Jonathan Chait's Blog, page 130

Everything You Need To Know About American Politics

Paul Krugman makes a fundamental point about the nature of the left-right divide:

One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.

There’s no middle ground between these views. One side saw health reform, with its subsidized extension of coverage to the uninsured, as fulfilling a moral imperative: wealthy nations, it believed, have an obligation to provide all their citizens with essential care. The other side saw the same reform as a moral outrage, an assault on the right of Americans to spend their money as they choose.

I've written about this a lot, especially in a review essay about the influence of Ayn Rand on the modern conservative movement and in another on Arthur Brooks. I think this is the essential issue in American politics. By that I don't mean it's the most important issue, though it is important. I mean it's the question that is driving most of the contemporary divide.

Who Opposes Carbon Regulation?

One of the biggest fights in Congress this term will center around preventing the Environmental protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions through the Clean Air Act. Energy lobbyists sound confident:

At least 56 senators — just four short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster — will most likely support measures to hamstring climate rules, and an additional eight votes may be in play this Congress, a POLITICO analysis shows.

Any congressional attempt to limit regulatory authority is always difficult to achieve, an industry lobbyist told POLITICO. But given the sluggish economy and the long list of moderate Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2012, “the chances are better than ever” for a vote to limit EPA’s authority. ...

But for Democrats on the fence, arguments from the Senate’s left flank may not be enough to persuade them to vote for rules the GOP has dubbed “job killing” regulations, amid a struggling economy.

“Most of the aggressive supporters of the agency in the U.S. Senate provide precious little comfort to moderates in either party,” the industry lobbyist said.

The story is framed in terms of moderate Democrats fearing voters. But the truth is that voters strongly approve of regulating carbon emissions. If moderate Democrats want to hamstring the EPA, it's the industry they're responding to, not the public.

White House Hints At Tax Cut Reversal?

Interesting tidbit in the Washington Post today:

President Obama's refusal to raise taxes for the vast majority of Americans will prevent him from pursuing a broad overhaul of the tax code and is making it difficult for him to achieve his goals for reducing the budget deficit, according to administration and congressional sources.

Administration sources said that? It's clearly true, just interesting to see people in the administration floating the fact that Obama's tax cut promise will make serious deficit reduction impossible.

Of course, Obama promised not to raise taxes on income under $250,000. But he also promised not to extend tax cuts on income over that level. The easy way out of that promise is to refuse to extend the tax cuts for the rich after 2012. Republicans won't extend tax cuts on income under $250,000 without also getting tax cuts for the rich. Ergo, all the tax cuts will expire, thereby solving the medium term deficit problem.

No Republican In Congress Is Safe

Tom Jensen on the Republican primary threat:

The fact that someone like Hutchison who has generally been among the more popular Senators in the country and has always won by wide margins has been at least partially pushed out by the Tea Party is indicative of a new reality for Republican Senators- pretty much no incumbent is safe if these folks decide to target them. Among GOP Senators up for reelection next year we've found a 71% approval rating for Arizona's Jon Kyl with Republicans, a 53% approval rating for Maine's Olympia Snowe with them, a 74% approval rating for Massachusetts' Scott Brown with them, a 59% approval rating for Nevada's John Ensign with them, and an 84% approval rating for Wyoming's John Barrasso with them. 





With the exception of Barrasso every single one of those folks has worse numbers with Republicans than Murkowski did just seven months prior to losing the primary, and most of them have numbers pretty comparable to where Castle's were as well. Now obviously not every single one of these folks is going to draw a viable, well funded Tea Party opponent. But if they do any of them could be in a lot of trouble- there is pretty much no Republican incumbent immune to a challenge from the right these days and Hutchison evidently saw the writing on the wall and got out. Not saying that's the only reason she retired but I'm sure it's a piece of it or else she would have made this decision a long time ago.

Incumbents tend to be terrified of primary challenges. It has become a very powerful tool of partisan discipline in the Republican Party. Even very slight gestures of bipartisanship can be career ending.

Apply to be a Reporter-Researcher at TNR

The New Republic (TNR) is looking for reporter-researchers for its 2011-2012 program. Job duties include reporting, researching, writing, and fact-checking for TNR's print magazine and TNR Online; as well as assisting with web production and performing occasional clerical tasks. Reporter-researchers work closely with writers and editors, and are strongly encouraged to write articles. Most reporter-researchers finish their program with a substantial portfolio of clips and have gone on to work almost everywhere in journalism—including TNR itself. The year-long job will begin in summer 2011 and will include a stipend. Graduating seniors as well as recent graduates and graduates from post-grad programs are welcome to apply.

