At a recent speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh expressed his hope that President Obama's policies will fail. He stated, "I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed."
Many have interpreted his argument as, "I am a conservative, I think conservative policies and ideals are best for the country, and so I don't want liberal policies and ideals to take hold."
But this isn't really what he was saying. He was saying that he would prefer Obama's policies fail, and the country suffer further, rather than be proved wrong. Even if it so happened that Obama's policies repair the economy, modernize our infrastructure, alleviate crushing entitlement debt, improve international security, increase access to healthcare and generally make Americans better off, Rush would be upset, because much of his world view would be shaken.
If any rational prognosticator, pundit or voter were strictly concerned with the national welfare, he or she should always want any policies enacted to succeed, regardless of ideology or who is in office.
What Rush is really saying, is that he has preferences with respect to his beliefs. He values beliefs for their own sake, not just because he thinks they will make the country will be better off. This isn't unique to Rush, or to conservatives. People of all stripes hold and cherish beliefs for their own sake. This is why liberals and conservatives alike are often imbued with deep self-righteousness. (And ooh doesn't self-righteousness feel good). We often don't just hold beliefs because we think we are right, we hold them because they make us feel good.
There is often very little cost associated with being wrong. Regardless of my individual views, or my single vote, national policies will remain the same. I may believe universal health care is a good thing, but that belief in and of itself will not generate substantial direct costs to me. I get to walk around feeling good about myself, inflated with self-righteousness. I care so much about my fellow citizens that I support public expenditure to help every one stay healthy. What a nice guy I am, really. And so, at virtually no cost, I can choose whichever beliefs so happen to produce the maximum psychological/pleasure return. In this sense holding the irrational belief is actually rationale from the standpoint of utility maximization. Of course, overwhelming contrary evidence would dash those returns, and that seems to be what Rush is concerned about here (not to mention that wildly successful Obama policies would undermine his entire schtick and lucrative career). Any republican who hopes for Obama to fail is really concerned more with the psychological returns from his or her views, than with what is right for the country. The same holds true for any democrat who hoped Bush's policies would fall flat.
This is a problem. Once these irrational views are aggregated, policies ARE indeed affected. All of a sudden, people's views which were premised more on what makes them feel good, than what is best for the country begin to shape policies. Not every one thinks and behaves this way all the time on every issue, but certainly almost all of us do it to a degree. Whether your political leanings, the country would be better off if we all tried to be a little bit less like Rush.
(And oh my god it feels so good dumping on Rush Limbaugh.....)
-Civil Rights Dude
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Guest Post: Bail Out Culture or Pragmatism?
Both Dudes posted articles written by prominent conservatives opposing bailouts for Detroit automakers, arguing instead that bankruptcy is the preferable option.
I agree that generally speaking, that is the right path. However, I think that position (also made by Mitt Romney in an atrociously reasoned NYTimes op-ed) glazes over some particulars.
First, while there aren't too many details out, the Dems were clear that any bailout for Detroit would come with strings attached, and force the automakers to change their practices. A bail out would thus not be "long-term support for the automakers to conduct business as usual". Of course, the devil is in the details, but certainly some changes would be in store. Perhaps we shouldn't trust a bunch of Congressman to turn around major auto-companies, but these failing companies wouldn't be allowed to simply perpetuate the status quo. Furthermore, and I know this is quite speculative, if Dems are able to pass ambitious legislation under which the Federal gov't takes on a much larger share of health care costs, this could potentially free up resources for Detroit to compete more effectively against foreign makers.
Second, the analogies to other industries may be ill-suited. For example, United Airlines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, restructured some of its obligations, and continued business operations. If it worked for United, why can't the same happen with ailing Detroit automakers? The difference is that unlike a plane ticket, cars are long term purchases. You don't just buy a car, you rely on the manufacturer for warranties, maintenance, and potential re-calls. Who is going to buy a car from GM after its filed for bankruptcy absent some outrageous discount? Most bankruptcy experts agree that for GM, filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy is tantamount to liquidation.
Third, collapse of a major automaker (or more than one) now, is a lot different than similar collapse a few years from now. Dogmatic adherents to the free market advocate letting Detroit automakers fail. Generally, that's how things ought to work, but we're not in normal times. The fall out would be massive, and the last thing the US economy needs is further sharp constriction of economic activity.
George Will is right to caution of political inertia. To the extent there are long run distortions, those still need to be balanced against the long run costs of blowing a hole in the US economy when its already clawing and scraping. Economic distortions are an inherent side effect of government. Gasp, sometimes its worth it.
All of this is not to say that a bailout for Detroit is the right move. That would require a lot of messy econometrics far too complicated for my meager attorney brain to handle. What is clear though, is that the decision should be based on pragmatism, and not on ideologically driven desire to adhere to free market principles, merely for the sake of free market principles. If we had a robust and healthy economy, the case for a GM bailout would be much weaker, even if the purely ideological arguments would have just as much force. As a pragmatic matter, the context is important.
Are there public debt considerations? Are there moral hazard considerations? Should we be skeptical of Washington trying to turn failing businesses around? Yes, yes and yes. But these concerns have to be viewed in comparison to the cost of allowing this economic mess to spiral even further out of control. Given what a precipitous position we're in shouldn't we be erring on the side of doing too much?
