Obsidian Wings

Yeah Baby

by publius

Get Excited Again

by publius

Everyone should read David Leonhardt’s piece in the NYT Magazine on Obama’s economic philosophy. It’s fascinating — and reflects just how difficult it is to squeeze Obama into any sort of conceptual box on any issue. The article also reaffirmed some of my original reasons for supporting Obama — i.e., it reminded me why Obama could be a transformational president after all.

Like many others, I initially supported Obama over Clinton because I thought there was a higher potential ceiling. Clinton would win, but she would grind out a 51/49 victory that changed nothing. Obama, by contrast, at least presented the opportunity of breaking through the Red/Blue paradigm.

Well, not many people think that anymore. They just hope Obama will be fortunate enough to grind out a 51/49 win, but have little hope of breaking the current stalemate. Part of people’s frustration is a recognition that the divide may be structural, and thus has little to do with any one candidate. But others are frustrated because Obama doesn’t seem to be trying anymore to make that reality happen. And frankly, that’s where I’ve been lately too.

But maybe we’re wrong. Don’t look now, but Obama is taking concrete, non-dreamy steps to make a real progressive majority a reality. A big part of that is Obama’s enormous emphasis on building party infrastructure and registering voters — go read Goldstein and Klein on that. At the end of the day, this sort of grass-roots grunt work is where elections are won and lasting majorities constructed. In a sense, his speeches are a distraction — drawing the Great Eye away from the real danger, if you will. Let the GOP complain about “celebrities” and focus all their efforts on the daily news cycles of July. I’d rather have someone pounding on doors registering Democrats. And that’s what the campaign has been doing all summer.

Leonhardt’s article gives an additional audacious reason for hope — this time, though, it’s on the tax front, that vale of Democratic sorrow. Obama’s unique fusion of Chicago School marketism and progressive instincts is the most ambitious challenge to the Reagan political paradigm in modern presidential history. And if it works, it could have enormous consequences.

To back up, we are living within the Reagan “no new taxes” paradigm — sort of. People aren’t necessarily opposed to higher taxes on rich people, it’s just that the GOP has been enormously successful at convincing everyone in America that they share the same financial interests with the super-rich. It’s genius. The GOP enacts, say, a dollar of tax cuts. Of that dollar, 95 cents may go to one person, and the remaining nickel is chopped into 100 million little parts. Yet, everyone thinks they got a “tax cut.”

This misunderstanding, then, is the foundation of the Reagan paradigm — correct it, and the GOP would suffer a political bodyblow as the non-rich suddenly disassociate themselves with fiscal policies intended solely for the super-rich. The trick is to make middle class people break the conceptual link in their head.

Enter Obamanomics. Obama’s seemingly mundane tax policy is actually surprisingly combative and innovative on this front. Leonhardt writes:

Dating back to Reagan, Republicans have packaged tax cuts on high earners with more modest middle-class tax cuts and then maneuvered the Democrats into an unwinnable choice: are you for tax cuts or against them? Obama, however, argues that this is the moment when the politics of taxes can be changed.

To do this, he is proposing tax cuts for most families that are significantly larger than those McCain is offering, along with major tax increases for families making more than $250,000 a year. “That’s essentially a major part of our economic plan,” Obama said. “But it’s also a political message.” Economically, he is trying to use the tax code to spread the bounty from the market-based American economy to a far wider group of families. Politically, he is trying to drive a wedge through the great Reagan tax gambit.

McCain and pals will scream bloody murder that Obama will raise taxes. But if Obama can break through and succeed in this ambitious effort, it will forever change the “politics of tax” that have seemed so hopeless for so long.

To conclude, I don’t think that people are necessarily asking too much from Obama. Everyone wants a transformational presidency, and it’s easy to get frustrated when Obama looks like he’s given up on that goal.

But here’s the thing — he hasn’t given up. We’re all looking in the wrong direction (and at the wrong types of evidence) to determine whether he’s trying to create a permanent progressive majority. It won’t come in dominating poll numbers or huge bounces or even demonizing Republicans. It will come in both the gritty work of organizing and the far-sighted goal of undermining conservative ideological hegemony through clever and ambitious policies that break up coalitions.

In short, maybe it’s time to start getting excited again. And with that, I’ll see you in Denver.

The Continuing Decline of Sean Wilentz

by publius

If you have the stomach for it, check out Sean Wilentz’s latest — and nastiest — anti-Obama screed. It’s not everyday you see a respected Princeton historian devolve into Grandpa Simpson in four short pages, but Wilentz pulled it off. (The 4th page alone is all you need to read.) Like everyone else, Wilentz is entitled to his opinion, and to hate Obama. But this particular column is not merely inaccurate, it calls his larger credibility as a historian into question. I don’t say that lightly, so hear me out.