Please e-mail the following items to Chloë Schama at job@tnr.com, with the subject line "(Your Name) RR Application 2011":

1. A cover letter.


2. A one-page résumé.


3. A 750-word critique of the politics section (the Mall and Features) of a recent print issue of the magazine.


4. Two clips (if possible, one opinion and one news).

No phone calls and no snail mail (undue phone calling is especially unwelcome). We don’t have time to let you know that we received your applications, so please don’t expect confirmation. The deadline is February 11, 2011.

The People Are Revolting

The public overwhelmingly opposes raising the debt ceiling:

The U.S. public overwhelmingly opposes raising the country's debt limit even though failure to do so could hurt America's international standing and push up borrowing costs, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday.

Some 71 percent of those surveyed oppose increasing the borrowing authority, the focus of a brewing political battle over federal spending. Only 18 percent support an increase.

Not to come across as a snob, but this is an issue where I really think we're better off listening to people with financial expertise. We could give the public its way, but I don't think the results would go over well.

Arguments Before Evidence

[Guest post by James Downie:]

Like Jon, I have a hard time connecting right-wing rhetoric to the shooting in Tucson. Yes, the half-term governor of Alaska and Murdoch’s propaganda machine have contributed more than the left to a “climate of hate.” But to tie that climate to Loughner, one has to resort to assumptions, without a direct connection, which have allowed conservatives room to claim innocence. Yet mostly absent from the debate have been far easier cases to connect to conservative rhetoric (via the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence):

July 27, 2008—Jim Adkisson shoots and kills two people at a progressive church in Knoxville, Tennessee, wounding two. Adkisson calls it “a symbolic killing” because he really “wanted to kill…every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book,” but was unable to gain access to them.

December 23, 2009—Warren "Gator" Taylor takes three people hostage at a federal post office in Wytheville, Virginia. He is armed with four guns, including a .40-caliber Glock pistol, despite a criminal record that includes convictions for lewd and lascivious beheavior with a 13 year-old and attempted second-degree murder (Taylor shot his ex-wife three times in a parking lot in 1993). Taylor fires at least three rounds before the stand-off ends, including one at the station's fleeing postmaster. One of Taylor's hostages reports that he was angry about taxes and "the government taking over the right to bear arms."

July 11, 2010—Supporters of Tea Party candidate Joe Miller openly carry assault rifles and handguns during a community parade in Eagle River and Chugiak, Alaska, while young children march alongside them. Miller, who is running against Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary, was endorsed by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who described him as a “true Commonsense Constitutional Conservative.”

July 18, 2010—California Highway Patrol officers arrest Byron Williams, 45, after a shootout on I-580 in which more than 60 rounds are fired. Officers had pulled Williams over in his pick-up for speeding and weaving in and out of traffic when he opened fire on them with a handgun and a long gun. Williams, a convicted felon, is shot several times, but survives because he is wearing body armor. Williams, a convicted felon, reveals that he was on his way to San Francisco to "start a revolution" by killing employees of the ACLU and Tides Foundation. Williams' mother says her son was angry at "Left-wing politicians" and upset by "the way Congress was railroading through all these Left-wing agenda items." [Note: Williams was later quoted as crediting Glenn Beck for inspiration: "The things he exposed...blew my mind."]

If Loughner is circumstantial evidence (at best), then these are DNA matches. (I’ve left out numerous cases of violence tied to right-wing militias, as well as the death of George Tiller, sticking instead to ones most closely tied to mainstream conservative views.) There’s no debate in any of those four cases as to what’s responsible for the violence (or, in the case of Joe Miller's supporters, the military dictatorship-esque intimidation). Such violence and intimidation will, in all likelihood, continue to occur, as long as Obama is president and Fox News et. al. continue to wax apocalyptic.

Many will reply, “Well, doesn’t that just prove the point?” Perhaps, but, by making the point sans direct evidence, liberals have framed the debate in a far less compelling fashion than was possible. And it barely matters if the connection turns out to be true, because few will believe those who had made the accusation before the evidence did so in good faith, motivated by the facts, rather than partisanship. Simply put, in the eyes of those liberals wish to persuade, the argument loses legitimacy, no matter how accurate it turns out to be. Not surprisingly, then, most Americans do not see a connection between Jared Loughner and today’s political climate, nor that incendiary rhetoric on the right causes violence at all, even though there is plenty of direct evidence for it. Best to leave the postulating to the right.