-Civil Rights Dude
I agree that generally speaking, that is the right path. However, I think that position (also made by Mitt Romney in an atrociously reasoned NYTimes op-ed) glazes over some particulars.
First, while there aren't too many details out, the Dems were clear that any bailout for Detroit would come with strings attached, and force the automakers to change their practices. A bail out would thus not be "long-term support for the automakers to conduct business as usual". Of course, the devil is in the details, but certainly some changes would be in store. Perhaps we shouldn't trust a bunch of Congressman to turn around major auto-companies, but these failing companies wouldn't be allowed to simply perpetuate the status quo. Furthermore, and I know this is quite speculative, if Dems are able to pass ambitious legislation under which the Federal gov't takes on a much larger share of health care costs, this could potentially free up resources for Detroit to compete more effectively against foreign makers.
Second, the analogies to other industries may be ill-suited. For example, United Airlines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, restructured some of its obligations, and continued business operations. If it worked for United, why can't the same happen with ailing Detroit automakers? The difference is that unlike a plane ticket, cars are long term purchases. You don't just buy a car, you rely on the manufacturer for warranties, maintenance, and potential re-calls. Who is going to buy a car from GM after its filed for bankruptcy absent some outrageous discount? Most bankruptcy experts agree that for GM, filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy is tantamount to liquidation.
Third, collapse of a major automaker (or more than one) now, is a lot different than similar collapse a few years from now. Dogmatic adherents to the free market advocate letting Detroit automakers fail. Generally, that's how things ought to work, but we're not in normal times. The fall out would be massive, and the last thing the US economy needs is further sharp constriction of economic activity.
George Will is right to caution of political inertia. To the extent there are long run distortions, those still need to be balanced against the long run costs of blowing a hole in the US economy when its already clawing and scraping. Economic distortions are an inherent side effect of government. Gasp, sometimes its worth it.
All of this is not to say that a bailout for Detroit is the right move. That would require a lot of messy econometrics far too complicated for my meager attorney brain to handle. What is clear though, is that the decision should be based on pragmatism, and not on ideologically driven desire to adhere to free market principles, merely for the sake of free market principles. If we had a robust and healthy economy, the case for a GM bailout would be much weaker, even if the purely ideological arguments would have just as much force. As a pragmatic matter, the context is important.
Are there public debt considerations? Are there moral hazard considerations? Should we be skeptical of Washington trying to turn failing businesses around? Yes, yes and yes. But these concerns have to be viewed in comparison to the cost of allowing this economic mess to spiral even further out of control. Given what a precipitous position we're in shouldn't we be erring on the side of doing too much?
-Civil Rights Dude
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Law Dude's Cabinet Dream Team
Attorney General- Patrick J. Fitzgerald.
Secretary of Education- Colin Powell
Wichita's 4th District Alderman- Alan Klemke!
Everything Else- I don't care.
Update: One other prediction while I'm at it. Obama will be a Supreme Court Justice within 20 years.
- United States Attorney.
- Insanely good trial lawyer, successfully prosecuted Scooter Libby.
- Has a sweet blogspot page! (hey Education Dude- is he blog list worthy?).
- Unlike other candidates for this position, he actually has diplomatic experience within the state department.
- Seriously, check out the guy's wiki page. Kerry, Hillary, and Richardson can't measure up to this guy by a longshot.
- Say what you will about the Iraq war, but he's handled things there about a million times better than Rumsfeld.
- By all measures not an ideologue- would support a shift in priorities to Afghanistan.
- Would send a loud bipartisan message by keeping on a Bush cabinet member in such an important post.
- Willing to fire top brass in order to hold people accountable.
- OK, two Repubs in the top two military positions is unlikely.
- But Obama digs Hagel.
- And Hagel digs moving troops to Afghanistan.
Secretary of Education- Colin Powell
- Honestly, I'm no Education Dude, but I like Colin Powell.
- Let the guy have another feather in his amazing resume.
Wichita's 4th District Alderman- Alan Klemke!
Everything Else- I don't care.
- But please don't give Richardson an important position.
- Have you seen him on Meet the Press?
- He's overrated at best.
- Sorry, Richardson.
Update: One other prediction while I'm at it. Obama will be a Supreme Court Justice within 20 years.
Fantasy Cabinet
Time to play fantasy cabinet! Readers, comment to this post with your picks. Include commentary, and you'll get your own post. Hooray!
Bailout Culture and the Free Markets
Liberal Dudes don't often trumpet conservative positions. But in the tradition of two dudes who "consider ourselves fiscal moderates," here are two must-reads from conservative columnists who raise red flags about our government's response to the economic crisis.
George Will reminds us that the trillion dollars earmarked for a bailout will not likely be a temporary measure, spent without political concerns. He notes that the "temporary" New Deal measure of agricultural subsidies and the emergency World War II rent-control imposed in New York have distorted free markets for more than the last five decades. In politics, taking away a government give-away is never easy.
David Brooks attacks a proposed Detroit car maker bailout as nothing more than "about saving politically powerful corporations." He argues that bankruptcy is preferable to a bailout, noting, "Airline, steel and retail companies have gone through bankruptcy proceedings and adjusted."
