political martyrs

Joshua Marshall has posted one of the most important posts he has ever written on his TPM blog. It nicely sumarizes and puts into context the emerging self-interested critiques of Blumenthal's new book, The Clinton Wars. He nicely parries Michael Isikoff's clumsy attempt at portraying Blumenthal as acgting out of self-interest, for example - speaking from the perspective of a Washington insider who knows the backstory.



But the meat of his point is that the reason Blumenthal's book has attracted so much negative attention by the media is NOT because of GOP or partisan resistance or even the Mighty Wurlitzer:

Blumenthal's book is a harsh and incisive critique of Washington's insider culture and its prestige press corps which is -- as a group, if not individually -- corrupt, rudderless and often insipid.

...

The essential question about the 1990s is whether the scandals were principally a matter of Clintonian wrongdoing or his critics' concerted opposition and resistance to his presidency using every, and often the lowest possible, means available. Mix in of course a lot of what Richard Hofstadter called 'the paranoid style.' Blumenthal picked choice #2. And, to my mind, he's been vindicated on that choice again and again.



Setting aside the truly egregious examples like Sue Schmidt of the Washington Post, most journalists who covered this case either had no sense of the larger context of what was happening, or didn't care. Often it was both, but more often the former. They were following a cookie-cutter script in which the prosecutors are the good guys and they eventually unearth a president's vile misdeeds and bring him down in a mawkish morality play. To them, the whole melange of alleged scandals had no larger political context. It was just the Clintons being accused of this or that -- the only larger meaning being how the First Couple supposedly represented various sorts of psychological and sociological maladies. The fact that few if any of the 'charges' ever held up under scrutiny didn't matter all that much since the whole drama spawned by the antic accusations and defenses could be written off, as it were, as a charge against the psychological and sociological maladies ledger.

This has much less to do with media bias than with the conversion of our media into a vehicle for entertainment rather than journalism. I've blogged about the failure of the Fourth Estate before and I started this blog and the mailing list as my own personal attempts to counter that trend for my own benefit.



On the matter of Clinton - he disappointed me. I believed he was innocent of the Lewinsky thing until that night in August 1998 when he finally admitted to it. I heard his admission on theradio as I was driving on I-90, having just left my job in Boston and headed to Houston for grad school. I never will forgive Clinton for his conduct but I am able to separate his personal faults from his record as President, and I still feel he was among the best Presidents that this country ever had. And he still has that visionary intellectual understanding of the role that America plays in human history and how our society is evolving - his recent comments at the University of Arkansas were compelling and a rigorous, and as always a catalyst for debate and honest appraisal about the choices our society makes and just how critical a role the media and the punditocracy play in shaping those choices.



Hehe, the prodigal political rockstar. BTW, the 22nd Amendment doesn't say anything about serving as Veep.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

snicker

Trapped on the other side of the country aboard Air Force One, the President has lost his cool: "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come and get me! I'll be at home! Waiting for the bastard!"



His Secret Service chief seems taken aback. "But Mr. President . . ."



The President brusquely interrupts him. "Try Commander-in-Chief. Whose present command is: Take the President home!"



Was this George W. Bush's moment of resolve on Sept. 11, 2001? Well, not exactly. Actually, the scene took place this month, on a Toronto sound stage.



The histrionics, filmed for a two-hour television movie to be broadcast this September, are as close as you can get to an official White House account of its activities at the outset of the war on terrorism.

snort

A copy of the script obtained by The Globe and Mail reveals a prime-time drama starring a nearly infallible, heroic president with little or no dissension in his ranks and a penchant for delivering articulate, stirring, off-the-cuff addresses to colleagues.

I can't wait for The Onion to notice this one.

Bizarro Blogsphere

Glenn Reynolds has ditched Moveable Type and moved to Blogger.com. OK, it's actually because Hosting Matters had a fire in their NOC, but there's a kind of irony operating here, especially given the recent mass exodus. I bet those Blogger archive errors don't seem nearly as annoying to those of us still on Blogspot, now!

The Niqabi Paralegal

Al-Muhabajah has a new blog called "The Niqabi Paralegal" which focuses on legal issues of interest to Muslims (especially in America). She has started out by focusing on legal aspects of the Sultana Freeman case, unearthing all sorts of fascinating and relevant case history, such as the fact that the US Supreme Court, responding to the argument that driving is a privelege, not a right, ruled in the case of Sherbert vs Verner that "It is too late in the day to doubt that the liberties of religion and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege". I stand partially corrected.



She also found the case of Bureau of Motor Vehicles of The State of Indiana v. Pentecostal House of Prayer, Inc, (1978). which had a Christian who believed that photographs were graven images and didn't want a photo driver's license. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld this right.