Historians are supposed to apply an empirical methodology to their trade. You spend years poring over documents and you go where the evidence takes you. Because it’s so difficult for the lay reader to verify accuracy, it’s particularly important that historians refrain from letting personal opinions and blinding emotions taint their work. When that happens, inconvenient facts get ignored and historical research becomes an exercise in cherry-picking to support pre-existing subjective opinions.

That, in a nutshell, is precisely what Wilentz’s column did. It’s not just that he makes numerous snide petty and juvenile swipes — e.g., he bewails the lack of “rigorous analysis” of Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright.

The problem is that he’s writing this nasty stuff as “Wilentz, Princeton historian,” and not as “Wilentz, public observer.” He cloaks his screed in the language of a historian — i.e., he pretends like he’s doing real history. For instance, Obama’s awfulness is surveyed in contrast to other modern candidates. And Wilentz concludes by implicitly citing his own historical expertise:

Obama will remain the most unformed candidate in the modern history of presidential politics.

Again, he’s not saying “this is what I think as a citizen,” he’s making it seem like he’s offering the studied opinion of a learned historian. The problem, though, is that his column — when assessed under academic standards — is borderline fraud. He just asserts bland GOP talking points and conveniently ignores all evidence to the contrary. For instance, he writes:

During his four years in Washington, he has compiled one of the most predictably liberal voting records in the Senate—yet he presents himself as an advocate of bipartisanship and ideological flexibility.

Facts, however, are stubborn things. Just today, however, the NYT Magazine has a long piece on Obama’s economic vision, which fuses both Chicago School Reaganism and progressivism — you know, ideological flexibility. And Hilzoy has written at length on Obama’s legislative record and achievements, which includes significant bipartisan cooperation with people like Lugar and Coburn. So Wilentz is either ignorant or lying.

Wilentz also says that Obama is all words, and pooh-poohs his experience as a community organizer:

Much of Obama's appeal to the left stems from what might be called the romance of the community organizer. . . . For the left, community organizing trumps party politics and experience in government. Some even imagine that Obama is a secret radical[.]

Gotta love the “secret radical” line. But on the whole business of the romance of organizing, maybe Wilentz should try reading Dana Goldstein and Ezra Klein’s article on how Obama is taking unprecedented steps to build infrastructure and to register voters. This silly ground-up vision, informed by his community organizing days, will likely be the difference in states like Virginia.

But anyway, getting back to the larger point, Wilentz is essentially exploiting his authority to write shoddy work. And so here’s my question — if Wilentz is willing to cherry-pick and ignore historical sources in pieces like this, what confidence should I have that he hasn’t done something similar in his historical works? If he’s so willing to let his emotions blind and taint his column (a column he is holding out to the public as historical), it calls into question — to me — his other work. And certainly his reputation.

Test for Denver

by publius

First iPhone post. I'm ready.

UPDATE: Now back on my computer, I wanted to offer a brief preview of what I expect to do in Denver. (See from 0:23-43.)

UPDATE 2: Question -- I'm toying around with setting up an ObWi twitter account for next week. Thoughts? If people like it, we could keep it going afterwards.

Never Say Never ...

by hilzoy

Politico:

"But Biden watchers also know that there is much to like and admire about the man. Biden is a fighter who is joining a campaign some Democrats believe should scrap a little more. He is a serious adult on the serious, adult issues of the day.

And no one will liken Joey Biden of Scranton, Pa., to Paris Hilton or Britney Spears."

Well, that might seem like a safe bet. But remember, we're talking about Republican political operatives here; and no one ever went broke betting on Republicans' ability to mount completely implausible attacks.

Right on cue, a "GOP adman and noted quipster":

"It's the Britney-Paris ticket."

Joe Biden. As Paris Hilton. You just can't make this stuff up.

Biden!

by publius

Biden it is. Personally, I’m pretty psyched — I’ve always liked Biden. But I also think it’s a strong political choice, despite all the potential criticisms.

The first criticism — echoed already by the great visionary Ron Fournier — is that Obama’s pick shows a lack of “self-confidence.” Another way of looking at it is that Obama had the guts to endure these types of criticisms to put someone on the ticket who would be a real governing asset.

But even if Obama was worried about the gravitas/experience business, then it seems like he did exactly the right thing. Chuck Todd made a good point a while back on this during the European trip. He noted that both campaigns have perceived strengths and weaknesses — but that it was Obama (by going on the trip) who was taking steps to shore up those weaknesses, while McCain was riding around in golf carts with turtle-necked octogenarians.

