I expected Obama to be a better loser, specifically to be better at losing. There were a lot of items on the table, a lot of them weren't going to happen, but it was important for the new future of liberalism that the Obama team lost them well. And that hasn't happened.
By losing well, I mean losing in a way that builds a coalition, demonstrates to your allies that you are serious, takes a pound of flesh from your opponents and leaves them with the blame, and convinces those on the fence that it is an important issue for which you have the answers. Lose for the long run; lose in a way that leaves liberal institutions and infrastructure stronger, able to be deployed again at a later date.
Ezra Klein also wrote about that post ("What sort of loser should Obama be?"), and even though he quoted the exact same passage, he somehow managed to completely ignore it. It was a short, but breathtaking performance of Versailles punditalkcrazy at its finest. Konczal's post was a shrewd reminder that politics is ultimately most meaningful in the long haul, and that true leadership never forgets this. Klein aggressively turned his back on Konczal's point, and plunged right back into tactical/pseudo-strategic muck that Konczal was trying to lift us out of. After quoting the same passage I did, Klein wrote:
I think the White House's reply would look something like this: Successful governance is about getting 60 votes for things that move the ball forward. The people who tend to control the 55th through 60th votes on any given issue are not like you and me. They are driven by a baffling combination of raging egomania and crippling terror. They want to be treated like statesmen even as their decisions are based on a paralyzing fear of contested elections, primary challenges, Fox News and party pressure. They have few opinions on what good policy looks like, what opinions they do have on the subject change frequently, and they're not willing to risk very much on them anyway. Taking a pound of flesh from these people -- or even their allies -- would mean never getting their votes. Want to see what we mean? Look at Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In the end, it got done because Murkowski, Brown and Collins let it get done. Alienating them would've been satisfying, but unwise.
Now, Klein gave us a very savvy and delightful description of the lunatic center in the Senate--one that we'd never actually get from the Obama White House, of course. But the rationale he presents is entirely unresponsive to Konczal's point.
Still, Klein does have a point here: If forced to respond to Konczal's post, the White House certainly would respond by ignoring it, and instead focusing on the lunatic center in the Senate as if Lieberman, Bacus & Co. were immortal Greek gods. But so what? We already knew that. That's what Konczal was criticizing in the first place. Worse still, Klein advances the White House position not to criticize it, but to legitimate it. And he does so by pairing it not with Konczal's actual point about the transcendent importance of building political power for the long run, but with an imagined liberal response that while valid is but a subset of the larger point that Konczal makes:
And I think the liberal reply to this would be, yes, you're right that these people are driven by fear. But they're afraid of the wrong thing. You have senators in states that went blue in 2008 who seem unconcerned with crossing the president or his massive list of volunteers and supporters. Instead, they're terrified of the Club for Growth, or Fox News, or they're terrified of them not because they have so much power in their state but because they're willing to use that power aggressively. If the president had been making frequent trips to Maine, he might find that Maine's senators were a little more interested in partnering with him on his agenda.
All that is true, and I even made a stronger version of that same argument myself, saying that Obama should have done town meetings in Maine with schoolkids, teachers, parents and schoolboard members, attacking Snowe and Collins as enemies of America's schoolkids for their insistence on drastic cuts of state aid from the stimulus. But this leaves out of the picture Konczal's larger point about the long-term political future, and the impossibility of winning it if one does not even begin to fight for it. And it's precisely by cutting out the heart of Konczal's argument that Klein is able to adopt that treasured Versailles pose of standing in the middle, above both sides, looking down on them from above:
I find both arguments fairly convincing. But not at the same time. The White House's argument made a fair amount of sense given the Democratic tilt of the 111th Congress, which offered unusual possibilities for getting things done, and so made strategies that would alienate even a couple of votes fairly risky. But the liberal argument makes somewhat more sense going forward, as the mixed composition of the next Congress makes getting things done through deals and patience somewhat less likely, while the upcoming election where the president is on the ballot makes the need for an excited base more acute, and makes the consequences of crossing that base more serious for both the White House and swing senators.
By ignoring the iceberg that the Democratic Party is headed toward-which is, after all, the subject of Konczal's argument, Klein is able to pose as the wisest of sages in how to rearreange the deck chairs on the Titanic. In this move, all of us are losers except Klein. He is the perfect model of the modern Versailles Democrat.
This is Klein at his very worst. Which is particularly galling, because at his best he can be very, very good. He could have been very good here, simply by echoing Konczal's point, rather than burying it.
As noted by counterspin in a quick hit comment, the UK Guardian has a very interesting story:
Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters
Midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites DeMint and Inhofe have received over $240,000
BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda, the Guardian has learned.
An analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (Cane) found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms were directed towards senators who blocked action on climate change. These included incumbents who have been embraced by the Tea Party such as Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and the notorious climate change denier James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.
The report, released tomorrow, used information on the Open Secrets.org database to track what it called a co-ordinated attempt by some of Europe's biggest polluters to influence the US midterms. It said: "The European companies are funding almost exclusively Senate candidates who have been outspoken in their opposition to comprehensive climate policy in the US and candidates who actively deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by people."
The report itself can be found here. The money comes from US citizens employed by these companies who contribute to the corporate PACs, so it's all perfectly legal. (OpenSecrets, the source of the data used in the report, has a listing of foreign PACs here.) But the report points out that these same companies who fund climate legislation obstruction in America then turn around and cite that obstructionism as a reason that Europe should not take any further measures. It's not quite the Menendez brothers asking for mercy on account of being orphans, but it's damn close.