Taken together, these pieces make a persuasive argument against a sustained auto-industry specific bailout. A potential middle ground would be to provide the auto-industry with enough support to ensure that the Big Three automakers remain viable during the worst of the economic downturn (whether this can be best accomplished through short-term loans or bankruptcy, I don't pretend to know). But long-term support for the automakers to conduct business as usual should not be contemplated. Instead, government incentives and spending should be used to transform the industry-- to smaller, more fuel efficient cars and to massive investments in cars fully running on renewable resources.
As George Will recognizes, "falsely shouting 'socialism!' in a crowded theater such as Washington causes an epidemic of yawning." But young liberals and conservatives alike should recognize that massive spending decisions taking place right now, if not made wisely, will burden us for years to come.
UPDATE: This Economist editorial also argues for bankruptcy over bailout, but provides support for an argument that the Big Three are on the verge of better times, by virtue of their standing in developing countries.
-Law Dude
George Will reminds us that the trillion dollars earmarked for a bailout will not likely be a temporary measure, spent without political concerns. He notes that the "temporary" New Deal measure of agricultural subsidies and the emergency World War II rent-control imposed in New York have distorted free markets for more than the last five decades. In politics, taking away a government give-away is never easy.
David Brooks attacks a proposed Detroit car maker bailout as nothing more than "about saving politically powerful corporations." He argues that bankruptcy is preferable to a bailout, noting, "Airline, steel and retail companies have gone through bankruptcy proceedings and adjusted."
Taken together, these pieces make a persuasive argument against a sustained auto-industry specific bailout. A potential middle ground would be to provide the auto-industry with enough support to ensure that the Big Three automakers remain viable during the worst of the economic downturn (whether this can be best accomplished through short-term loans or bankruptcy, I don't pretend to know). But long-term support for the automakers to conduct business as usual should not be contemplated. Instead, government incentives and spending should be used to transform the industry-- to smaller, more fuel efficient cars and to massive investments in cars fully running on renewable resources.
As George Will recognizes, "falsely shouting 'socialism!' in a crowded theater such as Washington causes an epidemic of yawning." But young liberals and conservatives alike should recognize that massive spending decisions taking place right now, if not made wisely, will burden us for years to come.
UPDATE: This Economist editorial also argues for bankruptcy over bailout, but provides support for an argument that the Big Three are on the verge of better times, by virtue of their standing in developing countries.
-Law Dude
Friday, November 14, 2008
Morning Hors D'oeuvres
If you’re a data geek and want to know how the Democrats moved into the 21st century during this election, you could do a lot worse than Marc’s demystification of the bits behind the Obama campaign.
Much speculation abounds about Sen. Clinton for Secretary of State. I think Ezra has it right that this was a trial balloon that had to float.
Clintonistas are flooding the Obama team. Ben and Carrie at Politico tell us why this is a good thing.
Andrew takes us back to Palin’s first mention in the media. Not quite the hockey mom.
Rahm Facts!
Begich could win in Alaska. That coupled with the MN recount and the GA runoff could create the 60 scenario. Nate talks about the way to win the GA race.
Much speculation abounds about Sen. Clinton for Secretary of State. I think Ezra has it right that this was a trial balloon that had to float.
Clintonistas are flooding the Obama team. Ben and Carrie at Politico tell us why this is a good thing.
Andrew takes us back to Palin’s first mention in the media. Not quite the hockey mom.
Rahm Facts!
Begich could win in Alaska. That coupled with the MN recount and the GA runoff could create the 60 scenario. Nate talks about the way to win the GA race.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Pragmatism in Guantanamo (Reader Request Column)
Thanks to Anonymous for the blog post request on how the Obama administration will treat Guantanamo detainees.
Following through on a campaign promise, Obama's advisors are planning to close Guantanamo. The Huffington Post quotes Senator John Cornyn's repsonse to the news: "It would be a stunning disappointment if the one of the new administration's first priorities is to give foreign terror suspects captured on the battlefield the same legal rights and protections as American citizens accused of crimes."
According to Cornyn and his Republican allies, Obama will treat terrorists as regular criminals, making him soft on terrorism and the country unsafe.
Even though Obama almost certainly will not move Guantanamo detainees into the criminal justice system without any restrictions, Cornyn's premise that the criminal justice system cannot effectively prosecute terrorists should be challenged. The first World Trade Center bombers were prosecuted in U.S. courts, leading to convictions without any essential military secrets being revealed (and without doing damage to our reputation abroad).
Regardless of whether whether detainees are tried within civilian or military courts, Obama must provide detainees with more legal rights than the current military commission scheme. This current scheme is biased in favor of obtaining convictions, doing damage to America's reputation amongst our friends and a recruiting tool for our enemies. For example, military commissions require only concurrence of two-thirds of its members for conviction and provide for the potential admission of evidence derived from torture.
The symbolism of closing Guantanamo and making an effort to try detainees will go a long way to improving how American is perceived by our friends and enemies. If Obama combines these measures with increased legal protections for detainees (even if they fall short of the protection afforded by the criminal justice system), Obama can achieve an optimal mix of effectively prosecuting terrorists and improving America's standing in the world.
-Law Dude
Following through on a campaign promise, Obama's advisors are planning to close Guantanamo. The Huffington Post quotes Senator John Cornyn's repsonse to the news: "It would be a stunning disappointment if the one of the new administration's first priorities is to give foreign terror suspects captured on the battlefield the same legal rights and protections as American citizens accused of crimes."
According to Cornyn and his Republican allies, Obama will treat terrorists as regular criminals, making him soft on terrorism and the country unsafe.
