As for the big announcement, beginning July 5th, I’ll be leaving True/Slant and the United States of Jamerica to begin blogging — and writing — for The American Prospect. I’ll provide more information as the move approaches, but it suffices to say that this is something I’m very excited about.

Justin responds to my earlier post excoriating Glenn Greenwald for his forays into punditry. Specifically, he takes issue with my claim that there are serious and abiding differences between the two parties:

While Jamelle responds as if this is ludicrous, I think it’s more right than not when it comes to describing our politics. Where in the two party system do you find opposition to farm subsidies, endless war, police misconduct or indefinite detention? If you’re concerned about the drug war, the bloated defense budget, or unconditional support for Israeli actions, you can at least get scraps from the Democrats.

It’s quite clear that there are many issues where there is no meaningful choice between the two parties. On many others, we are left with only marginal differences. True, Greenwald errs by saying that there his point stands regardless of the issues you’re concerned about–he’s just wrong about most of the issues that Jamelle cites (healthcare, labor and environmental law). But that’s no reason to dismiss him out of hand. It’s a reason to qualify his point, and arguably a reason to support the Democrats. But if it’s a reason to support them, it’s a reason to do it through gritted teeth.

Admittedly, I may have been a little unreasonable in my criticism of Greenwald. And truth be told, I don’t actually disagree with Justin; on issues that fall outside the left-right axis, or issues that don’t have an obvious constituency, there is a fair amount of congruency between the two parties. Still, I can’t help but feel annoyed by the assertion that there are few meaningful differences between the two parties. Not only is it less true than it sounds (compare the last three Republican presidencies to the last three Democratic ones), but it doesn’t do anything to help. At this moment, and for the foreseeable future, the Democratic Party is the only real vehicle for the legislative advancement of liberal goals. Yes, it’s imperfect, and yes there will be times when you’ll have to vote for Democratic candidates “through gritted teeth”, but given the sheer size and diversity of the “Left” in this country, it’s unlikely that we’ll find a better alternative. At this point in our history, pursuing meaningful liberal change means working with in the system we have, not the system we want.

Beyond that, the truth is that it’s very, very hard to get people politically involved. The status quo is hard to resist, and most people don’t want to rock the boat. The more we demonize the two-party system and cry “no difference”, the more likely it is that people will give in to despair and give up on politics altogether. Of course, this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t try to imagine new political arrangements; we can discover what’s wrong by thinking about what can be different. But when it comes to activism, I really don’t see the use in heightening the similarities and eliding the differences between the two parties.

When I was guest-blogging for Matt Yglesias a few weeks ago, I wrote a post criticizing the Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson for his claim that cell phones are indicative of rising living standards among the poor. I argued that cell phones are both very cheap — cheaper than a landline, in fact — and essential to navigating the world of low-wage service jobs. Without some way to contact employers (or vice-versa), it’s nearly impossible to find a job. Well, it seems that Samuelson isn’t alone in his belief that cell phones are an unnecessary “luxury” for the poor and working class. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports on an ongoing argument over whether better-off phone users should subsidize lower-income people for cell phones:

TracFone Wireless began initiating the phone giveaway in 2008, dubbed by some “welfare wireless” service. It also offers 68 minutes of free talk a month. People who receive food stamps, welfare, or other government assistance can qualify by applying to the company.

Such people are within the range of 100 percent to 150 percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four, that runs from $22,050 to $33,075 in salary.

The idea that just by paying their phone bills customers are underwriting free phones for the poor rankles people.

“Oh, that’s the ‘Obama-phone,’ ” said Susan Lord, a leader of the conservative tea party movement in South Jersey. “It’s just another way to redistribute the wealth. The poor get helped, and the cost is passed on to working people, who get depressed.”

Matthew Brouillette, president and chief executive officer of the conservative Commonwealth Foundation in Harrisburg, said his fear was that the free-phone program would be “subsidizing texting and sexting” among the poor.

For people who are instinctively rankled by the sight of a poor person with a cell phone, I think simple ignorance is the culprit. In this world of iPhones and pocket-sized computers, it’s easy to forget that with less than $100, you can buy a fairly reliable phone and minutes for the month.

