more anemic? One thought comes from the liberal journalist Thomas Frank. Writing in Harper’s, Mr Frank argues that while Republicans respond to their base, Democrats have a misbegotten faith in a “Magic Middle” of centrist ideas that are tolerable, at least, to most Americans.

    ….I’m not sure whether Mr Frank intends this as an ideological explanation: Democrats see an intrinsic value in bipartisanship and are therefore disposed to its promotion, even if it requires some concessions from the liberal side. If so, I’m not sure I entirely believe it.

    Nope, there’s no reason to believe this. The real explanation, at least for the past few decades, is much simpler: about 40% of the American population self-IDs as conservative, compared to only 20% who self-ID as liberal. You can argue all day long about what people really mean when they tell pollsters they’re conservative, and you can argue all day long that liberals need to do something to change this instead of simply accepting it, but for any politician running for national office in the here and now, this is just the lay of the land. A hardcore conservative with hardcore conservative beliefs can count on a pretty big base of support right from the start, while a hardcore liberal candidate can count on bupkis. Conservative Republicans can win. Liberal Democrats generally can’t unless they’re running in very liberal congressional districts. If you’re looking for a reason why liberal politicians tend to compromise more, you really don’t have to look much further than this.

  • Israel’s Fundamentalist Future


    Jeffrey Goldberg on Israel’s increasingly bleak future:

    I’ve had a couple of conversations this week with people, in Jerusalem and out of Jerusalem, that suggest to me that democracy is something less than a religious value for wide swaths of Israeli Jewish society. I’m speaking here of four groups, each ascendant to varying degrees: The haredim, the ultra-Orthodox Jews, whose community continues to grow at a rapid clip; the working-class religious Sephardim — Jews from Arab countries, mainly — whose interests are represented in the Knesset by the obscurantist rabbis of the Shas Party; the settler movement, which still seems to get whatever it needs in order to grow; and the million or so recent immigrants from Russia, who support, in distressing numbers, the Putin-like Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister and leader of the “Israel is Our Home” party.

    Even as someone who’s observed Israel only from an impersonal distance — it’s never been one of my hot button issues — I’ve watched the growing prominence of its extremist religious factions over the past decade with mounting apprehension. It’s telling that an ardent Israeli sympathizer like Goldberg feels the same way, and even more telling that a full-blown Israeli zealot like Marty Peretz now apparently finds only a tiny part of the country truly agreeable:

    The part of Israel that remains perfect to Martin Peretz is vanishingly small. But it does still exist, tangibly enough that you could trace its perimeter on a map of Tel Aviv: the ethnically mixed neighborhoods of Jaffa, the impeccably preserved Bauhaus downtown, the symphony halls and dance theaters, the intersections that still hold traffic, tense and honking, at 2:30 in the morning, the cosmopolitan sidewalk cafés that make real the old liberal dream. Peretz, the longtime owner and editor-in-chief of The New Republic, has been living here since October, and he reported recently that he has seen performances by the progressive dance company Pilobolus, the Cape Town Opera, and a Malian jazz group, which drew “a very hip crowd.” The sections of Tel Aviv he inhabits are so secular, Peretz says with relish, that in his first six weeks he saw exactly “eleven guys with Orthodox clothes. That’s it.”

    ….When he visits Jerusalem—“a very poor city”—he notices ultra-Orthodox boys running everywhere, and he disdains the sanctimony of the very religious and the “superpatriotism” of the Russian immigrants.

    It’s very hard to see how this ends well. Ten years ago peace might still have been possible, but it remained tantalizingly out of reach — maybe because of Yasser Arafat’s intransigence, maybe because Bill Clinton just wasn’t able to broker quite a good enough deal. Who knows? But it hardly matters anymore. There’s no one left on the Palestinian side with the influence and clout to conclude a deal, and within a few years — assuming it’s not true already — the growing religious fundamentalism of Israeli culture and politics will make any deal impossible. Israel will finish its transformation into a Jewish Saudi Arabia and even the chimera of peace will disappear. Whether Tel Aviv survives as sort of a semi-tolerated Dubai-like entertainment zone in the middle of a grim and relentless theocracy is anyone’s guess. It’s all very, very sad, and I only wish that I had something more profound to say about it. Unfortunately I don’t. It’s increasingly hard to see even the prospect of any kind of reconciliation anymore.