Even though Obama almost certainly will not move Guantanamo detainees into the criminal justice system without any restrictions, Cornyn's premise that the criminal justice system cannot effectively prosecute terrorists should be challenged. The first World Trade Center bombers were prosecuted in U.S. courts, leading to convictions without any essential military secrets being revealed (and without doing damage to our reputation abroad).
Regardless of whether whether detainees are tried within civilian or military courts, Obama must provide detainees with more legal rights than the current military commission scheme. This current scheme is biased in favor of obtaining convictions, doing damage to America's reputation amongst our friends and a recruiting tool for our enemies. For example, military commissions require only concurrence of two-thirds of its members for conviction and provide for the potential admission of evidence derived from torture.
The symbolism of closing Guantanamo and making an effort to try detainees will go a long way to improving how American is perceived by our friends and enemies. If Obama combines these measures with increased legal protections for detainees (even if they fall short of the protection afforded by the criminal justice system), Obama can achieve an optimal mix of effectively prosecuting terrorists and improving America's standing in the world.
-Law Dude
Afternoon Arugula
Biden to play good cop to Rahm’s bad.
Ryan Lizza’s “How Obama Won” piece from the new New Yorker. Folks are going to pretend they’re shocked at how cocky he really is. Wouldn’t you have to be? Also, hasn’t he earned it?
Matt thinks that this compendium from the WaPo of “Day One” suggestions for Obama sort of misses one key issue: what’s going on in the world.
Ezra thinks that race is now just one of the myriad factors that influence electoral outcomes.
He also teaches us that all recessions are not created equally.
Must read Krugman column on “going big” to help the economy.
It finally hits Ta-Nehisi. He should check out the whole slideshow.
Marc wonders about the future of MyBO.
One TPM reader on today’s Obama-Bush meeting at the White House:
"I can't believe Obama is already sitting down with an unpopular, aggressive world leader without preconditions."
First sign that the presidential election is over: Nate Silver spends 2,000 words analyzing the likelihood of Al Franken winning the MN senate seat after a recount. And – shocking - his analysis is both fascinating and nuanced. I’m so glad this thing with FiveThirtyEight didn’t turn out to be a fling.
Mark Schmitt at the American Prospect grades the various election theories that got tossed around this year. The only A+ goes to FiveThirtyEight.
Also, be sure to check out the content at “Politico 44.” They are keeping a running diary of the Obama presidency, including his daily schedule, which today - seriously - includes the following:
“9AM - Obama takes his two daughters to school, walks them to the door and receives a kiss from both. He then heads to the gym.”
Indispensable.
The Lieberman Situation
There's a lot of speculation about the future of Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Senate caucus. For those of you who aren't keeping track, the hawkish Lieberman was once the Democratic Senator from Connecticut until his pro-Iraq War stance caused him to lose the state's Democratic primary. So, he ran in the general election as an Independent and became the Independent Senator from Connecticut. (I think he was also on a national ticket at some point.)
Anyway, he has caucused with the Senate's Democrats since being elected as an Independent, but his relentless campaigning for John McCain throughout the election has left many Democrats thinking he needs to be punished. Everyone's idea of punishment is different, but most folks seem to think he should either relinquish his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee or be forced to leave the caucus. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called Lieberman's actions "wrong," and the two gentlemen kicked off a series of what are sure to be fun discussions this weekend.
Until today, it had seemed like Lieberman lost his only real bargaining power in this situation; if the democrats had picked up three more senate seats, he could have been the 60th vote in a filibuster-proof majority. Now that 60 is looking extremely unlikely - though not impossible - Lieberman's vote is unlikely to be the deciding factor in major legislation. Two new reports are suddenly changing the calculus a little bit, though. One, TPM reports that President Clinton is making calls on Lieberman's behalf. Two, HuffPo is reporting that President-Elect Obama wants Lieberman to stay in the caucus.
I think there are a few ways to read this, with Obama's opinion being arguably the most powerful factor to consider. First, Obama clearly doesn't want a protrated fight over this. It would be distracting and definitely contrary to "the change we need." What could be more "old Washington" than the Senate Majority Leader pushing to boot an experienced Senator from a committee post or caucus over his endorsement of a fellow party member's rival candidate? It's sort of a bummer for folks to deal with, and everyone seems to benefit from this dying quickly and quietly. What better way to force reconciliation than Obama speaking out?
Second, with a lot of speculation over how Obama will interact with his former Senate colleagues, I think there is some important symbolism in taking a stand early. There isn't really a need to define who's in charge, as I think Obama's significant popularity and remarkable organization take care of that, but for him to say "this was ultimately about me, and I want the dude to stay" sends a message. It shows a remarkable ability to separate "politics" and "governance," a skill the Bush White House never developed and something that Obama seems to be establishing early with this move.