That said, if you fear “subsidizing texting and sexting among the poor,” your problem isn’t ignorance — or at least not that kind of ignorance — your problem is that you hold a pretty ugly view of the poor and poverty. For these conservatives, poverty is purely the result of individual behavior; if you are poor, you have obviously done something to deserve it, “Of course poor people would use phone-handouts for texting and sexting, they wouldn’t be poor if they didn’t have degenerate habits like communication, or sexual expression.” To repeat, cell phones are not a luxury. But even if they were, there’s nothing about poverty that disentitles you to enjoying your life. If you are one of the few people who don’t need a cell phone, but get one because it would improve your quality of life, that doesn’t make you any less “deserving” of help than someone who chooses to go without. This idea that we should control the pleasure of those on the bottom is both baffling and pretty offensive.

Not to belabor the point, but it really seems like there is a growing callousness and hostility to the poor and disadvantaged in our society. Just yesterday, the Senate voted against cloture for a $77 billion stimulus bill that would have provided needed funds to state and local governments, and extended unemployment benefits. Most of those voting against — like Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson — cited deficit concerns, “I’ve said all along that we have to be able to pay for what we’re spending, $77 billion or more of this is not paid for and that translates into deficit spending and adding to the debt, and the American people are right: We’ve got to stop doing that.” That’s completely misguided, but understandable.

What’s strange, and offensive, is this belief that we should cut unemployment benefits because, in Sen. Diane Feinstein’s words, “how long do you continue [unemployment benefits] before people just don’t want to go back to work at all?” Conservatives have joined in on poor-bashing too; Sen. Orrin Hatch has proposed mandatory drug tests for those receiving unemployment insurance — because everyone knows that unemployed people are drug addicts — and there’s been a recent spate of conservative writers attacking food and nutrition aid to poor kids.

Exactly, the real problem isn’t the long-term unemployment crisis — which could leave a huge class of people without the necessary skills to work — it’s those bums too lazy to save their jobs from the financial crisis. If those people didn’t want to be unemployed, they should have never worked in the first place, and if those kids didn’t want to be hungry, they should have had the wherewithal not to be born so damn poor, or something.

If there’s anything interesting about the progressive response to President Obama’s strategy (or lack thereof) on BP and climate change, it’s that its virtually identical to the progressive response to the president’s strategy on health care reform. As with health care, progressives are angry with Obama over his “unwillingness” to get to business and demand legislation from Congress, as if the only barrier to action is President Obama’s will. Here, for instance, is Rachel Maddow’s fantasy version of the speech Obama should have given on Tuesday:

The United States Senate will pass an energy bill. This year. The Senate version of the bill will not expand offshore drilling. The earlier targets in that bill for energy efficiency and for renewable energy-sources will be doubled or tripled.

If Senators use the filibuster to stop the bill, we will pass it by reconciliation, which still ensures a majority vote. If there are elements of the bill that cannot procedurally be passed by reconciliation, if those elements can be instituted by executive order, I will institute them by executive order.

As Jon Chait rightly notes, this is fantastical. Reconciliation is meant for bills that affect the budget in a fairly direct way. The climate change bill doesn’t come close to meeting that standard, and even if it did, Democrats didn’t write reconciliation instructions for the climate change bill. In the real world, you couldn’t pass any of the climate bill through reconciliation, and if you tried, you’d almost certainly have large portions struck out by the Senate parliamentarian. What’s more, the President can’t simply make laws through executive order; insofar that executive orders have force, it’s because they are usually made in pursuance with certain acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate discretionary power to the president. If Maddow’s “president” can make laws and override Congress, then it’s no wonder she’s disappointed with Obama, who as an actual United States president, can do neither.

Chait smartly points out that this “liberal despair” comes mainly from a cultish view of the presidency. In this view, Congress is a near-ancillary actor, and all initiative and all action comes from the White House. When bills fail, it’s because the president didn’t try hard enough (or didn’t care). Of course, that’s ridiculous; when it comes to domestic policy, U.S presidents are fairly weak actors, and have to contend with a host of constraints, limitations and competing priorities. As Jonathan Bernstein has noted again and again, the president is weak, really.

