Between Goldwater and Wallace

Jacob Weisberg on an apparent division within the Republican Party:

On many issues, such as guns, taxes, and immigration, Southern and Western conservatives come out in the same place. They get there, however, by different means. The fundamental distinction is between a politics based on social and cultural issues and one based on economics. Southern conservatives care about government’s moral stance but don’t mind when it spends freely on behalf of their constituents. Western conservatives, by contrast, are soft-libertarians who want government out of people’s way on principle. Southern Republicans are guided by the Bible. Western Republicans read the Constitution. Seen in historical terms, it’s the difference between a movement descended from George Wallace and one that harks back to Barry Goldwater. [Emphasis mine]

Of course, the conservative movement we know and ridicule love was descended from Goldwater and Wallace. Despite their rhetorical differences — Goldwater wasn’t so keen on racial prejudice and Wallace could never say ‘nigger’ enough — there was never much daylight between George Wallace and Barry Goldwater. At the end of the day, they landed in the same place; both opposed the Civil Rights Act in an effort to appeal to resentful white Southerners.

The simple fact is that the Southern conservatives and Western conservatives virtually identical; both come to the same positions, both fall back on abstractions when it suits their purposes, and both have an ugly undercurrent of racial resentment. Rand Paul might be principled, for example, but his new campaign manager is a dyed-in-the-wool neo-Confederate. South Carolina’s Jim DeMint is as southern as they come, but his rhetoric is just as “anti-statist” as the Goldwater-ites Weisberg describes.

There is a long history of unity between Western conservatives and their Southern counterparts. Richard Nixon relied on Strom Thurmond to win Southern delegates in the 1968 Republican presidential primary. Ronald Reagan allied with Southern evangelicals in his 1980 presidential campaign. And George H.W. Bush did the same in his 1988 campaign. George W. Bush was the standard-bearer for Southern conservatives, and he brought Dick Cheney — a Wyoming Republican — along for the ride. Frankly, to speak of a difference between Western conservatives and Southern ones is to imagine a division where none actually exists.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

So far, I’ve been disappointed by all the “big” movies I’ve seen this spring/summer.  Kick-Ass wasn’t too great, and Iron Man 2 was more of a comedy  featuring robots and men piloting robots than it was an action movie.  Right now, I’m hanging my summer movie hopes on Edgar Wright’s Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, an adaptation of the graphic novel by Bryan Lee O’Malley.  Here is the totally awesome trailer:

[youtubevid id="fJDq9LD7ww8"]

I like indie romantic comedies, I like Michael Cera, and I like video games.  What’s more, Edgar Wright is famous for writing and directing Shaun of the Dead and Hott Fuzz, two incredibly hilarious films.   If this movie fails me, I will just give up for the summer.

You can't be poor if you own a cellphone

Robert Samuelson invokes a familiar canard in his column complaining about the Obama administration’s choice to use a new definition of poverty developed by the National Academies of Science:

The official poverty measure obscures this by counting only pre-tax cash income and ignoring other sources of support. These include the earned-income tax credit (a rebate to low-income workers), food stamps, health insurance (Medicaid), and housing and energy subsidies. Spending by poor households from all sources may be double their reported income, reports a study by Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute. Although many poor live hand-to-mouth, they’ve participated in rising living standards. In 2005, 91 percent had microwaves, 79 percent air conditioning and 48 percent cellphones. [Emphasis mine]

With microwaves, air conditioning and cell phones, it’s clear that poor people aren’t nearly as poor as we think they are! I mean, it’s not as if poverty is concentrated in the nation’s two warmest regions — the South and the West — where air conditioning is a necessity, and it’s not as if cell phones are a cheaper alternative to landlines, and critical to navigating the world of low-wage service jobs. I guess you could call microwaves luxuries, but even that’s ignoring the fact that the are for more likely to consume frozen and prepared foods that need microwaving.

