-
That’s why anyone who is truly concerned about fiscal policy should be anxious to see health reform succeed. If it fails, the demagogues will have won, and we probably won’t deal with our biggest fiscal problem until we’re forced into action by a nasty debt crisis.
So to the centrists still sitting on the fence over health reform: If you care about fiscal responsibility, you better be afraid of what will happen if reform fails.
Daniel Strauss makes a very smart point, as is his wont, about today’s positive unemployment numbers:
As long as people know things are getting better under Obama’s watch, they’re more likely to favor him than elect a different president because they know things will continue to get better under Obama. It’s even less clear things will get better under the other guy/woman.
I see Daniel’s point, and I agree, but I’m also not terribly optimistic about those numbers getting better, at least not within the next year. As a recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ noted, “the number of people who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more continued to climb in November, and these long-term unemployed are now 40 percent of total unemployment.” What’s more, unemployment benefits — which have a life of about 26 weeks — have run out, leaving many of these workers without income or employment.
It’s worth noting too that the small rise in employment was not evenly distributed – the manufacturing sector lost 41,000 jobs, “the trade transportation, and utlities” sector lost 34,000 jobs, retail employment fell by 14,500, and 4,000 food services workers lost their jobs. And as Planet Money’s Daniel Costello pointed out, those latter two numbers are especially problematic, as economists are counting on strong consumer and retail spending to drive economic recovery.
Also, I’d be remiss in my duties as a wonkish type if I didn’t mention that this certainly isn’t the full unemployment picture. If you included the under-employed (those with part-time work who are still looking for full-time employment) and those that have stopped looking for a job, then unemployment would be in the 17 percent range. Which is all to say that while the Obama administration might be fretting less than the average person, they — and we — still have a long way to go before we’re out of the woodwork.
To be perfectly frank, it was only a matter of time before Sarah Palin went full birther. She clearly is uncomfortable with the fact that someone named “Barack Obama” is President of the United States, and she clearly recognizes that this is something that will further endear her to the base of the Republican Party (which has long relinquished its grip on reality). Of course, there are still a few movement conservatives who haven’t mainlined the Birther kool-aid; via Andrew Sullivan is conservative activist Rick Moran warning Republicans about the danger of elevating Palin’s brand of demagoguery:
“I note that some Palin fans are trying to spin the fact that she never called on the president to produce his birth certificate or questioned his citizenship. They are missing the point. Sarah Palin has said that these questions are legitimate, that voters have a right to know, and that “a lot” of citizens are concerned about it.
She didn’t say what any rational person on the right or left believes: that questions about the president’s birth have been settled by the state of Hawaii, that only a very small group of citizens are even concerned about the issue, and that an equally small number of people were even aware of the ridiculous controversy over Trig’s origins…
The problem is, unless the GOP — and that includes Rush Limbaugh and the other cotton candy conservatives who wield a lot of influence — stand up and denounce her in no uncertain terms, birtherism will have gone completely mainstream in the Republican Party. If that happens, you might want to forget about any significant gains at the polls for the GOP in 2010,”
I’m not nearly as confident as Moran or Sullivan about birtherism’s impact on the GOP’s electoral fortunes. That’s not to say that I think that voters would award Republicans for birtherism; generally speaking, Americans are still pretty enthusiastic about Obama and wouldn’t take kindly to attacks on the president’s citizenship. But it’s also the case that electoral outcomes have little to do with campaigns and everything to do with the economy (and a few other fundamentals). If Democrats can’t bring down unemployment before next year’s elections, you can count on the GOP winning seats in both chambers of Congress. And if the job situation is particularly bad (i.e. worse than it is now), then it’s very likely that the GOP will take back at least one chamber of Congress. That is, even if birtherism goes completely mainstream in the Republican Party, there is a fair chance that voters will deliver seats to the GOP, for the simple reason that they are the opposition.
This a bad thing, for the simple fact that it will make reforming the GOP virtually impossible. Politicians are a particularly self-serving bunch, and Republican leaders will walk away convinced that extremism is not an active detriment to their electoral strategy. Which would leave us — the reasonable citizens of the United States — with a Republican Party both alienated from policy and completely divorced from reality.
At the Awl, Meghan Keane argues that The Office is the most depressing show on television:
The whole point of Jim was that he held the promise that at some point he would get his act together enough to break out of the confines of Dunder Mifflin. He’s the relatable protagonist for anyone (read: everyone) who has ever been trapped in a middling situation and found the only defense to be sarcasm and bemusement.
Now Jim has developed into the most depressing archetype: a mediocre man who has already realized his full potential.
Gone is Jim’s charming lack of enthusiasm for his job. Now he’s proving exactly where a lack of drive is likely to lead you—to the mediocrity of middle management, where one is gripped by the fear of losing whatever corner of inanity you’ve carved for yourself in the workplace.
Rather than rely on the fact that his intellect could capably get him a job at any other two dimensional office space Scranton, PA, has to offer, Jim is now terrified of losing his job—and his pressurized wall of status—at Dunder Mifflin.
Not only does this strike me as spot on, but it reminds of why I’ve never been a huge fan of The Office in the first place. Much in the same way that a lot of people can’t handle dramatized violence or sex, I am almost incapable of watching the dramatized awkwardness and desperation that the show traffics in. The Office regularly leaves me feeling extremely uncomfortable, and more than a little bit depressed for the characters. It is actively painful to watch clueless mediocrities trudge through their jobs animated by little more than their mutual disdain and acrimony. And it’s only gotten worse with this season. As Keane notes, Jim and Pam were such appealing characters precisely because they obviously didn’t belong. They were bright, clever and could have easily broken out of Dunder Mifflin to find real success for themselves. But as we’ve seen this season, they haven’t – they’ve settled. And worse, we (the audience) can tell that they’ve settled. It’s perfectly clear that Jim and Pam aren’t happy with their lot, and but don’t have the motivation or courage to aim for something larger.