Maybe Find A Better Defense Of Michele Bachmann

[image error]A few days ago, Paul Krugman noted that famously unhinged member of Congress Michele Bachmann urged her constituents to be 'armed and dangerous." Wall Street Journal right-wing blogger James Taranto calls this a "lie," and insists the the context of Bachmann's full quote is very different. Here, per Taranto, is the context:

But you can get all the latest information on this event, this . . . a must-go-to event with this Chris Horner. People will learn . . . it will be fascinating. We met with Chris Horner last week, 20 members of Congress. It takes a lot to wow members of Congress after a while. This wowed them. And I am going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people--we the people--are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States and that's why I want everyone to come out and hear. So go to bachmann.house.gov and you can get all the information.

So wait -- your defense of Bachmann is that, in the context of urging her followers to be "armed and dangerous," she immediately proceeded to extol the benefits of armed revolution? This is supposed to be exculpatory? I think it's a perfect example of the right's hysteria directly legitimizing violence.

Obama's Bump

I've seen a couple polls showing stronger presidential approval ratings. Here's the latest from Quinnipiac:

Halfway through his first term, President Barack Obama has a 48 - 44 percent approval rating, rebounding almost to the magic 50 percent threshold for the first time since October of 2009. 

It does seem to reflect a larger trend (this chart does not yet include that poll):

Who knows if this continues. But my guess is that an improving economy and a GOP House will help. Obama did suffer from being compared to expectations. A straight comparison with the still-unpopular Republican Party can only make him look good.

Obama's Moving But Ultimately Unsatisfying Speech

[Guest post by Noam Scheiber:]

Wednesday night’s speech in Tucson could turn out to be the trickiest assignment of Obama’s presidency. Consider what the situation called for: Memorializing victims, comforting a traumatized community, unifying a country left even more polarized by the tragedy, projecting optimism about the future. Perhaps most challenging of all, Obama had to draw some larger lesson from an event that, we’re discovering, had little intrinsic meaning. But he had to do this without straying too far into the realm of the political, which would have been distasteful so soon after the fact. It was, all in all, an assignment more befitting a pastor than a president. And there’s a reason there are so many atrocious pastors out there.

So how’d he do? There were genuine moments of inspiration, no question. Obama often shines in uniter mode, and that was certainly true Wednesday night. He was at his best when urging us to “make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds” and cautioning us not to “use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another.”

But, overall, I’m not sure he quite managed the delicate balance the speech required. It felt to me like a speech that didn’t entirely transcend politics, but didn’t quite work as political rhetoric either.

That tension was most palpable toward the end, when Obama riffed on Christina Taylor Green, the nine-year-old who died in the shooting. During a generally moving passage, Obama urged us to “live up to her expectations.” He continued:

I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it. All of us – we should do everything we can to make sure this country lives up to our children’s expectations.

I happen to agree with this sentiment. But, if it's going to have much content, it's the beginning of a discussion, not the end of one. After all, the reason the country is so polarized is that we disagree pretty strongly about what would strengthen our democracy (say, a richer social safety net versus greater reliance on the free market and individual responsibility). In fact, it’s the intensity with which we disagree on these questions that made it so easy for each side to fit the Tucson shooting into its existing account of what ails us.

Likewise, consider Obama’s observation that the tragedy could usher in greater civility “not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy, but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation.” I completely agree with the logic of that statement: If the Tucson shootings got us thinking about the need for greater civility, and greater civility is a good thing in itself, then we should pursue it even if it turns out to be unrelated to the shooting. In the same way, an alcoholic who gives up drinking after wrecking his car would have my full endorsement even if he turned out to be sober when he got into the accident.

But, of course, there are lots of things the Tucson shooting got us thinking about even if they don’t turn out to have caused it—like the need for tougher gun laws or better mental health care. It’s possible that neither of these things would have saved lives this past weekend. But, in the aftermath of Tucson, we can be forgiven for thinking they might make our nation a little better. (The same probably goes for a conservative movement that’s less infatuated with the language of armed rebellion.)

Maybe it wasn’t the appropriate time to have a conversation about these issues—in fact, I’d argue that it wasn’t. And, in fairness, I found myself reacting well to the speech emotionally even if it didn’t always hang together for me intellectually. Still, by nodding at the ways the Tucson tragedy might nudge us toward self-improvement, then not following through, Obama’s otherwise eloquent speech left me a bit unsatisfied. Better, I think, to have postponed the search for meaning than to have carried the search into political territory before abruptly pulling back.