So in Samuelson’s column, what you have is another attempt to minimize the actual poverty of poor people by pointing to items that are actually necessary to surviving in low-wage service economy. Indeed, by the end of the piece, Samuelson is a step away from lamenting that the new poverty measures will force the government to do more to combat poverty, as if what we do now is adequate. Of course, given Samuelson’s routine Hooverism — “deficits are more important than everything else!” — and his disdain for Social Security and Medicare, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Israeli Forces Storm Gaza Aid Ship

Admittedly, I’m not well-versed in either Israeli politics or maritime convention, but can someone please explain to me how this isn’t a massive violation of international law, because it sure seems like it (via New York Times):

The Israeli Navy raided a flotilla carrying thousands of tons of supplies for Gaza in international waters on Monday morning, killing at least 10 people, according to the Israeli military and activists traveling with the flotilla. Some Israeli media reports put the death toll higher.

[...]

The Israeli Defense Forces said more than 10 people were killed when naval personnel boarding the six ships in the aid convoy met with “live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs.” The naval forces then “employed riot dispersal means, including live fire,” the military said in a statement.

Greta Berlin, a leader of the pro-Palestinian Free Gaza Movement, speaking by telephone from Cyprus, rejected the military’s version.

“That is a lie,” she said, adding that it was inconceivable that the civilian passengers on board would have been “waiting up to fire on the Israeli military, with all its might.”

“We never thought there would be any violence,” she said.

I’m inclined to believe the Free Gaza Movement, not out of any particular sympathy, but because I can’t imagine an aid ship deliberately provoking Israeli commandos with small arms fire. That said, I’m sure investigations will happen, and with any hope, will get the full story.

Poor Programs

Here’s Pete Davis writing at Capital Gains and Games:

This week the Blue Dogs bit off almost $80 billion from the extenders bill, H.R.4213, most of which passed the House this afternoon on two separate votes. The good news is that those fighting larger deficits in the House are gaining power. The bad news is that the Senate will undoubtedly add back some of that spending when it takes up the bill during the week of June 7. Taking away $8 billion of COBRA health benefits for the unemployed, $24 billion of Medicaid aid for the states, and $40 billion from the Medicare physician reimbursement hits the vulnerable, which I’m not comfortable with, but I’ve learned the hard way that there are no easy deficit cuts. [Emphasis mine]

Davis may not be comfortable with cuts to programs for the least-well off, but those cuts are far from difficult.  States regularly turn to programs for the poor when the budget is in trouble, and when looking to trim money from the stimulus last year, “centrist” senators set their sights on programs like Head Start and Pell Grants.  The simple fact is that “programs for the poor are poor programs”, and that is especially true for the United States, where politicians have built successful careers on depriving resources and support to the least well-off.   If anything, these are the easy cuts, Davis’ faux world weary ennui notwithstanding.

For my part, I’d like to see the Blue Dogs focus their deficit hawkery on the Pentagon’s $708 billion budget, which will account for more than a third of overall discretionary spending.  Of course, cutting the Pentagon’s budget requires challenging entrenched interests, and given the their loud enthusiasm for excessive defense spending, my guess is that the Blue Dogs will shy away from actually making hard choices.  Instead, they’ll keep on the path of least resistance, and stick to cutting benefits for the people who need them most.

RIP, Dennis Hopper

After a long bout with cancer, Dennis Hopper passed away today at the age of 74.  I’ve been a fan of Hopper for awhile now, dating back to when I had to watch Easy Rider for a class in college.  And as a huge enthusiast for action movie villains, I thought Hopper was fantastic as the villain in Speed.  Beyond those two roles, I’m a big fan of his great spoken word verse in the Gorillaz’s song, “Fire Coming Out of a Monkey’s Head“:

[youtubevid id="-Nf9IkoxwMs"]

I think this bit, from a piece Manohla Dargis wrote for the New York Times in April, best captures the essence of Hopper’s career:

Dennis Hopper — actor, filmmaker, photographer, art collector, world-class burnout, first-rate survivor — never blew it. Unlike the villains and freaks he has played over the decades — the psycho with the mommy complex in “Blue Velvet,” the mad bomber with the grudge in “Speed” — he has made it through the good, the bad and some spectacularly terrible times. He rode out the golden age of Hollywood by roaring into a new movie era with “Easy Rider.” He hung out with James Dean, played Elizabeth Taylor’s son, acted for Quentin Tarantino. He has been rich and infamous, lost and found, the next big thing, the last man standing.

