The Poopy Pants Caucus

Finally! Evan Byah has announced to form a group in the Senate “that it is aligning as a loose coalition or working group focused on deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility.” Or, in other words, Evan Bayh will be spearheading the creation of the “Poopy Pants Coalition.”

What I find most amazing about groups like this the transparency of their purely political motivation. A group whose raison d’etre is defined in totally relative terms is, at least metaphysically, less than a pile of dog shit. At least dog shit exists on its own. What happens if and when the budget is balanced? What will the Senate Blue Dogs stand for then? Further, even if you take this blatant excuse to finance their campaigns from corporate interests seriously, why then do these “moderates” whine about raising taxes on the top 5 percent when the Making Work Pay Tax Cut provides a tax cut to a vast a majority of voters in the states they represent? Where were these moderates braying when the Bush tax cuts turned a budget surplus into an enormous deficit? They weren’t complaining because they have no definite principles. Kevin Drum sums it up pretty well here.

But at least a bunch of senators will get to preen a bit about how they managed to water down progressive legislation and get the White House to beg them for their votes.  And that’s what public service is all about, isn’t it?

This is pretty much poopy pants defined.

UPDATE: As a quick rejoiner, I’ll add the political calculus isn’t as clear cut as it may seem. There seems to be some evidence that purported members of the PPC recognize this already, but generally speaking, the electoral fate of Democratic Senators and Representatives are at least partially tied to the success or failure of the Democratic policy agenda. If the PPC can block or weaken Democratic legislation, especially legislation that benefited from electoral mandate (health care comes to mind), there’s a good chance their efforts will dim future election prospects.

The Fillibuster and Change

There’s been a healthy amount of talk lately about eliminating the fillibuster, which I agree with. That said, I think Kevin Drum is being a little naive here:

But look: only a handful of Bush’s judges were successfully filibustered.  Social Security reform never even came up for a vote.  But even conceding that, yes, there would be some short-term pain from conservative rule in a filibuster-less world, in the long run the filibuster is bad for liberalism because liberals are fundamentally in favor of change and the filibuster is fundamentally obstructiveIt’s well suited for a movement that wants to stand athwart history and yell “Stop!” but less well suited to a movement that has a positive agenda revolving around the enactment of ambitious new social programs.

Regardless of differing articulated ideologies regarding the role of the state, conservatives definitely do have a positive agenda (in the sense that it is an active agenda) that generally revolves around manipulating the powers of the state to serve the interests of those they represent. This can mean anything from easing the income tax burden on the rich, to reducing health care costs by providing less care, to making it illegal for women to receive abortions. As Dean Baker will happily point out, conservatives espousal of the virtue of “small government”  doesn’t actually translate to anything of the sort. Liberals should be cautious of buying into the notion that the a) that conservatives envision a more limited role of the state and b) conservatives are defenders of the status quo.

Against Bipartisanship

Can we officially end this attempt at bipartisanship? It’s obvious the Republicans aren’t going to play ball, and I can’t even say I blame them. If the Republican party wishes to remain a political party, they have to be vindicated in opposition to the stimulus. That is, if massive, Keynsian spending spurs the economy towards growth, the central tenant of Republican economic philosophy will be positively discredited (in addition to being negatively discredited by being in this mess in the first place). It would therefore require genuine altruism on behalf of Republicans to throw their support behind an agenda inimically opposed to their own self preservation. So what you get is one of two things: flat out opposition or foot-dragging that will ultimately make the bill less effective. Neither one of these are in the best interest of the country or the Democratic party, who will be judged on the potency of their reforms.

In the meantime, the GOP has totally derailed conversation on the stimulus to the point where the parlous state of the economy seems completely disconnected amid pedantic debate about condoms.

President Obama: get your shit in order, man.

Infelicitous Analogies

Ultimately, I think the political winner of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act will be decided in the coming years by progress in the economy, and to a lesser extent, how well the Obama Administration communicates that progress. That said, there’s been some buzz around the office suggesting Obama was quite savvy to have claimed the “moral high ground,” and to have made the House Republicans appear petulant and aloof. I think there’s something to this, and folks like Republican Senator Jim DeMint will only help reinforce that notion with this sort of poopy-pantsing:

This bill is not a stimulus, ladies and gentlemen; it is a mugging. It is a fraud.

Obama really did go out of his way to at least listen to these morons, there were plenty of tax cuts (of the corporate variety to boot!), and he dropped the family planning and mall resodding items which drew such heated ire. What’s more, the bill was crafted in the open; there was no sleight of hand or bait and switch. It was certainly not a mugging, and further, the Republicans refusal to even offer one vote makes it about as far from a fraud as a bill can be.

Of course, I’m still worried that the scale of this recession will afford Republicans an opportunity to say it was a miserable failure, and thus electorally vindicate their poopy-pantsing, but they sure are putting a lot of faith in the gamble (assumung they don’t tepidly support the bill when it goes to conference).

Center Left

There was a great deal of talk after the election about how the country was actually “center right,” and based on the Obama Administration’s proclivity to accomodate poopy-pants Republicans on common sense stimulus measures, so between the two, you might think a Gallup poll of party advantage wouldn’t look like this.