During the Bush years, Matt Yglesias coined the phrase “Green Lantern theory of Geopolitics” to mock conservatives who believed that willpower was the only limitation in international relations. For those of you who didn’t read comic books growing up, the Green Lantern is a superhero whose ring grants him near limitless power, limited only by the power of his imagination. There are a lot of otherwise-smart liberals who believe that the president is a member of the Green Lantern corps, and that the only thing keeping his agenda from passage is force of will.

For what it’s worth, I think a few things are at play in this warped liberal view of the president (and really, it’s not just liberals, most Americans see the president as some sort of Dune-esque God Emperor): first, there’s simply no popular recognition that the president is a weak constitutional actor. Campaigns are long on presidential promises and short on the recognition that the president is really limited in what he or she can do. And once in office, the president is the most visible person in government, which leads people to assign the most agency to him, even when it’s unwarranted. Moreover, movies and television habitually present the president as the one person who controls everything in government. In most movies, when the president barks orders, they instantly become law. It’s no wonder that most people have an outsized view of presidential authority; most of their exposure comes from 24 and large, ornate presidential addresses.

I’d also add that the optics of President Bush may have changed liberals’ perception of what the president can do. At every turn, we either heard that President Bush was doing “X” thing, or claiming “X” power, and without the context of a unified Republican Congress or a pliant executive branch, it was easy to believe that Bush was accomplishing these things through sheer force of will, when he simply wasn’t. And after Bush, what many liberals really wanted a “liberal Bush,” not realizing that Bush wasn’t nearly as successful as he was portrayed, and that the president isn’t nearly as powerful as they think.

The results are a wake-up call for Democrats whose loses in the House could well exceed 30 seats. In the named-congressional ballot in the 60 Democratic districts, Democrats trail their Republican opponent, 42 to 47 percent, with only a third saying they want to vote to reelect their member. In the top tier of 30 most competitive seats, the Democratic candidate trails by 9 points (39 to 48 percent) and by 2 points in the next tier of 30 seats (45 to 47 percent). On the other hand, the Republican candidates are running well ahead in their most competitive seats ( 53 to 37 percent). As we saw in the special election in PA-12, Democrats will have to battle on a seat-by-seat basis — that has shifted these kinds of numbers this year.

The effort by individual campaigns will have to push against walls that seem very hard to move at this point. We tested Democratic and Republican arguments on the economy, health care, financial reform and the big picture for the 2010 election. The results consistently favored the Republicans and closely resembled the vote breakdown. Democrats are hurt by a combined lack of enthusiasm and an anti-incumbent tone.

If true, this would signal a complete bloodbath for Democrats across the country. But my hunch is that we should take this poll with a grain of salt. For starters, this poll is a single slice in time, there are no trend lines and we have no idea what these districts looked like at any time during the last six months. It’s entirely possible that these results have been constant and Republicans have always been more enthused than Democrats (which generally, is true). In which case, the picture isn’t nearly as terrible as Chait thinks, since as recently as last month, Democrats were projected to survive midterms with their majority intact.

Moreover, and as the Center for Politics’ Isaac Woods pointed out on Twitter, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (the polling firm) is relying on an odd methodology, choosing supposedly “battleground” districts as opposed to taking a national poll or polling a single district. It’s silly to pull together random districts — each of which may be “in play” for vastly different reasons — and generalize from there a broad conclusion about the electoral landscape.

Granted, I don’t think Democrats should sit on their laurels; things aren’t catastrophic, but they aren’t in good shape either. But they should also try to avoid overreaction. The siren call of Beltway approval has pulled many Democrats into opposing further stimulus and supporting measures for fiscal austerity, which is boneheaded. Right now, their survival depends most on employment numbers; the smart thing to do — politically and economically — is to pump more stimulus into the economy. More jobs means less discontent, and less discontent benefits President Obama and vulnerable congressional Democrats.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is more popular than President Barack Obama, and to Dana Milbank, that must mean something:

By any measure — favorability ratings or job approval — Americans by a sizable margin have warmer views of the secretary of state than they do of the president. This is of little use to Clinton beyond bragging rights, but among Hillary ’08 fans there is some satisfaction that the woman Obama once cut down as “likable enough” is now more liked than he is. Depending on the measure and the poll, she leads him by roughly 10 to 25 percentage points.