Same deal with the Biden choice. Admittedly, one of Obama’s vulnerabilities is his experience. That’s not to say he’s a weak or “unconfident” candidate — it just means he can strengthen his already quite strong candidacy by picking a more experienced candidate.

A second potential criticism is that Biden isn’t all that exciting and won’t provide a bump. That may be true, but I’m not worried about it at all. To me, Biden is a more of a governing asset — a sign that Obama is quite serious about being President. (Contrast that to say picking Governor Mullet from Minnesota — not a governing choice).

But Biden will also bring some campaign value — just not in the traditional “bounce” sense. I think this year’s election is most like 1980 — voters have decided they don’t really like the “incumbent”, but they just need to get comfortable with the new guy. Assuming they do, they’ll break strongly near the end. Thus, I fully expect Obama to stay 2-3 points ahead through the debates.

In this respect, Biden helps increases the comfort level that Obama needs to win. Look, I love Sebelius, but she was the kind of pick that could suddenly make everyone too uncomfortable with the new ticket — as awesome as she is, she’s too unknown. I suppose this is defining success down, but a lack of controversy is a net gain for Obama at this point.

Finally, there’s the gaffe business. I predict that Biden will be an extremely effective and disciplined campaigner. He’s great on TV, and I think he’ll benefit from the expectations everyone has that he’ll just go off rambling about something every day.

In short, good choice.

[UPDATE: Looks like Steve Benen is already on the Fournier story over at the new Hilzoy Monthly. :) (And congrats again!)]

It's Biden

by hilzoy

I got my email (I'm not technologically advanced enough to want a text message) while I was sleeping. I'm getting ready to go to the convention tomorrow, so I don't have much in the way of thoughts. But for what it's worth: I think this is a decent choice, especially given the alternatives (Bayh, shudder.) I've seen at least one article -- regrettably, I can't remember which -- saying that it was a safe choice. I don't buy this. Obviously, there were riskier choices Obama could have made -- he could have picked Courtney Love, for instance. But there are obvious risks to picking Biden: the plagiarism from the 1980s, the fact that he is, as everyone says, "gaffe-prone", and so forth. The truly safe choice, for Obama though not for the country, would have been Bayh. I'm glad Obama didn't go that way.

Your thoughts?

***

UPDATE: Moira Whelan at Democracy Arsenal makes a really important point that I would not have known otherwise (I love blogs...):

"But what has impressed me most, for years, is his staff. He knows how to pick ‘em, and that’s no small thing. Brilliant people come and go in DC, but rarely do they also have the ability to pick quality staff the way Biden does. His folks always are among the brightest from a policy standpoint, but also possess a sophisticated political acumen. It’s a rare but valuable combination. I’ve had the privilege of working for, and with, many of these folks, and count them among my friends. I’ve always gotten the sense that their boss respected them for their abilities and listened to their ideas rather then them simply having to implement his. They were encouraged to push hard and dig deep on issues. They were challenged by Biden, but in a good way. The Boss reads, talks to experts, and asks questions. He challenges his staff and calls them to the carpet. Why? Because the most important thing is to get the answer right and to be honest about the challenges we face.

As a result of having a staff that is so good, Biden is almost never behind the curve of policy developments. He’s proactive, not reactive.That’s a huge strategic advantage, and as a result, becoming a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is a badge of validation among foreign policy folks. Further than that, you’ll hear from many foreign policy experts how closely they work with Biden. They’re not making it up. Biden counts on a broad range of people to get the job done right. Many, many people feel they have influence on his approach and as a result when the final product is announced, they feel invested, but the view is all Biden, and usually better. Biden collects the best. Simple as that.

This translates in a big way to an executive branch position. If Obama-Biden is the winning ticket, lots of people will be brought in to reverse the reckless policies of the past 7 years and put America on the right track. With such a small window of time and so much to do, picking the right people is critical. Biden recognizes talent, and has learned how to pick people with sound policy judgment but who can also navigate the interagency, and the multiple political roadblocks thrown in the path of even the purest of intentions. This could be his greatest contribution to an Obama administration.

If Obama-Biden takes command on January 20, it will be with the most talented people available to implement what needs to be done, not just the people who campaigned well."

Gaining Ground By Standing Still

by hilzoy

Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office released new long-term Social Security projections (pdf):

"CBO projects that outlays will first exceed revenues in 2019 and that the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2049. If the law remains unchanged, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will then no longer have the legal authority to pay full benefits."

