Obsidian Wings

Hokum gets a public option

By Lindsay Beyerstein

Yesterday the Senate Finance Committee voted down two amendments that would have added a public option to its health reform bill. The committee also tacked on millions for discredited abstinence-only-until-opposite-marriage teaching.

On the bright side, maybe kids will start ditching church now that they get their religious hokum free from the government, instead of at church where you have to throw in to the collection plate to hear the sermon.

No doubt the Big God lobbyists are steamed about this unfair competition.

ACORN Is Important After All

by publius

In 2005, Peter Daou wrote a seminal essay called "The Triangle," which (among other things) examined the relationship between blogs and the "mainstream" media (MSM).  Daou's framework provides the best context for understanding the wingers' recent victory lap on ACORN.  As it turns out, the celebration has very little to do with ACORN -- and far more to do with larger institutional fights with the MSM to control political narratives.

The dynamics of the "Noise Machine" and the MSM are pretty familiar by now.  Stories percolate and get repeated endlessly within the Noise Machine by people like Rush, Hannity, Beck, Fox News, Drudge, Malkin, Reynolds, and dozens of more activism-focused blogs (e.g., RedState).  These daily outrages are virtually always absurd.  But they keep getting repeated over and over, in the hopes that they will eventually break through into the MSM.

The genius of the strategy, though, is that the MSM's refusal to air these outrages itself becomes part of the attack.  In this respect, accusations of liberal bias become potent weapons in the larger war to influence MSM coverage.  For instance, under Daou's framework, the attack on the MSM's refusal to cover ACORN is a critical part of a much larger political strategy to influence the MSM.

At this point, we can begin to see ACORN's true importance.  The "video" is important not because it reveals some larger "truth" about ACORN, but because it is useful in this larger institutional battle to control national media narratives.

Frankly, the MSM has gotten much better since 2002 about ignoring the more absurd stories emanating from the Noise Machine.  Beck and the birther nonsense haven't helped the cause in that respect.  For that reason, though, the Noise Machine desperately needed to rehabilitate and strengthen the "MSM is biased" argument.  Without that crucial weapon, it's very hard to storm the MSM's castle.

ACORN has, at long last, delivered the goods (much like Dan Rather before it).  But ACORN itself is not essential to the strategy.  It can be anything -- from town halls, to school songs, to whatever.  The Noise Machine just needs a tool for bullying the media into accepting their garbage. 

That's what makes the media's self-flagellation on ACORN so disappointing.  The Becks of the world have been after ACORN for years, with little to show.  And now that they've found one set of videos of stupid employees, we're apparently supposed to forget everything else they've hurled that has proven false.  It's like bizarro venture capital.  You invest in a hundred absurd arguments, and hope that one or two "make it" to fund future absurd arguments.

And it's particularly frustrating that Jon Stewart of all people fell for this crap.  Yes, it's completely legitimate to have the ACORN video on The Daily Show.  It makes for good political humor.  But Stewart went further with an uncharacteristic whine, "Where were you media?" -- as if this were truly a legitimate story in the first place.

It was all part of the game, yo -- and Stewart got played.  Glenn Beck was Clay Davis to Stewart's Strang'.

The Meddlesome Nelson

by publius

Brian Beutler has the latest unhelpful comment from Ben Nelson on health coverage reform.  And while it's really annoying to hear, I'm not sure it's that big of a deal.

Nebraska, remember, is a very Republican state.  Bush beat Kerry by over 30 points.  Obama did much better, but still lost the state by 16 points.  Nelson is deep in hostile territory.

For that reason, his statements at this stage shouldn't really surprise us -- or concern us.  It's frankly hard for me to believe that Nelson (who has been a pretty good soldier prior to Obama getting elected) would actually be the lone vote thwarting coverage reform. 

By contrast, it's very easy for me to believe that he will make public statements like these up until the last second to give himself political cover to vote for reform (or at least cloture).  My prediction is that, when push comes to shove, he'll point to some sort of compromise and then take credit at home for fighting off excessive liberalism.

In short, I predict that Nelson will repeat his stimulus vote Kabuki -- though hopefully the "compromise" will cause less pain than the cuts to state aid did.

[UPDATE 12:15 AM:  Jonathan Bernstein is on a similar wavelength.]

Afghanistan's Fork In The Road

by publius

It's easy to understand why Obama is delaying a final decision on Afghanistan strategy.  He's come to a major fork in the road -- and each potential choice calls for radically different actions that can't be easily reversed.

Eric Martin can correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama seems to be faced with two rival strategy approaches.  The first is a counterterrorism approach focused on taking out bad guys.  The second is a counterinsurgency approach (COIN, etc.) that focuses on winning the population.

The problem, though, is that each strategy requires dramatically different tactics and resource levels.  A counterterrorism approach in a hostile country probably requires scaling down current troop levels.  Counterinsurgency, by contrast, requires a dramatic increase in troops to be done right.  Neither choice, once taken, can be easily undone.  So deliberation seems right to me.

All that said, one of my concerns with the counterinsurgency approach is simply that too many things have to go right for it to work.  I'm not saying it's impossible, or that it's a ridiculous argument.  It just strikes me as a strategy that carries a very low probability of success given all the good things that have to happen.

First, we have to assume that we can pull this off with less troops than counterinsurgency theory suggests we need.  Second, we have to assume that Karzai's government will not only get their act together, but will be perceived differently (and more favorably) by the actual population. 

Third, we have to assume that we are capable of pacifying the population centers.  Even if we are, though, it doesn't mean we've "won."  The current counterinsurgency approach still assumes that the Taliban will control much of the countryside for the foreseeable future.  The ultimate hope, then, is that our "ink spot" strategy will allow us to eventually expand control out into these areas. 