To understand why, look no further than their calendars for Monday. The president was in Alabama and Mississippi, trying again to change the public perception that his administration has been weak in its response to the oil spill. The secretary of state was in Washington receiving plaudits for being a “passionate leader” and for taking a “resolute and genuine” stand against human trafficking and slavery.

I’ll try to make it easy for Milbank; Hillary Clinton is more popular than Barack Obama because she isn’t the president. If the tables were turned with Obama as secretary of state and Clinton as president — faced with ten percent unemployment, a lagging economy, and an environmental disaster — then her popularity would be lagging, Obama’s would be soaring, and we’d still have to deal with this idiotic column (names reversed, of course).

One last thing: only in the Washington Post is okay to make light of human trafficking in a failed attempt to turn near-meaningless poll numbers into something worth talking about.

I think the citizenry is becoming less and less defined by loyalty to one of the two parties, and these partisan divisions are breaking down, becoming much less clean. We saw that with opposition to TARP, the general anger toward corporatist control of Washington, discomfort with our policy of endless wars, and the widespread disgust with incumbent power.

There simply isn’t any evidence for this assertion. Americans are no less willing to label themselves as Republicans or Democrats, and the vast majority of Americans claim some partisan preference, even if they label themselves “independents.” Even the Tea Partiers are a recognizably partisan group; most identify as Republicans. Most Americans either don’t care or aren’t aware of the “corporatist control of Washington,” and insofar that there is any widespread discontent, it’s over the creaking economy and ten percent unemployment. Greenwald isn’t analyzing as much as he is inserting his biases and calling it fact.

What’s more, Greenwald falls back on that old formulation of those who can afford the luxury of indifference, “there really isn’t any difference between the parties”:

…the two-party system does not work in terms of providing clear choices. No matter who wins, the same permanent factions that control Washington continue to reign. That’s true no matter which issues one considers most important. At some point, it’s going to be necessary to sacrifice some short-term political interests for longer-term considerations about how this suffocating, two-party monster can be subverted.

I don’t see how Greenwald can peddle this bullshit when we’re only two years removed from an administration that systematically attacked government’s ability to do right by the least well-off. The last administration stood opposed to environmental action, food safety, workplace safety, labor regulations and reproductive rights. It robbed the federal government of its ability to respond to disasters, and left Americans rotting in the aftermath of a massive, city-destroying hurricane. Barack Obama isn’t perfect, and the Democratic Party is a flawed vehicle for advancing liberalism, but there’s a lot to be said for a party that explicitly commits itself to capable and compassionate governance. Indeed, I would like to see Greenwald make his argument to the millions of Americans with newfound access to health care, or the millions of Americans empowered to fight for equal pay, or the millions of Americans whose lives are improved in countless ways by a government that takes regulation seriously.

It’s very easy to rail against “the two-party system” when failure was the norm for more than a decade and you’re conveniently removed from most of its effects. But the truth is that by electing President Obama and a Democratic Congress, we’ve done a whole lot to improve life for millions of Americans. Pretending otherwise is fun and satisfyingly self-righteous, but it isn’t productive.

That’s the question posed by the Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen after catching this admission from Republican aides:

Republicans have been engaging in some premature drape-measuring for a few months in anticipation of winning back control of the House of Representatives. Some top GOP aides privately admit that they got ahead of themselves.

Turns out, not all Republicans are rooting for their own to win the House.

“I want Republicans to make massive gains but I want them to fall one vote short of taking the House,” said Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary to President George W. Bush. “I want to see more evidence that Republicans are ready to govern. I want to see more substance, particularly on what spending they will cut.”

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the California Republican who has been tasked with recruiting candidates by House Minority Leader John Boehner, confirmed that this view is held by numerous party operatives and leaders, though none in Congress.

I’m not actually convinced that there are many Republicans interested in actually governing the country, but those that are must find themselves in a bind. If Republicans win the House this November, they’ll have the economy to thank for creating the conditions for a win, and their polarizing rhetoric to thank for energizing the base. Railing against socialism and tyranny is ridiculous and counterproductive, but it encourages participation and action on part of Republican activists.