  • Quote of the Day: BP’s Blossom


    From Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Tex.), incoming chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, on the BP oil spill:

    As we saw that thing bubbling out, blossoming out — all that energy, every minute of every hour of every day of every week — that was tremendous to me. That we could deliver that kind of energy out there — even on an explosion.

    Words fail me.

  • Yet More Whiny Bankers


    Yesterday Politico ran the 28th in a series of articles about how much the business community hates Barack Obama (stats courtesy of TNR’s James Downie). Tuesday’s piece was specifically about Wall Street and how deeply hurt they are that Obama has very occasionally said some not very nice things about them. It’s mighty sad. About halfway down, though, we get to the real nub of their discontent:

    “You have to understand, it is very personal. He raised money from us,” one executive at a top bank said. “Then he started calling us bad people. So forgive us for not wanting to buy him a drink after getting punched in the eye.”

    ….Christopher Whalen, investment banker, author and cofounder of Institutional Risk Analytics, said the distaste isn’t policy-related, it’s personal. Wall Street disdains Obama,” Whalen said. “Hate is too strong a term. Obama is publicly disrespectful, thus Wall Street complains.”

    ….Brad Hintz, former Lehman Brothers chief financial officer and now an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein, said […] “the 2009 vilification of the entire financial-services industry by the political powers went beyond the pale and struck at the self-image of the leaders of Wall Street.”

    “Remember, Wall Street is dominated by Ivy-League-educated bankers who studied liberal arts at good schools, read the right papers and magazines, donated to good causes, advised their employees to perform community service, counseled their partners to live understated lifestyles, voted for the ‘right’ candidates and who live in populist suburbs of liberal blue states. It’s not the oil industry.

    Italics mine. No matter how many times I read pieces like this, I just can’t get over how thin-skinned these guys are. Random bloggers get more criticism in a day than Wall Street has gotten in two years from the Obama administration, and of course even that mild criticism came along with enormous truckloads of concrete support for the banking industry. They got TARP, they got their bonds paid off at 100%, they got cramdown defeated, they got away with essentially no compensation limits, and they got a very industry friendly financial reform bill from the White House (which was only slightly tightened up by Congress). No banks were broken up, Chuck Schumer has made sure that the carried interest rule is still the law of the land, low interest rates have given banks an almost literal license to print money, Fannie and Freddie continue to prop up the housing market, and Wall Street profits are at all-time highs only two years after an epic global meltdown that was largely their fault. But they’re still upset because Obama called them fat cats once and hasn’t spent enough time on the phone stroking their egos and telling them how much the United States depends on their rock jawed stewardship of the capital markets.

    Jesus Christ. Wall Street would be a smoking crater if it weren’t for the fundamentally pro-banking orientation of the Obama administration. But that’s not enough. I guess money isn’t everything after all, even if you have lots of it.

  • Who Will Rid Us Of These Meddlesome Internets?


    Atrios is amazed at the almost universal condemnation of WikiLeaks from mainstream journalists — a group of people who, of course, rely heavily on leaks both classified and unclassified to do their daily business:

    It isn’t exactly the same thing, but moments like this I’m reminded of a time years ago when I was talking at a conference about internets and stuff to a not entirely plugged in audience and a man stood up and said something like, “You mean, people can just say whatever they want on the internet? Don’t we need to do something about that?”

    I guess you shouldn’t make too much out of a single comment, but this is astonishingly similar to something that happened to me. It was several years ago, when blogs were still sort of newish, and I was invited to speak to an informal group of West LA liberals about what the whole blog thing was about. I didn’t end up saying much because the first two speakers pretty much said everything that needed saying, but I remember being flabbergasted when the whole concept finally sunk in and one lady in the audience asked (paraphrasing from memory), “So anybody can just say anything? Isn’t that dangerous? Shouldn’t somebody be responsible for all this?”

    It left me slackjawed enough that I couldn’t really think of a response, but I think Eugene Volokh stepped in to say something soothing. In fairness, I suppose comments like this might simply be poorly phrased concerns that loudmouths with no expertise and no real commitment to fairness are getting a lot of attention they might not deserve, which is surely a reasonable attitude. Except, of course, that this phenomenon predates the internet by about ten thousand years and has been an ever-present part of our modern media lives ever since Rush Limbaugh became the leader of the Republican Party. Good times.