Finally, I think this is a good move - strategically - for Obama, as it takes a lot of options off the table in this situation. Lieberman seemed to balk at Reid's initial offer, which was basically "leave the chairmanship or leave the caucus." With Obama asking Lieberman to stay, he at once puts pressure on Lieberman to stay while also taking some of the onus off of Reid to follow through on that ultimatum. (Yes, it would make Reid look a little weak to change his mind on that at this point, but if there's someone it's okay to look weak against, it's the extremely popular, history-making President-Elect of your country and party.) Also, it puts Lieberman in a funky position of essentially having to defy Obama by joining the Republican caucus, which I can't imagine he wants to do. As if Lieberman weren't enough of a pariah right now, can you imagine how it would play if he suddenly joined the Senate Republicans? Not to mention it would essentially be tantamount to an early retirement for Lieberman, who is unlikely to get re-elected by Connecticut as a Republican. I'm just not seeing that being a win-win for a bunch of people. Obama's move at once makes it okay for Lieberman to stay in the caucus as chairman, while allowing Reid to save face with the progressives calling for Lieberman's punishment. And it costs Obama little political capital. I give Obama an "A" for this move.
-Education Dude
Anyway, he has caucused with the Senate's Democrats since being elected as an Independent, but his relentless campaigning for John McCain throughout the election has left many Democrats thinking he needs to be punished. Everyone's idea of punishment is different, but most folks seem to think he should either relinquish his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee or be forced to leave the caucus. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called Lieberman's actions "wrong," and the two gentlemen kicked off a series of what are sure to be fun discussions this weekend.
Until today, it had seemed like Lieberman lost his only real bargaining power in this situation; if the democrats had picked up three more senate seats, he could have been the 60th vote in a filibuster-proof majority. Now that 60 is looking extremely unlikely - though not impossible - Lieberman's vote is unlikely to be the deciding factor in major legislation. Two new reports are suddenly changing the calculus a little bit, though. One, TPM reports that President Clinton is making calls on Lieberman's behalf. Two, HuffPo is reporting that President-Elect Obama wants Lieberman to stay in the caucus.
I think there are a few ways to read this, with Obama's opinion being arguably the most powerful factor to consider. First, Obama clearly doesn't want a protrated fight over this. It would be distracting and definitely contrary to "the change we need." What could be more "old Washington" than the Senate Majority Leader pushing to boot an experienced Senator from a committee post or caucus over his endorsement of a fellow party member's rival candidate? It's sort of a bummer for folks to deal with, and everyone seems to benefit from this dying quickly and quietly. What better way to force reconciliation than Obama speaking out?
Second, with a lot of speculation over how Obama will interact with his former Senate colleagues, I think there is some important symbolism in taking a stand early. There isn't really a need to define who's in charge, as I think Obama's significant popularity and remarkable organization take care of that, but for him to say "this was ultimately about me, and I want the dude to stay" sends a message. It shows a remarkable ability to separate "politics" and "governance," a skill the Bush White House never developed and something that Obama seems to be establishing early with this move.
Finally, I think this is a good move - strategically - for Obama, as it takes a lot of options off the table in this situation. Lieberman seemed to balk at Reid's initial offer, which was basically "leave the chairmanship or leave the caucus." With Obama asking Lieberman to stay, he at once puts pressure on Lieberman to stay while also taking some of the onus off of Reid to follow through on that ultimatum. (Yes, it would make Reid look a little weak to change his mind on that at this point, but if there's someone it's okay to look weak against, it's the extremely popular, history-making President-Elect of your country and party.) Also, it puts Lieberman in a funky position of essentially having to defy Obama by joining the Republican caucus, which I can't imagine he wants to do. As if Lieberman weren't enough of a pariah right now, can you imagine how it would play if he suddenly joined the Senate Republicans? Not to mention it would essentially be tantamount to an early retirement for Lieberman, who is unlikely to get re-elected by Connecticut as a Republican. I'm just not seeing that being a win-win for a bunch of people. Obama's move at once makes it okay for Lieberman to stay in the caucus as chairman, while allowing Reid to save face with the progressives calling for Lieberman's punishment. And it costs Obama little political capital. I give Obama an "A" for this move.
-Education Dude
The Future of Two Fairly Liberal Dudes (Re-post)
While the impetus for starting this blog certainly was the 2008 presidential election, it is not our intention that with the election finished, so should our blog be.
That said, it is not entirely clear how we should proceed. Some readers I talk to enjoy having the regularity of a daily one-stop shop for political news, the central pieces of which are the morning and afternoon clip blasts. Others want our sometimes snarky - once in a while informative - analysis, which is basically news filtered through the magical two lib dudes prism. Not nearly as regular, but still dubiously useful. One reader who has spent too much time around Law Dude and Education Dude wants us to publish the offline arguments we have with one another, which sometimes yield both entertainment and information. (Most recently: does there exist an objective reality? Law Dude - yes! Education Dude - no!)
In the interest of keeping you folks reading and engaged, let's use the comments for suggestions. What do YOU want to see from this blog? Coverage of the presidential transition? Tracking major legislation in the new congress? The earliest daily coverage of the 2012 presidential election in the blogosphere? Let us know! Feel free to be as prescriptive as you want ... for instance: "I want to see one daily roundup of important political news and thrice weekly essays on animal rights legislation." You are a small and loyal following, so we might actually take your advice! It's not like living in DC or Utah ... your vote counts!
That said, it is not entirely clear how we should proceed. Some readers I talk to enjoy having the regularity of a daily one-stop shop for political news, the central pieces of which are the morning and afternoon clip blasts. Others want our sometimes snarky - once in a while informative - analysis, which is basically news filtered through the magical two lib dudes prism. Not nearly as regular, but still dubiously useful. One reader who has spent too much time around Law Dude and Education Dude wants us to publish the offline arguments we have with one another, which sometimes yield both entertainment and information. (Most recently: does there exist an objective reality? Law Dude - yes! Education Dude - no!)