AM also has a separate post devoted to the current status of state law in regard to non-photo drivers' licenses and one about religious relevance. Overall, my argument against Freeman's wish to wear the veil for the photo is ultimately grounded in Islam and still stands. If the court rules that the photo ID is indeed for identification and not for licensing, then she has to make the religious decision not to drive. But she can mount a credible argument that it shouldn't be considered ID. Regradless, I still have to think through this issue a lot more, as AM's research has really brought a lot of facts to the surface that are directly relevant and require some consideration.

Islam is Freedom

Matthew points to an interesting poll which suggests people in Islamic countries are more in favor of democracy than we in America and the UK. I think that this speaks more about the universal desire of human beings for freedom they don't have rather than any particular insight into Islam. Remember that in places like Bangladesh, "democracy" is synonmous with America in a semantic sense, and America is synonymous with the images of wealth and luxury and power that even the poorest slum residents see on Star TV.



But there is indeed a direct link between Islam and democracy, a positive one whose authority comes straight from the Qur'an itself. I've previously discussed this in the context of Iran and the struggle for freedom from the theocracts there - the essence is understanding that religious freedom is essential to Islam. Freedom of religion is enshrined in Ayat 2:256, which states that "there is no compulsion in religion."



In fact the Islamic argument against imposition of religious belief stems from the same philosophical root as the idea that proving the existence of God is counter to religion's self interest - both deny deny faith. If I oonly pray or wear a beard because of fear of the religious police, then what value is my religious action? Absolutely zero. You cannot be compelled to faith, it must call you to it of your own free will. And free will is the highest faculty of Man, the sole gift of God.

british comedy

British comedy has always had a darker theme to it. Its overwhelmingly about the common man fighting against the viccissitudes of fate (and usually losing). Possibly the greatest example if Foot in the Grave which if you haven't seen, defies explanantion of its appeal. That didn't stop Bill Cosby from using it as the inspiration for his anti-The Cosby Show show, "Cosby". Which also, if you haven't seen, defies explanantion for its appeal (Though the dream sequence about a world where high school teachers occupy the social strata of superstar athletes is notable).



I see a reflection of British comedy in the situation regarding Britain's joining the EU. The EU is a masively centralized supra-national body^[1] that is the antithesis of the idea that local government bodies know what is best for their constituents. We can have a good flamewar about the EU later - but the actual goodness or badness of the EU is not strictly relevant to my point.



That point is, Blair wants the decision of whether to join to be done by an act of Parliament. To understand why this should creep you out, consider the process by which such a decision would be made in America (best explained by SDB, as usual):

If there were, for instance, a proposal to form some sort of Pan-American Union (with government in Brasilia) and the United States were considering whether to give up its sovereignty and to become part of a larger hemispheric meta-nation, then Congress and the President could not carry out such a thing merely by passing laws. They'd have to pass an amendment and propose it to the state legislatures, and three quarters of them would have to ratify it.



And that is as it should be. For a decision that big, that important, that critical, it should not be left to a small number of leaders to decide. We cannot permit 536 people to end the history of our nation. The real debate about it would take place in the individual states, where the state legislators are far closer to and more attuned to the opinions of individual voters. In a decision this momentous, the decision ultimately must be made by the voters themselves. There would not be any kind of national referendum about it as such; there's no constitutional provision for such a thing. But as a practical matter, the legislatures would express the will of the people of their states.

It seems likely that given the UK public's poverwhelming opposition to joining the UK, if there were such a similar process, the proposal would fail. Worse, that seems to be Blair's prime reason for not wanting the general public involved. Ultimately the decision to end Britain would be carried out not by the millions of Britons expressing their will, but rather a few hundred people in a legislative body that sees itself in a legal perspective as ruling the common man, not serving them.



Former Prime Minister John Major, considered a conservative by Britons by over here in America would actually be a moderate Democratic with Libertarian leanings, has an important op-ed in The Spectator arguing against the decision to grant Parliament the authority for the decision to join the UK.



In fact John Major has argued in favor of a pet theory of mine, that Britain would be better served by joining NAFTA than the EU. I wonder how the people of the UK would vote were that to be a referendum? Given the nature of British Freedom (ie, a privelege, not a right), it seems unlikely we will ever know.





^[1] It's worth pointing out that the entire EU would occupy the same hierarchical level as the United States, because the individual states in America are ultimately more sovereign than the EU member countries are within the Federal umbrella. This amounts to a "demotion" of status for member countries, from "nations" to "states".

fiscal dishonesty

We have all heard the refrain. "I'm socially liberal and economically conservative." And then the inevitable punchline, "That's why I vote for the GOP."



For those folks who say that - including the punchline - this is kind of like a statement of religios zeal. of course the GOP is better with my money. It's the political equivalent to the Muslim shahada (oath of belief): "There is no god but Tax Cuts, and the GOP is his Prophet"



For those who profess the GOP shahada, trying to point out the inherent contradictions is a fool's errand. "We want smaller government" they say, while the federal discretionary (non-military) spending grows faster under GOP congresses and presidents. "We want tax relief for working families" they say, while the tax cuts flow to the top 1% (and notice how these supposed populists never mention cutting payroll taxes?)."We think social services are a huge waste of taxpayer money" they say, while the uninsured consume the county budgets and the states deal with massive unfunded mandates.