The worst part about this is the effect it has on the viewer. I am 22, and as you can probably tell from this blog, I’m kind of ambitious. I want to do something important, or at the very least, fulfilling. The Office is not even remotely encouraging, indeed insofar that there is a “lesson” to the show, it’s “that having dreams is no indication that you’ll ever achieve them.” At this point in my life, Jim, Pam, Michael and Dwight’s antics don’t even close to amusing me. No, they fill me with existential despair.
From what I understand, Fed Chariman Ben Bernanke’s reconfirmation has run into a bit of trouble: on one side, Senate liberals like Bernie Sanders aren’t convinced that Bernanke is actually concerned about bringing unemployment down from the double-digits. On the other, Senate conservatives like David Vitter and Jim DeMint are deeply opposed to the bailout and rescue packages handled by the Fed, and hold Bernanke at least partially responsible for them. As such, Sanders, Vitter, DeMint and Jim Bunning (R-Ky) have placed holds on Bernanke.
Of course, holds can’t be broken by the Senate at-large. But if enough Republican senators jump on the anti-Bernanke train, that could open up the space for anti-Bernanke Democrats (assuming there are some) to put forth a less “orthodox” candidate, secure in the knowledge that they could attract the Republican votes to circumvent their pro-Bernanke Democratic colleagues. Granted, this is all idle speculation, but if a left-right coalition to block Ben Bernanke’s reappointment emerges, it would be a near-perfect illustration of what I mean when I say that in the current institutional environment, Democrats need Republicans to pursue optimal (for them at least) policies.
This is a good point by Robert Dreyfuss at the Nation:
Is he lying to us? When President Obama talks about withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan in July, 2011, does he mean it? Or is that a clever ruse in order to blunt criticism from the left, and from congressional Democrats, of his decision to escalate the war?
Personally, I’m willing to take him at his word. Why? Because Obama is doing in Afghanistan exactly what he said he’d do during the campaign, after his election, and after taking office. And I don’t think he’s doing it primarily for political reasons, either. Having had lengthy discussions with many, perhaps most, of Obama’s advisers on Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past two years, it’s clear to me that those adivsers believe passionately that vital US interests are at stake in that conflict. It’s no surprise that they’ve convinced Obama, too.
President Obama has been remarkably straightforward and consistent about his Afghanistan policy. At the beginning of the year, as promised, he increased our troop presence there and two days ago, again as promised, he committed the United States to an even larger troop presence. With that in mind, it stands to reason that Obama really does mean what he says about withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan in 2011. Of course, this isn’t to say that progressives should stop pressuring the Obama administration about its Afghanistan policy, but I think it’s fair to say that President Obama and his staff are acting in good-faith.
-
The claim that we must stay in Afghanistan in order to reduce genuine threats to our security is at least cogent, though ultimately very unpersuasive. But the claim that we're fulfilling some sort of moral responsibility to the plight of Afghans by continuing to occupy, bomb and wage war in their country — and by imprisoning them en masse with no charges — is sheer self-glorifying fantasy. Some credit is due Obama for refusing to promote that fantasy last night when doing so might have helped his case. Now that the "Commander-in-Chief" who is prosecuting the war has largely dispensed with this fictitious rationale, will other war supporters do so as well?
-
John’s story is not so unusual. A Harvard study, to be published next month in the American Journal of Public Health, suggests that almost 45,000 Americans die prematurely each year as a consequence of not having insurance. John may become one of them.
If a senator strolled indifferently by as John retched in pain, we would think that person pitiless. But isn’t it just as monstrous for politicians to avert their eyes, make excuses and deny coverage to innumerable Americans just like John?
-
This conventional wisdom about Obama's first year isn't just premature—it's sure to be flipped on its head by the anniversary of his inauguration on Jan. 20. If, as seems increasingly likely, Obama wins passage of a health care reform a bill by that date, he will deliver his first State of the Union address having accomplished more than any other postwar American president at a comparable point in his presidency. This isn't an ideological point or one that depends on agreement with his policies. It's a neutral assessment of his emerging record—how many big, transformational things Obama is likely to have made happen in his first 12 months in office.
-
Baltimore, on the other hand, isn't telling the crisis pregnancy centers what to say after a woman walks in the door (despite all the made-up trashing of abortion that ensues). The city council just wants women to know what they're getting. The proposed signs would make clear what the crisis pregnancy centers are and what they're not. If they're playing it straight and owning their identity, in the end what's the problem?
-
Patient and humble are not words that come to mind when you think of Joe Biden; yet even his limitations may suit him for this new world. Biden is the one who knows many little things but no big thing. As gifted as he is at retail politics, he has none of Barack Obama’s talent for the sweeping formulation or inspirational language, which perhaps explains why he has fared so poorly in presidential campaigns. Biden does not project even slightly in the realm of myth. But for this very reason, he is allergic to magical, wish-fulfillment thinking. “Guys,” he’ll say — this is how he describes addressing the Joint Chiefs of Staff — “what if it doesn’t work?” An administration full of youthful true believers, enraptured with their heroic leader, needs a skeptic and a scold. Obama may need one himself.