And we have to achieve all of this without creating new high-profile civilian deaths that inflame the population.  Plus, we have to stay there many, many years -- and spend a lot of money.

And even assuming all of that goes well, we're still not home.  Andrew Bacevich writes:

If we could wave our magic wand today and transform Afghanistan into whatever it is the COIN [counterinsurgency] advocates think they can achieve there, the threat posed by jihadism would still exist and would not even be appreciably diminished.

It just seems hard to adopt a strategy that requires so many things to go right, which even then isn't assured to help our national security.

The GOP's Medicare Hypocrisy

by publius

Today's Post has a decent overview of Republicans' about-face on Medicare spending.  Demagoguing Medicare cuts is quickly becoming the GOP's go-to argument.  And it's hard to recall a more brazen and cynical act of hypocrisy.  It's an argument premised entirely on the assumption that the public -- and seniors in particular -- will remain ignorant of the issues. 

To begin, let's recall what Medicare is.  It's a socialized single-payer government-run health coverage program.  And it's wildly popular.  Extending this type of system to the public at large, however, is apparently so controversial that it can't even be proposed.  Further, a watered-down version of this system made available to a fraction of the public is "socialism" and a "government takeover," etc., etc.

Second, a majority of the House GOP recently voted for a budget that would privatize Medicare -- and that's in addition to the party's decades-long hostility to Medicare. 

Third, the bulk of the cuts (i.e., limits on growth) are essentially wasteful unnecessary subsidies to private insurance companies.  It's fitting, though, that the GOP's defense of "Medicare" is in reality a defense of payments to big insurance companies.  I mean, I know these things are to be expected, but I do hope the press illustrates just how cynical these latest tactics are.

Finally, the Post article explains that these attacks would probably be far more potent if interest groups such as hospital lobbies and the AARP got behind them.  I know it's easy to criticize Obama for working hard to get these groups on board despite the policy costs.  But if the AARP were agreeing with the GOP attacks (which they're not), it might well be game set match on health coverage reform.

What Merkel Means

by publius

I've already noticed some cheering in conservative quarters about the sweeping victory of Merkel's center-right coalition.  To the extent we're viewing the German election through domestic political lenses (and, as Americans, that's our God-given right), it's worth keeping relative baselines in perspective. 

As Yglesias notes, much of Merkel's coalition would be considered fairly liberal Democrats on America's political spectrum:

The CDU [Merkel's party] believes in limiting carbon emissions and has no intention of scrapping universal health care or eliminating pensions for old people. Nor do they believe in torturing prisoners and launching unprovoked wars.

Plus, their coalition partner, the FDP (a libertarianish party), is led by an openly gay man.  The idea of a gay person leading any sort of major conservative party in America is just unthinkable -- and probably will remain unthinkable for decades.

For what it's worth, I also agree with Yglesias that Germany seems over-regulated in many ways.  And I think that American free-market Republicans could probably get a lot more done in terms of getting rid of stupid regulations if they weren't joined at the hip with social conservatives.  It's hard to hand over the reins of power to a party when you know it means that Tony Perkins gets to appoint judges and dominate the FDA. 

The Benefits of McDonnell's Thesis

by publius

I haven't followed the Virginia governor's campaign as closely as I'd like.  But it seems clear that McDonnell was pretty much running away with it before his thesis emerged.  The views in his thesis have really wounded him -- and rightly so.  It's not exactly a college-era exploration.  He wrote it at 34, and has pursued some pretty hard-core social conservative policies on marriage and abortion in the meantime.

Regardless of how the election turns out, though, the damage has already been done.  And that's a good thing.  From this point on, it's going to be difficult for a viable politician to express those views -- or push for them -- in a purple state like Virginia.  These archaic views have imposed a political cost, and future risk-averse politicians will take note.  

And even assuming McDonnell wins, the controversy will probably push him further into the mainstream on social issues than he'd like, strictly to avoid another one of these episodes. 

Though I'd still, of course, prefer to see the uninspiring Deeds win.

My Wandering Days Are Over...

by Eric Martin

Today, I got married to the most beautiful woman in the world.  Both beautiful because she is on the outside, and also because she puts up with me.  It ain't easy.  She's special.  I'm just a louse.

 

Mothers For Kyl

by publius

I'm not entirely sure why including maternity care in health insurance benefits is a hill that Jon Kyl wanted to fight on.  But he did:

I don't need maternity care and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don't need and will make the insurance more expensive.

Senator Stabenow responded perfectly:

I think your mom probably did.

The response is perfect not only because it shows how heartless Kyl's "me first" policy preferences are, but also because it can be plausibly construed as a "yo' mama" putdown too.  In all seriousness, the video below is fairly revealing -- and damning (via Cohn).  I mean, under Kyl's logic, I could argue that diabetes is something I don't have, and therefore including it makes my coverage more expensive. 

This exchange really gets at the deeper divide between the parties on these issues.  The GOP, institutionally, doesn't really care if you have health coverage or not.  And if you think otherwise, what evidence exists to convict them on that charge?

Howard Dean Talks Budget Reconciliation (Video Exclusive)

By Lindsay Beyerstein

Last night, I quite unexpectedly scored an exclusive video interview with Howard Dean at the 92nd St YMCA where he was promoting his new book on health reform.

I asked him about the chances that Democrats will try to use budget reconciliation to pass a health care bill and thwart a filibuster. The conventional wisdom is that reconciliation is too risky. Dean begs to differ. Watch.