In the interest of keeping you folks reading and engaged, let's use the comments for suggestions. What do YOU want to see from this blog? Coverage of the presidential transition? Tracking major legislation in the new congress? The earliest daily coverage of the 2012 presidential election in the blogosphere? Let us know! Feel free to be as prescriptive as you want ... for instance: "I want to see one daily roundup of important political news and thrice weekly essays on animal rights legislation." You are a small and loyal following, so we might actually take your advice! It's not like living in DC or Utah ... your vote counts!
Election Night Story II
This via Expat Dude, who gives us a running diary of election night in Paris:
Despite living in
closely. As "Jour J" rolled around, we wanted to make sure we weren't
too cut off from our fellow citizens and knew we'd have to do
something to get in the election night spirit.
10:30PM
Leaving work, stayed a little late tonight as I had warned my boss I'd
probably not make it in by 9am on Wed morning. Pass an 6 foot tall ad
for one of the newsweeklys: portrait of Obama: "Will they dare to
elect him"
11:45PM
Meeting up with some other Americans, figure we'll check out one of
the few expat bars in town to try and grab a drink and watch the first
results. Heading towards Harry's Bar, a staple of the
scene since the early 1900s, we pass a guy wrapped in an American
flag. There's an understated buzz in the air. Turning the corner
onto Rue Danou, we come across a huge mob of people. The block is
completely packed, a few empty champagne bottles on the ground, and
plenty more being held in reserve. Many people with Obama t-shirts,
buttons, masks. Crowd is varied, but hearing lots of French, in
addition to Brits, Aussis, and plenty of Americans. I have a
flashback, World Series, 2004,
half of
12:00AM
A roar goes up from the crowd as they announce the closing of the
first polls. We actually want to see something, so we decide to move
on. Next stop, Carr's, another expat bar near Place Vendome. This
one's Irish, so not quite as crowded. Plenty of American's watching
CNN on big screen TVs, Obama shirts and buttons abound.
1:30AM
Our group starts to feel the late hour, and things aren't too exciting
yet. Time to call a cab.
2:00AM
Turned on the TV shortly after getting home. Expat Dudette is heading
to bed, but I can't pull myself away.
CALLED FOR OBAMA! Signs are looking up. I tell Expat Dudette the
news, though she remains pessimistic as she drifts towards sleep.
3:05AM
Had set 3am as my sleep stop-loss point, but can't bring myself to go
to bed. Most midwest polls closed without any big calls. I'm glued
to CNN and a handful of blogs. Notice Education Dude is online as
well.
3:35AM
Expat Dude:
Education Dude: PRESIDENT OBAMA
PRESIDENT OBAMA
Expat Dude: I've got a huge grin on my face that won't go away
Education Dude: the tears are starting
4:00AM
Should be going to bed, really, I know it's in the bag. Told myself
4AM was the absolute limit, but can't pull myself away, know this is
going to be big but can't quite believe it yet.
4:49AM
Expat Dude: cnn calls
Education Dude: this is it
OBAMA 44!!!!!!!!!!
Tears were welling for a while, but now they're running down my face
I Wake up Expat Dudette to share the news and get a very sleepy "wow".
Having trouble keeping my eyes open.
Must...stay...awake...for...
6:00AM
Told myself this was the absolute latest I would stay up, thankfully
Obama appears to address the crowd.
Full of emotion, totally exhausted to the point of literally feeling
disoriented, but I'm pretty sure that was the best speech I've ever
heard. Worth every minute of lost sleep.
6:25AM
Finally in bed, time for a quick cat-nap before work
9:30AM
Walking through Gare de Lyon on my way to work. Things seem strangely
calm - no big Obama victory headlines outside the newsstands, since
the final result came in after they went to press. One paper skirts
the issue "Obama supporters already celebrating"
10:00AM
Arrive at work, hearty congratulations from my co-workers. Exhausted.
It's going to be a long, tiring, but very happy day.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Guest Post: Obama and the Youth Vote
The youth vote finally had an impact. While voters 18-29 only made up one more percentage point share of the total vote (18% of total vote, up from 17% in 2004), an overwhelming 2/3 of them voted for Obama. No candidate, winner or loser, has taken such a large share of that sector of the electorate for at least 28 years (sorry, the exit poll data I looked at only went back to the 1980 election). Obama won without taking a larger share of voters 45-59, or voters 60 and up. No Presidential winner has done this in at least 28 years.
This may have been the first time in our lives when the youth vote actually played a meaningful role in a Presidential election. For many of us, it was the first time we felt national politics responded to our beliefs and values. The sentiment was: This country is ours, we’re calling the shots now. We have helped craft
Now the dream is reality, and we’ll see how Obama actually governs. On the campaign trail, he dodged the question of what promises would have to take a backseat due to financial crisis. Of course, now he will have to set some priorities and make some decisions. Will his priorities reward the youth who helped sweep him to office, or will he cater to the elderly, despite their tepid support? A key area to watch is how his economic philosophy plays out in actual policy decisions.