Rest in peace.

When 'colorblindness' isn't colorblind

More good stuff today from TAPPED. Here’s Adam Serwer on the alleged “color-blindness” of Arizona’s recent immigration law:

One of the primary arguments of the “read the law” chorus is that since the law has a provision outlawing racial profiling it won’t unfairly target Latinos. This is basically an extension of colorblind racist philosophy into law — namely the text of the bill outlaws racial profiling, despite the fact that it is clearly aimed at the state’s Latino population. The reason you can pass a law that encourages racial profiling in spirit while prohibiting it in letter is that everyone has a concept in their head of what an “illegal immigrant” looks and sounds like. A police officer wouldn’t have to make a judgment based on race alone; as the civil-rights groups’ lawsuit points out, they could make such decisions based on racialized factors such as “language, accent, clothing, English-word selection” or “failure to communicate in English.”

In an earlier era, this same “colorblind racist philosophy” was used to craft laws targeting African-Americans. Rarely were Jim Crow laws explicitly racist, instead, they relied on “colorblind” mechanisms — like poll taxes and grandfather clauses — to achieve the desired, anti-black outcome. Arizona’s immigration law is obviously not the same as Jim Crow, but it’s animated by the same basic idea of “colorblindness” — if something doesn’t explicitly mention race, then it can’t be racist. And the converse is also true, anything that mentions race is de facto racist, even if it’s designed to ameliorate racial prejudice (see: Chief Justice John Roberts, 2007)

It’s tempting to lay this on conservatives as another example of their inability to understand racism as something broader and more pervasive than simple prejudice. And while that’s true, it’s not simply a conservative problem. Serwer noted in another post, that Americans of all stripes have trouble thinking about race in ways that move beyond hooded white supremacists and angry skinheads. As he put it:

This is part of why the American conversation on race is so counterproductive — it’s almost entirely focused on excluding almost every model of rational behavior from the category of “racism,” rather than examining the very real effects race continues to have on people’s lives. The

Yep, that gets to the nub of it.

Why Can't Peter Parker Be Black?

[youtubevid id="QK6eVXxWqLE"]

io9′s Marc Bernardin makes the case for a non-white Spidey*:

Lee and Ditko created a wonderfully strong character, one full of complexity and depth, who happens to be white. In no way is Peter Parker defined by his whiteness in the same way that too many black characters are defined by their blackness. He’s defined by the people he cares for, by his career, by his identity as a New Yorker (incidentally, one of the most diverse cities in the world) — as too many good people died to prove, a man is defined by his choices, not by the color of his skin.

[...]

And don’t tell me it’s because an actor of color would hurt the box office: Not only is Spider-Man one of the most recognizable fictional characters on the planet, and managed to do just fine with Tobey “Snoozeville” Maguire playing him, whoever they cast WILL BE IN A MASK FOR HALF THE DAMNED MOVIE. AND ON THE POSTER.

Bernardin is right on target; most superheroes aren’t defined by their race or ethnicity (indeed, as he points out, the only exceptions are black heroes), and you wouldn’t lose anything by mixing up the racial background of a character. Indeed, changing the racial background of a character isn’t exactly new; in the 1970s, DC passed the Green Lantern’s power-ring to John Stewart, an African-American architect and Marine veteran. And in 2002, Marvel introduced “Ultimate” Nick Fury, a black version of their long-standing character modeled after Samuel L. Jackson. And as Bernardin points out, Marvel went even further with the limited series Truth: Red, White & Black, which told the story of Isaiah Bradley, the sole survivor of a group of black soldiers forced to act as test subjects for the super-soldier serum that turned Steve Rogers into Captain America.