It used to be that conservatives thought deficits were a bad thing. Remember the Contract with America and the Federal Budget Amendment?



But we need to be clear about what direction we are heading. And RonK DailyKos has a fantastic series on just why the looming deficit matters. First, he puts the estimated debt ($10 TRILLION dollars) in some perspective. In part 2, he addresses all the "It's no big deal" arguments that are now being pushed out by so called fiscal conservatives. To his credit, he does acknowledge the kernels of truth each such claim, but goes on to demonstrate why that is always only half the picture:

First, it's no big deal because we never have to pay it back. True, in a way.



An individual ages and dies. A business eventually fails, no matter how magnificently it succeeds. If one owes you money, you want money back in finite time. A nation, however, has perpetual assets and income streams. Creditors come and go, their IOU's paid with proceeds of new IOUs sold on the open market.



But ... but ... BUT ... borrowing capacity is limited, because lending capacity is limited ... because interest expense mounts up ... and because lenders will start imposing incrementally harsher terms long before the borrow-from-Peter-to-pay-Paul pyramid crashes. Nobody wants to be last in line when they run out of Free Lunch.



It's no big deal because we can handle the payments. True, for now. In a $10T economy, interest on a $10T debt is a bearable 4% tax burden on aggregate GDP. (The percentage rate burden on taxable income higher, since TI is a subset of GDP.)



But ... but ... BUT ... the current sweet spot is a fool's paradise. The global economy may recover -- in which case interest rates will rise markedly. Or the global economy may stay depressed -- in which case our revenue projections are unrealistic. (Tax receipts will fall below forecast ... debt will accumulate faster ... and the expected lending pools of surplus private assets may evaporate.)



It's no big deal because the economy will grow and leave the debt behind. That's the normal scheme of things. Economies grow ... it's their nature. It makes sense to live in houses and drive cars we haven't paid off yet. It makes sense to finance public works that deliver decades of useful life. Run up debt in a $10T economy, pay it back out of petty cash in a $100T economy.



But ... but ... BUT ... the debt today is growing faster than the economy, and it is structured to keep doing so. Economies don't grow that fast ... it's not their nature. The tax-cutters aren't done yet, they're not making the kind of public investments that facilitate economic growth, and the Baby Boomers are inching closer to retirement. [Remember, just three years ago we had plans to pay off the entire national debt to position ourselves for this predictable strain.] At some point a combination of lender reluctance and taxpayer resistance will stop the game.



[Did somebody say it's no big deal because the cuts will pay for themselves? Forget it. No if's, and's or but's. No legitimate model -- no matter how dynamic -- produces any such result. No reputable economist -- left, right, center or future -- states any such case. You probably thought they said it in Reagan's time, but -- as Laffer himself points out -- none ever did. It was all clever juxtaposition and parsing. You won't hear it now, except from political operatives who can't be held accountable. The dissonance is probably why they just moved the Council of Economic Advisors out of the White House.]



It's no big deal because we owe it to ourselves. True up to a point. For every dollar in national debt there's a corresponding dollar in US bonds or other IOUs. Somebody owns that IOU, and they get a dollar back -- with interest -- when it's paid off. But ... but ... BUT ...



(1) The somebody who holds the IOUs matching your $100K (average household) share of the fiscal fiasco is probably not you. You might have a few hundred dollars in savings bonds, or hold US debt indirectly via a money-market account. "Somebody" owns millions ... probably somebody who got rich(er) by virtue of unrealistically low, debt-subsidized taxe rates. Even if you own nada, you get taxed (for the rest of your life) to redeem all of somebody's IOUs.



Paying the piper means a massive tax-mediated net transfer of wealth from the many to the few.



(2) That somebody doesn't necessarily pay taxes anyway. Bonds are held extensively in tax-deferred or tax-exempt trusts, nonprofit endowments, insurance reserve accounts, pension plans, government agency accounts.



Paying the piper means taxpayers do all the giving ... but less than half the getting.



(3) Somebody isn't necessarily one of us. Foreigners save, lending us their surplus ... so American consumers can live beyond their means, corporations can leverage their earnings, and politicians can spend without taxing. Our economy -- bathed in a gentle rain of "free" money -- is less prosperous than it looks, to the tune of several hundred billion dollars a year. After a while it adds up.



Paying the piper means American taxpayers give, and foreign creditors get ... even the (shudder) French. Think of it as a Louisiana Purchase in reverse.

I think there's two simple explanations for why people are so willing to profess the GOP shahada. One is Daniel Davies' exegesis of conservative philosophy (ably summarized by Bradford DeLong). The other is a certain quote by PT Barnum, which I think is well-known enough to not require repeating.