Greater deficit spending equals more money we have to cough up later, perhaps just as our generation is hitting peak earning capacity, or looking to retire. It’s clear that the Federal government will have to run deficits for at least a few more years, given the bailout, a likely stimulus package, and almost assuredly diminished revenue due to slowed economic activity. That’s fine, counter-cyclical deficit spending isn’t a problem. But it does mean that Obama won’t be able to pay for everything, so he’ll have to pick and choose. Like
The question of infrastructure investment is particularly important because of climate change concerns. It’s not just that a public works program could put people to work, and improve productive capacity, but it may also be vital to preventing serious harm to the planet. Even if it’s not the optimal way to approach the economy (as
What the heck does he do about Medicare and healthcare more generally? Healthcare was a huge part of his campaign, and there will be a lot of pressure for him to follow through. Due to the baby boomers, there is a massive chunk of the population who will soon be consuming lots and lots of resources. Will today’s young voters in the coming decades spending more and more to treat today’s 45+ voters? Will healthcare expenditures crowd out energy/infrastructure spending and deficit reduction? If so, our generation, the youth voters, could really get hosed.
Obama has huge ambition, and a broad mandate to make some significant changes in the role the Federal government plays in our lives. The choices he makes will have some inter-generational costs and benefits. I don’t really know what the best balance is amongst all of these competing promises, but it will be interesting to see who gets the shorter end of the stick.
-Civil Rights Dude
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Empiricism
One thing that is abundantly apparent as we pick through the detritus of the past two years is that political commentary is pretty useless and that data is incredibly useful. As I relentlessly said throughout the general election season, this never looked like a close election. Anyone who got near me in person had to endure my consistent predictions of "landslide ... no doubt." And the Education Dudette and Education Friends would punish and belittle me for my overconfidence, but at heart, I am an empiricist. The data never had this looking like a close election, and folks had to conjure racist boogiemen to make the case that it was.
Anyway, to put it more plainly, this was the election of the data geek. Frankly, that's part of the reason I like Obama so much; he seems to be cut from the data geek mold as well. David Plouffe might as well be the chairman emeritus of the data geek cabal.
It's also why I love Nate Silver so freaking much. FiveThirtyEight was an amazing addition to the media, and while their final model was a little off, it was pretty darn close to right. Ezra joins the chorus:
Also, Nate Silver was pretty clearly this election's MVP, at least so far as media goes. What I love about his story, incidentally, is he starts as a DailyKos.com diarist, and blows up to become a major media figure. Ten years ago, there would have been no way for him to break into the industry. But because of the open platform and easy publicity provided by community blogs like DailyKos, he could wander right in, identify a market need for good data, and fill it. That's progress.
There is a bigger point to the value of empiricism, though. Part of the real tragedy of the Bush administration has been the systematic suppression of - and misuse of - information. Whether the administration concocted fake information to justify war in Iraq, denied federal funding to stem-cell research, or tacitly endorsed the infiltration of faith into science, the Bush administration symbolized a true "Assault on Reason."
Obama has shown us that technocratic data geeks also can be inspiring leaders, and he has leveraged his inate strategic sense to deliver an unprecedented win. In many ways, his campaign has been a repudiation of the Bush administration's policies AND tactics. And I hope that he will continue this assault on idiocy as he enters the White House. A good start would be to challenge all of these asshole commentators who continue to insist America is a "center-right" nation by saying something like:
"Guess what? I just won 52% of the vote. I received more votes than any other president in American history has received, and a MUCH greater share of the electoral vote than Bush's 'permanent Republican majority' ever managed to scrape from the bottom of the barrell. And, I did this amidst accusations that I'm a closet socialist. I'll be over here on the left, with the majority of America, bitches."
-Education Dude
Anyway, to put it more plainly, this was the election of the data geek. Frankly, that's part of the reason I like Obama so much; he seems to be cut from the data geek mold as well. David Plouffe might as well be the chairman emeritus of the data geek cabal.
It's also why I love Nate Silver so freaking much. FiveThirtyEight was an amazing addition to the media, and while their final model was a little off, it was pretty darn close to right. Ezra joins the chorus:
Also, Nate Silver was pretty clearly this election's MVP, at least so far as media goes. What I love about his story, incidentally, is he starts as a DailyKos.com diarist, and blows up to become a major media figure. Ten years ago, there would have been no way for him to break into the industry. But because of the open platform and easy publicity provided by community blogs like DailyKos, he could wander right in, identify a market need for good data, and fill it. That's progress.
There is a bigger point to the value of empiricism, though. Part of the real tragedy of the Bush administration has been the systematic suppression of - and misuse of - information. Whether the administration concocted fake information to justify war in Iraq, denied federal funding to stem-cell research, or tacitly endorsed the infiltration of faith into science, the Bush administration symbolized a true "Assault on Reason."
Obama has shown us that technocratic data geeks also can be inspiring leaders, and he has leveraged his inate strategic sense to deliver an unprecedented win. In many ways, his campaign has been a repudiation of the Bush administration's policies AND tactics. And I hope that he will continue this assault on idiocy as he enters the White House. A good start would be to challenge all of these asshole commentators who continue to insist America is a "center-right" nation by saying something like:
"Guess what? I just won 52% of the vote. I received more votes than any other president in American history has received, and a MUCH greater share of the electoral vote than Bush's 'permanent Republican majority' ever managed to scrape from the bottom of the barrell. And, I did this amidst accusations that I'm a closet socialist. I'll be over here on the left, with the majority of America, bitches."