You could easily pen a non-white Peter Parker that retains essence of the character while reflecting the fact that he is African-American. Black Peter Parker, for instance, might not have grown up in Forest Hills or attended Empire State University, but he would still be a struggling photographer with a good head for science, and a huge crush on Mary Jane Watson. I would welcome the director who cast a non-white Peter Parker, in lieu of another twenty-something white guy. And if there’s anything I’d worry about, it’s that screenwriters might try to add non-white “signifiers” to this hypothetical Peter Parker, with horrible results.

*If you value your sanity, don’t read the comments on Bernardin’s post.

Local corruption is the easiest kind

[youtubevid id="LfSzhhlASLo"]

At TAPPED, Paul Waldman flags this Harper’s piece on the New York State legislature to make a good point about how easy it is to get away with corruption in local politics:

The truth, however, is that Congress is probably less corrupt than at any point in our history. Real old-fashioned corruption, of the briefcase-full-of-cash kind, is extremely rare (though it still happens, as with William Jefferson, he of the $90,000 stuffed in the freezer). That isn’t to say that malfeasance doesn’t still occur, not to mention the many things that ought to be illegal but aren’t, like taking campaign contributions from industries your committee regulates. But on the whole, today’s member of Congress is far less likely to be corrupt than her counterpart of 100 years ago.

It’s nice to get a reminder now and then that the real brazen stuff is more likely to occur at the state and local level, where regulations tend to be more lax and the glare of the spotlight is far dimmer [Emphasis mine].

Not too long ago, the Daily Beast had a gallery of the most corrupt states in the union, which is worth checking out. In the last ten years, my home state of Virginia, which ranks number 2 on the list of most corrupt states, has seen 14 convictions for public corruption, 9 convictions for racketeering and extortion, 18 convictions for forgery and counterfeiting, 5 convictions for embezzlement, and a nice helping of fraud. Indeed, there seems to be a fair amount of low (or high) level corruption in state capitals around the country, which really isn’t that much of a shock.

Last year, the American Journalism Review reported that “only 355 full-time newspaper reporters at the nation’s state capitols, a 32 percent decrease from just six years ago.” What’s more, the vast majority of statehouses “have fewer full-time reporters than they did six years ago.” Simply put, it’s stupidly easy to be a corrupt local politician when media scrutiny is minimal or nonexistent.

As an aside, this is why I’m baffled by the recent right-wing crusade against the 17th amendment. Conservatives seem to think that they could achieve more limited government by re-tethering senators to their states, but in reality, repealing the 17th amendment makes corruption far more likely. By virtue of the fairly low barriers to entry — state elections are small scale, relatively inexpensive, and lack scrutiny –it is fairly easy to influence a state legislator with cash or favors. You can easily imagine a world where entrenched interests use the indirect election of senators to buy-off representatives in Washington (contrary to popular belief, Congress isn’t nearly as corrupt as we think).

Regulators! Get Paid.

[youtubevid id="1plPyJdXKIY"]

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to learn this, but both House and Senate Republicans have proposals on the floor to cut President Obama’s proposed 1.4 percent pay raise for federal civilian workers. House Republicans argue that the raises — which would cost approximately $2 billion in 2011 — are necessary to getting the budget deficit under control. What’s more, this push to eliminate the federal pay raise has picked up steam among conservative stars. Rep. Michelle Bachmann actually introduced the first bill to eliminate Obama’s proposed raise, and Rep. Eric Cantor has picked up the torch. Indeed, if you google “federal pay raises, conservatives” you’ll find quite a few conservatives lambasting the fact that federal employees are paid so much.

Of course, federal workers are only paid “too much” if you fail to take into account the fact they tend to be both more highly educated and have more experience than their private sector counterparts. When you control for both, the private/federal pay differential makes perfect sense.

It’s worth saying that in my marginally more favorable perfect world, federal employees — particularly those in regulatory positions — would receive significant pay increases. In the battle between regulators and the regulated, the latter have the distinct advantage of being able to offer a lot of money. In the finance sector especially, the pay differential is so huge that it makes little sense for someone with a head for finance to work in government. Which, as we’ve seen, is a real problem. Of course, the federal government will never be able to match the private sector in terms of compensation. But it’s possible that more pay could lure some of those kids away from Wall Street, and into the welcoming arms of Uncle Sam.