However:

"CBO’s projections indicate that future Social Security beneficiaries will receive larger benefits in retirement -- and will have paid higher payroll taxes -- than current beneficiaries do, even after adjustments have been made for inflation and even if the scheduled payments are reduced because the trust funds are exhausted. However, CBO estimates that under both scenarios, those benefits will represent a smaller percentage of beneficiaries’ preretirement earnings than is the case now."

According to the CBO projections, "the 75-year actuarial imbalance in the program amounts to 0.38 percent of GDP, or 1.06 percent of taxable payroll." This sounds rather manageable.

One interesting note: like any attempt to project the economy decades into the future, long-term Social Security projections are bound to be inaccurate. It's therefore always interesting to see how they change over time, as we inch closer to the dates they're talking about. In 2006, the CBO projected (pdf) that the Social Security trust funds would be exhausted in 2046. Apparently, during the last two years, the date when the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted has been pushed three years further into the future. At this rate, if we keep on doing nothing, that date will never arrive at all.

The point is not that we should keep on doing nothing forever. (Maybe we can; maybe we can't.) It's that since we're talking about a rather manageable problem involving economic projections decades into the future, we can afford to wait and see how accurate our assumptions are.

McCain Flip-Flops On Women's Lives

by hilzoy

From ABC News:

"ABC News' Teddy Davis and Rigel Anderson Report: John McCain's campaign signaled on Wednesday that the Arizona senator is backing away from his previously stated goal of changing the GOP’s platform on abortion. (...)

McCain’s plan to take a hands-off approach with the abortion platform stands in stark contrast with the position he took during his first presidential run.

Back in 2000, McCain clashed with then-Gov. George W. Bush over his unwillingness to change platform language that called for a human life amendment banning all abortions.

McCain implored Bush to join him in wanting to add exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother. (...)

But now that he is the presumptive Republican nominee, the McCain camp is making it clear that he has no plans to push for changes to the platform.

McCain's decision to leave the platform untouched follows a warning from a prominent social conservative.

"If he were to change the party platform," to account for exceptions such as rape, incest or risk to the mother's life, "I think that would be political suicide," Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council, told ABC News in May. "I think he would be aborting his own campaign because that is such a critical issue to so many Republican voters and the Republican brand is already in trouble.""

I can see opposing the exemption for rape and incest. If I believed that abortion was murder, which I don't, I would not think that abortion became any less wrong because of the circumstances in which a fetus was conceived. But opposing the exemption for cases in which carrying a child to term risks the life of the mother is another story entirely.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican party: where the political incentives line up in such a way that letting women die rather than get an abortion is the smart way to go.

Gary Farber and the Open Thread Appreciation Consortium* Present: Open Thread, Vaudeville and Variety

Chaired by Eric Martin 

Topics du Rant:

1. Please, while I'm eating food with you, abstain from sharing with me your prognostications of how, and in which ways, the present meal will affect your level of flatulence and/or bowel movements.  As a matter of fact, I'd rather not hear about it after the meal either.

2. The football season is almost upon us.  Commence to merriment. Bonus points awarded to long-suffering Raiders fans such as myself.  That's it.  Give me a hug.  It's gonna be alright.  Darren's gonna make all the bad people go away.

3. Please permanently retire the following expressions from the English language:

A. Diarrhea of the mouth - um, horrific mental imagery.  Please make it stop.

B. Brain fart - This is all kinds of stupid.  It doesn't make sense on any level.  When you do something uncoordinated, like say drop something, do you say, "Hand Fart"?  No.  Because a fart is not synonymous with "error."  So why, then, when you make a mental error would you call it a brain fart?  Why?  ANSWER ME! 

4. I actually enjoyed watching Olympic badminton.  Don't know what that says about me, but there you have it. 

5. Why, when people visit New York City, do they feel the compulsion to promptly buy some cheap, touristy clothing with "New York City" plastered all over it and throw it on first thing?  You're not blending in.  It's not like any actual New Yorkers walk around advertising their whereabouts this obviously (exceptions made for local sports team-related clothing program activities). 

Personally, I've never had the urge to do this when visiting another city.  Nor have I noticed the same density of tourists wearing "[INSERT] City" couture in any other locale that I've been to.  What is it about NYC that leads to this bizarre tendency? 

Keep in mind, despite the reduced crime levels, NYC is still a big city and thus has its share of ne'erdowells.  Such apparel makes you an instant target for muggers, pickpockets, scam-artists and roaming bands of Jehovah's Witnesses.  OK, I made up that last part, but you get the point.  Besides, aren't you supposed to wait until you get home to break out your souvenir bric-a-brac - the better to lord it over your unworldly neighbors. 

That's what I do.

*(the Open Thread Appreciation Consortium f/k/a the Closed Thread Condemnation Affiliate)