-Education Dude
Election Night Story I
Via Real Estate Dude:
The highlight of the night was looking around the room during Obama's victory speech and witnessing everyone's eyes tearing up as history took place.
The overall surreal experience was capped off with my cab ride home with R.E. Dudette at 1:00AM. As we cruised down Second Ave, thousands of people were in the streets, jumping on cars, chanting "Yes We Can" in unison.
I will never forget the feeling of unadulterated joy and pride that I felt last night/feel right now.
The highlight of the night was looking around the room during Obama's victory speech and witnessing everyone's eyes tearing up as history took place.
The overall surreal experience was capped off with my cab ride home with R.E. Dudette at 1:00AM. As we cruised down Second Ave, thousands of people were in the streets, jumping on cars, chanting "Yes We Can" in unison.
I will never forget the feeling of unadulterated joy and pride that I felt last night/feel right now.
Newsweek Behind the Scenes
Newsweek always does a post-election behind-the-scenes look at the campaigns. HuffPost has some of the content in advance. Among other things, we learn that threats to Obama ticked up sharply around the time Palin started giving really incendiary speeches, and that a foreign entity aggressively hacked both campaigns.
But the best nugget in there - in my opinion - reveals just how reasonable and awesome Barack Obama really is:
The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for the Democratic primary debates, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me ... answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."
-Education Dude
But the best nugget in there - in my opinion - reveals just how reasonable and awesome Barack Obama really is:
The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for the Democratic primary debates, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me ... answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."
-Education Dude
Stuff To Watch For Your Fix
So, if you're a junkie, like me, the Senate is where to look right now. There are actually some routes to 60 for the Dems. The following things are still up in the air:
1) Oregon - Merkley could still win.
2) Minnesota - Franken could still win.
3) Georgia - Chambliss has to win a majority, not a plurality. If he doesn't, there's a runoff. Given that there's a lot of talk about the screwiness of the vote counting in Georgia, expect Dems to converge on GA in the coming weeks (e.g. shades of the flooding of Florida in 2000).
4) Alaska - Alaska will have a special election if the convicted Ted Stevens gets tossed from the Senate following his re-election. Folks seem to think that Ted Stevens gave sort of a "wink, wink" to Alaska saying, "Hey, even if I get thrown out, let's take our chance on a special election as opposed to sending a Democrat to the Senate." I've gotta hand it to the land of Palin. It doesn't get more maverick-y than electing a convicted felon. Hats off, Alaska.
-Education Dude
1) Oregon - Merkley could still win.
2) Minnesota - Franken could still win.
3) Georgia - Chambliss has to win a majority, not a plurality. If he doesn't, there's a runoff. Given that there's a lot of talk about the screwiness of the vote counting in Georgia, expect Dems to converge on GA in the coming weeks (e.g. shades of the flooding of Florida in 2000).
4) Alaska - Alaska will have a special election if the convicted Ted Stevens gets tossed from the Senate following his re-election. Folks seem to think that Ted Stevens gave sort of a "wink, wink" to Alaska saying, "Hey, even if I get thrown out, let's take our chance on a special election as opposed to sending a Democrat to the Senate." I've gotta hand it to the land of Palin. It doesn't get more maverick-y than electing a convicted felon. Hats off, Alaska.
-Education Dude
Election Night Stories!!!
Two Fairly Liberal Dudes wants your election night stories. Where were you? What did you do? What did you see? Post them in the comments, and we'll pull the best stories to the main page throughout the coming days.
I'll get it kicked off ... I stayed home, which was a good thing, because I completely lost my shit when Obama won. Cried like a baby. At about 1AM, some Education Friends showed up and we drove around until we found a roving pack of celebrating young people. We put on some Kanye West glasses and wandered around the streets chanting "Obama," until one young black man yelled,
"We've gotta give it up for Joe Biden, too!!"
And then we all shrugged and started: "Joe Biden!"
-Education Dude
I'll get it kicked off ... I stayed home, which was a good thing, because I completely lost my shit when Obama won. Cried like a baby. At about 1AM, some Education Friends showed up and we drove around until we found a roving pack of celebrating young people. We put on some Kanye West glasses and wandered around the streets chanting "Obama," until one young black man yelled,
"We've gotta give it up for Joe Biden, too!!"
And then we all shrugged and started: "Joe Biden!"
-Education Dude
Morning Hors D'oeuvres (President-Elect Barack Obama Edition)
His victory speech.
Andrew has a nice compendium of pundit reax … Ezra Klein’s is my favorite.
Ambinder has a good post game.
Nate – ever the trooper – is still following the unresolved stories, like:
1) Will we have Senator Al Franken, and
2) What’s up with
Also, we told you the “Bradley Effect” was dead. Let’s make sure this phrase joins the “permanent Republican majority” in the junkyard of political nonsense.
Just on the heels of that, though, a TPM reporter coins the “Stevens Effect” for when a bunch of Alaskans lie and say they won’t re-elect a convicted felon, but then they do anyway!
Bachmann got reelected. Damnit!
Matt still doesn’t get why McCain ran right . He also can't ssee how a bunch of red states moving blue is indicative of a “center-right” country. Seriously, how can you run against a guy by saying he’s a socialist and then claim his victory reinforces the “center-right” thing?
Ezra has a good proposal for pundits who get things really really wrong.
With more seriousness, he looks at the state of our country:
“For the first time,
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