  • The Republican Agenda


    Matt Yglesias speaks truth here:

    One of the weirder things about the discussion in the media during the 2010 election campaign was people were acting like there was some big mystery about the likely policy direction of the Republican Party. But we’re not talking about a 1952 scenario where a group of people who’ve been out of office for a long time suddenly come back. There was a Republican congress from 1995 until 2006. There was a Republican President from 2001 until 2008. We had unified GOP control in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 plus most of 2001. The agenda was cutting taxes and making regulatory supervision of various things as lax and business friendly as possible.

    When the dust settles, I think it’s pretty safe to say that will be the Republican agenda in 2011 as well.

  • He Said, She Said


    David Sessions reads a New York Times piece about end-of-life consultations, which will be funded by Medicare starting on January 1, and notes that the only dissenting view in the article comes from Elizabeth Wickham, a conservative activist with no credentials to speak of, no real influence within the conservative movement, and a history of extremism. He’s unimpressed:

    Here is another unfortunate instance of the Times throwing in a social conservative to maintain “balance.” Look through the paper’s archives and you’re sure to find dozens of iterations of this formula, on issues ranging from abortion to women’s health to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. After the story lays out the expert or scientific consensus and the generally agreed-upon facts, a random social conservative — often one without any credentials on the issue or with a trail of insane statements to their name — will be trotted out to dispute them.

    ….My point here is not, of course, that dissenting or conservative viewpoints should be banned from the New York Times. In fact, this sort of drive-by citation of ideologues does a disservice both to conservatives when they actually have legitimate points and to readers who want to consider alternate perspectives. Wickham’s quote was transparently included just to establish “balance,” and readers are left without any clear idea of whether there is reason to doubt the consensus view. If there is serious disagreement, the reporter should find a credible source and thoroughly explain his or her position. If a prominent Republican or conservative leader vowed to fight the measure, then make note of it. But if there is no serious opposition, or if the serious opposition is dealing in paranoid cant, then I’d love to read a newspaper with the balls to say so.

    I suppose there’s a liberal version of this too, and you can certainly make an argument that news organizations shouldn’t restrict themselves solely to comments from major politicians and big national interest groups. Still, Sessions has a point. Is there really any serious opposition to end-of-life counseling? Does anyone in Congress plan to do something about this? Does Elizabeth Wickham speak for much of anyone, or is she the activist equivalent of digging up a blog comment somewhere because you can’t actually find anyone more important to provide the comment you’re looking for? That would be good to know.

  • The Housing Market’s Double Dip


    The LA Times greets my return to blogging with some grim news this morning:

    Prices of previously owned single-family homes fell 0.8% in October from the same time last year, according to the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller index of 20 metropolitan areas. The closely watched index fell 1.3% from September to October as six metro areas hit fresh lows.

    “It is grim, baby. We don’t see any basis for sustained price increases in 2011,” said Glenn Kelman, chief executive of online brokerage Redfin. “Prices are going to be in the doldrums all year, and usually you look for housing to lead the overall recovery, but that seems doubtful.”

    We’re now starting to see housing data that fully reflects the end of the end of the housing tax credit earlier this year, and sure enough, prices have started to fall again. Ezra Klein points us to Gary Shilling for more, and I find Shilling partly persuasive and partly not. However, the bulk of his argument is sound, especially his observation that housing inventory is still abnormally high:

    This huge and growing surplus inventory of houses will probably depress prices considerably from here, perhaps another 20% over the next several years. That would bring the total decline from the first quarter 2006 peak to 42%.

    This may sound like a lot, but it would return single-family house prices, corrected for general inflation and also for the tendency of houses to increase in size over time, back to the flat trend that has held since 1890.

    I guess, in the end, I’m not quite sure if I’m that pessimistic. But I’d say that a further decline of 10% is almost inevitable, and 20% is certainly quite possible. What that does to the broader economy is still a question mark.

  • Housekeeping Note


    We’re going to take another crack at painting my underground lair study on Monday, and that means I have to unplug everything, including my cable modem and thus my internet connection. At least, that’s what I think I’ll have to do. If I get desperate, I may find some local WiFi spot and do a bit of blogging, but probably not. Most likely, I’ll be offline all day Monday and maybe a bit longer. However, I’ll be back Tuesday evening at the latest. See you then.