The problem comes when it’s actually time to make policy and pass bills. If Republicans capture the House, they’ll do it with a slight majority, and to do anything of consequence, they’ll be forced to cooperate and compromise with a more liberal Democratic minority (since the Democrats who lose will most likely come from moderate or conservative districts). Given that the GOP must accommodate a conservative and increasingly fickle base (see: Sen. Bob Bennett), Republicans risk a grassroots revolt by working constructively with congressional Democrats.

Republicans have good reason to fear a House majority; not only will they be constrained by a Democratic Senate and White House, but they’ll have to contend with a base so rabidly anti-government that it’s now hostile to governing itself.

In the United States, winning the lottery is sold as a hugely positive, life changing experience. But the truth is a little more complicated; every life bettered by winning millions of dollars is countered by those lives shattered by the sudden influx of cash and attention. Often, lotto winners are so besieged by problems — greedy relatives, untrustworthy friends, bad business decisions — that they walk away from the experience battered and broke.

At the risk of over-extending the analogy, you can think of this discovery in similar terms:

WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

It’s hard to understate the significance of this; $1 trillion dwarfs the Afghan economy by a factor of 62. This kind of wealth could transform Afghanistan for the better in ways that are a little hard to fathom. Unfortunately, that’s not terribly likely. More often than not, underdeveloped, unstable countries that stumble onto natural resources remain underdeveloped and unstable, but are left with more violence, more corruption, and more class stratification.

For lotto winners, part of the problem in winning comes from the sheer scale of the wealth. Winning tens of millions of dollars is nice, but when you’re accustomed to dealing with — and worrying about — $50 here and a $100 there, and when you have weak financial literacy skills (which is the case for many Americans), it’s virtually unmanageable. Likewise, it’s often the case that poor countries lack the infrastructure, experience or professional expertise necessary to manage the massive wealth that comes from oil reserves or mineral deposits. And without strong institutions, these countries are ripe for corruption, factionalism and violence.

I would love for this discovery to benefit Afghanistan, but my hunch is that it won’t, and will instead leave Afghan’s in worse shape than before. It doesn’t help either that there is a good chance that this will push the United States into an indefinite occupation of Afghanistan, lest China tries to take advantage of the country’s newfound mineral deposits. Given the likelihood that this will spawn more violence, more suffering and a longer occupation, I’m not sure that this is good news. But it’s still early, and precedent notwithstanding, there isn’t a ton of evidence to justify my pessimism. So we’ll see.

The Daily Beast’s Tunku Varadarajan argues for identity politics as the thing that keeps Indian American liberals from positions of prominence within the Democratic Party:

Why has no Indian-American liberal risen as high in the Democratic ranks as Jindal and Haley have done in the GOP? Could it be that because Democrats put more of an emphasis on identity politics, an Indian-American Democrat would have to contend with other ethnic constituencies that might think that it’s “their turn” first? And once you go down the “identity” route, your success as a politician tends to rest more on the weight of numbers—the size of your ethnic constituency, or your racial voting bloc—than on the weight of your ideas.

Varadarajan seems to think that identity politics are nonexistent within the Republican Party, when in fact, the opposite is true. The identity politics of whites — and particularly Southern whites — have defined American politics for the better part of thirty years, and they’ve been completely operative in the careers of Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley.

Bobby Jindal’s persona is probably authentic — I have no reason to think otherwise — but it’s clear that his Christianity, his unassuming name and his recognizable accent are all part of his appeal to white Southerners. It’s hard to imagine a Piyush Jindal rising as rapidly through the ranks of Southern conservative politics. The same goes for Nikki Haley, whose birth name is distinctively South Asian, and who repeatedly stressed her Christianity in order to dispel rumors about her religious beliefs. This doesn’t make her any less authentic, but it does suggest that it might be difficult to succeed in Southern conservative politics if you insist on retaining the cultural markers of your ethnic heritage.

In order to explain the rise of Bobby Jindal and Nikki Halley, Varadarajan puts forth a Southern conservative electorate that is hyper-ideological to the point of “color-blindness.” To Varadarajan, Southern voters are looking for reliable standard-bearers, race be damned. But that doesn’t fit with anything we know about the history of conservative politics or politics in the South. In all likelihood, Jindal and Haley owe some portion of their success to their ability to assuage the racial anxieties of white Southerners, and to assure them that their backgrounds notwithstanding, they aren’t too ethnic.

Photo credit: Patrick Collard/AP