Radical!

Today, The Washington Post feels compelled to report that some “staunch conservatives” find some of Barack Obama’s appointees objectionably liberal. Granted, the story ran on A-13, but seriously?

Anyway, it’s hard to see any cagey political strategy behind alerting Democrats that Jessie Helms supporters don’t like liberal appointments, but this casual use of the word “radical” betrays the plan.

Conservatives fear that some of these Obama transition advisers are too far left on the political spectrum and are a sign of radical policies to come.

Strangely, it wasn’t considered “radical” by the mainstream press that George Bush broke with the general continuum of over 200 years of American foreign policy to establish the precedent that the United States ought to the business of preemptively invading countries, nor was it “radical” to implement torture as official state policy. All things considered though, these were pretty radical shifts from both espoused values and tradition, but then, the entire point of pieces like this is to show that only liberals are radical.

Far Reaching Implications

Amidst much of the current GOP’s soul searching efforts has been a great emphasis on the development of new “ideas.” This is quite stupid; an effort to create “ideas” that are somehow uniquely conservative rather than just making good faith efforts to find solutions betrays a governing philosophy whose primary mission is perpetuating Republicanism. In a democratic society, it seems the only possible long term outcome of such a strategy is a series of continual losses, and indeed, progressivism has generally triumphed in the long run. Of course, that doesn’t mean conservatives don’t manage to drag their feet along the way, like when they decided political posturing superseded risking the collapse of the auto industry.

And as a caveat, I understand Democrats can fall prey to the self-preservation uber alles philsophy of government, but as a body whose core mission is not literally conserving the status quo to the greatest degree possible, it seems reasonable that liberals are less prone to these sorts of problems.

Prayer and Partisanship

Via Kevin Drum, a chart examining religiosity and partisanship from the General Social Survey.

Contrary to the beliefs of a lot of liberals I know, it’s interesting to note that strong partisanship is associated evenly with prayer on both sides of the aisle. The facile answer might be that people who pray a lot place a relatively larger emphasis on the importance of ideology, and are thus drawn to the more ideologically driven wings of political parties, but I’m not so sure that’s it (though I’m sure it plays a role). Rather, I think strong party partisanship and deep religious conviction both require a comfort level with accepting the complete rectitude posited by ideological schema. Similarly, it’s probably a common trait among independents and less religious types to reject the notion that the world is interpretable through through neatly delineated dogma.

Lieberchange

So it appears as though the Dems are going to give Joe Lieberman the equivalent strongly worded letter, permitting him to hold his Chairmanship of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, while stripping him of spots on the Environment and Public Works and Armed Services Committees. What’s more, the impetus for keeping him around allegedly comes from Obama.

For those doubting the veracity of Obama’s claim to “Change”, this should pretty much put that to rest. If Lieberman had pulled this sort of stunt with Bush, Dick Cheney would have had so systematically marginalized him, Lieberman would have been lucky to chair the Committee on Kosher Deli Affairs and Kvetching.  But Obama isn’t Bush. Lieberman’s vote will be vital on major Democratic reform initiatives like health care and climate change. So yes, Lieberman has been a lunatic with respect to foreign policy, and yes, he was out of line criticizing Obama, but neither of those particularly matter at this point. The SOFA is close to being finalized, Lieberman can’t singlehandedly push war with Iran, and Obama won the election. So there’s no sense, I suppose, in biting your nose to spite your face.

Hair Trigger Partisanship

I’m taking a snippet from an Ezra Klein post on Bobby Jindal’s state wide health care proposal for Louisiana to make another point. If you want to read more about the specifics of the plan, go here and here, but Ezra makes a point about how quickly the Wonk Room at CAP was to criticize a fairly decent plan.

Even fairly educated political observers take their cues from favored politicians and opinion outlets, and so you have to be careful that in achieving one priority (blunting the political fortunes of a Republican comer, say) you’re not doing collateral damage to another priority (medical system reform). Over at the Wonk Room, Volsky does a pretty good job balancing all this, and ends his post arguing that Jindal should emphasize the “medical homes” model, which I agree with. But as someone like Jindal rises, it’s easy to imagine the incentives being weighted against the long-term policy goal and in favor of short-term political points, and that’s something to be wary of.

This is right on, and when I had initially read Volsky’s post I was suspicious that he might be overstating the argument against Jindal’s plan simply for the sake of disagreeing. However, as someone who is pretty familiar with health care reform but hardly an expert, it would have taken a fair amount of research for me to confirm this suspicion.  As it turns out, my skepticism was justified. It’s one thing for non-expert bloggers to proverbially “throw shit on the wall” — it’s pretty clear when this is happening — but CAP is a trusted think tank; it’s head, John Podesta, is running Obama’s transition. The convservative right has justly earned a reputation for selective and hack scholarship by overly politicizing every matter of policy, and in the long run, it’s served them poorly (wonder why they’re now “out of ideas”?).  It’s imperative that CAP retain its objectivity both for the sake of the greater good and also to preserve the integrity of the liberal “brand.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.