  • The Priorities of the Left


    My post earlier today about the decline of organized labor and the rise of rights-based activism within the post-60s liberal community provokes an obvious question: was this a good thing?

    Obviously it was good for African-Americans and women and gays and others who benefited from it. But it wasn’t so good for the economic fortunes of the working and middle classes. And that was almost certainly the tradeoff we made. In the 70s and beyond, probably 80% of the money and emotional energy that sustained the Democratic Party came from environmental and rights activists. But within the Republican Party, money and energy were about evenly divided between social conservatives and the business community. What happened after that was unsurprising: on social issues, where 80% of the liberal party was fighting 50% of the conservative party, liberals made a lot of progress. On economic issues, where 20% of the liberal party was fighting 50% of the conservative party, liberals steadily lost ground. And when Democrats decided to become more “business friendly” in the late 80s, we lost even more ground. That’s how things played out, and under the circumstances that’s pretty much exactly how you’d expect them to play out.

    But if you could travel back in time and change things, would you? Would you prefer that organized labor had retained its traditional power broker role in the Democratic Party and fought the rise of corporate power and middle class wage stagnation more effectively, even if it meant that progress on social issues had been quite a bit slower than it was? Would you?

    At the time this was all unfolding, I don’t think anyone consciously realized the choice that was being made. But even now, when that choice is clearer in hindsight, I don’t know if it was the right one. Comments?

  • The World’s Real Oil Problem


    Paul Krugman writes about the rising global price of commodities:

    Oil is back above $90 a barrel. Copper and cotton have hit record highs. Wheat and corn prices are way up. Over all, world commodity prices have risen by a quarter in the past six months.

    ….Today, as in 2007-2008, the primary driving force behind rising commodity prices isn’t demand from the United States. It’s demand from China and other emerging economies. As more and more people in formerly poor nations are entering the global middle class, they’re beginning to drive cars and eat meat, placing growing pressure on world oil and food supplies.

    And those supplies aren’t keeping pace. Conventional oil production has been flat for four years; in that sense, at least, peak oil has arrived. True, alternative sources, like oil from Canada’s tar sands, have continued to grow. But these alternative sources come at relatively high cost, both monetary and environmental.

    Oil plays a role in the world economy that’s far more important than any other commodity, so when I’m in a mood to worry I worry about oil prices. I don’t know if we’ve hit peak oil, but we have reached the point at which the growth of supply has reached the point where it can barely keep up with growing demand in a normal economy. (More here about that.) This means that whenever the economy is growing at a decent pace (and driving up demand for oil with it), the price of oil will inevitably rise sharply and slow down the global economy (at best) or throw us into another recession (at worst). In other words, oil has become a permanent limit to world economic growth.

    Or maybe not. Like I said, it’s just something to worry about when I’m in a worrying mood. Feel free to ignore this if you have other things to worry about.

  • Democrats and Their Interest Groups


    Neal Gabler thinks modern Democrats are a bunch of milksops:

    In the days of FDR, the Democratic Party, despite its factions and disagreements, coalesced around one overriding tenet: muscular government action, especially in behalf of the powerless….Belief in the efficacy of government was a prerequisite to gaining the nomination. Democratic aspirants didn’t lurch rightward or pray for common ground. They stood and fell on principle. But that was then. The fact is that nowadays you don’t get the Democratic presidential nomination unless you are willing to soft-pedal activist liberalism.

    OK, but why have Democrats become such wimps?

    Sometime in the 1970s, the Democratic Party became basically an “interests” party. It stopped pressing government action as an overriding binding principle and began instead to appeal to individual interest groups: African Americans, Hispanics, women, labor, gays, youth and even Blue Dogs. Anyone who hopes to make headway in the nominating process has to find a way to appeal to many if not all of them. Still, most of these are situated at the left of the political spectrum. Prospective nominees must also appeal to elected Democrats, party officials and, perhaps most of all, those realists who, remembering McGovern’s quixotic anti-Vietnam debacle, want desperately to win and believe that only a centrist can do so. This compels aspirants both to placate and temporize.

    But this is only half the story. If power in the Democratic party fragmented and then flowed to individual interest groups dedicated to social issues in the 70s, it must have flowed away from a big, well-organized interest group devoted to government action as a way of comprehensively helping the poor and the working class. I wonder which interest group this could be?