Here's a chart of the contributions from BASF, the second-largest donor in the report:
Okay, so here's the point: These foreign corporations have already voted.
It isn't rare to hear about 'back benches' in Congress. Generally these are members who, on one issue, or on all issues, don't make much noise, go with the flow, and try to avoid controversy. In sports, the term "bench warmer" is similar, but rather than a lack of desire to play, bench warmers tend to have a relative lack of skill. In fact, if a member of a sports team wanted to sit out the big plays, I doubt they would be on the team for long. . .
The game today is comprehensive climate change legislation, and there are five Senators that talk some game in the locker room, but when the clock is running, you can't find them on the field.
"There might have been a time where the jury was out [on climate change], but the jury is in now, and we know this is an issue. We can't afford to ignore it and be wrong."
With BP dumping oil all over his home turf, you'd think LeMieux would be itching for some action on clean energy. Where is he?
Senator Pryor is no stranger to fans of Alabama. Not only has been on the team since 2003, but he plays the position his father played in the 80's and 90's.
"As part of [the effort to move our country toward energy independence], I believe that we must move beyond oil, gas, and coal and focus on cleaner alternatives and new sources of energy, including renewable fuels. Arkansas, in particular, is rich in bio diesel resources...As your Senator I will fight to help Arkansas become a leader in the new energy economy."
If Senator Pryor wants his kids to be able to continue the legacy, he better get on the field and show some hustle.
Senator Voinovich has played most of the positions on the Ohio team. He has been in the game as long as anyone, and this is his final season. He should be thinking legacy, and he has one major rivalry left unsettled.
"Climate change, and how our nation addresses it, is of incredible importance."
C'mon Senator! Are you going to let the rookies address it? Git R Done!
Arguably one of the best players in the National League, Senator Lugar had carried Indiana to victory again and again. He is one of the defense players out there.
"Scientists are saying that climate change could cause human displacement, spark wars around the globe and completely disrupt international trade...We do have an obligation to our children, our grandchildren, the earth to think about these things."
Lugar has been in the game longer than any Republican in the Senate. It isn't like him to get benched when it matters.
And finally there is New Hampshire's Senator Gregg who is also throwing in the towel at the end of the season.
"we have a responsibility to take care of our planet for future generations, and climate change legislation will help stem the environmental impacts of global warming and will spur development of new technologies that bolster our energy independence."
Gregg's legacy is his to shape now. Is he a man made of granite that can do what is best for the Granite State? Or has he grown soft, and resigned to phoning it in for the last few games of his career?
One this is certain, this season is shaping up to be one for the history books. Any of these players can make history - but they can't do it from the benches.
As BP pumps thousands of barrels of toxic oil into the Gulf of Mexico every day, the threat our dependence on fossil fuels holds should be clearer now than ever before. In the wake of this great tragedy, individual senators have the tremendous opportunity to break the gridlock, and step up to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate policy. In particular, there are a few Senators who have a record of talking the talk on this issue, and the time has come for them to walk the walk.
"There might have been a time where the jury was out [on climate change], but the jury is in now, and we know this is an issue. We can't afford to ignore it and be wrong."
How many more catastrophes must you live through before you follow your own advice? Now is the time to stand up for your state and ensure that the land they call home will not be threatened by offshore drilling.
"As part of [the effort to move our country toward energy independence], I believe that we must move beyond oil, gas, and coal and focus on cleaner alternatives and new sources of energy, including renewable fuels. Arkansas, in particular, is rich in bio diesel resources...As your Senator I will fight to help Arkansas become a leader in the new energy economy."
Now is the time to get in the game. Arkansas is counting on you to do everything in your power to pass a clean energy bill that provides more jobs, brings greater national security, and guarantees a healthier environment.
Senator Voinovich (OH), you should be helping make climate an issue at the top of Congress's list. After all, you said so yourself:
"Climate change, and how our nation addresses it, is of incredible importance."
This is your chance to address our dependence on fossil fuels and climate change and protect your state of Ohio by announcing your support for comprehensive clean energy legislation.
"Scientists are saying that climate change could cause human displacement, spark wars around the globe and completely disrupt international trade...We do have an obligation to our children, our grandchildren, the earth to think about these things."
And Senator Gregg (NH), don't you understand these stakes as well? You said:
"we have a responsibility to take care of our planet for future generations, and climate change legislation will help stem the environmental impacts of global warming and will spur development of new technologies that bolster our energy independence."
Senators, we know you understand what we stand to lose, you all made it clear that inaction is no longer an option. Now is the moment to stand up and lead your colleagues to protect our generations to come.
Let us not forget that actions always speak louder than words. Senators, now is the time to stand up and declare your support in passing clean energy and climate legislation. We know you get it, so now you must lead the way; your constituents, your state, and your country are depending on you.
One of the biggest differences between insiders and outsiders is this question: why can't they just get it done? And both sides of the divide have a point.
The single biggest complaint I hear by non-DC insiders is the sheer dysfunction of Washington. Whether it's Jon Stewart's very funny interview with Joe Biden the other day, or bloggers attacking Harry Reid for not just wrapping the health care issue up by going to reconciliation, people not involved in the day to day DC maneuvering and negotiating don't understand why all this is so hard and takes so long. Insiders get very grumpy about this attitude, because they have to deal every day with the complications of the Senate procedural rules, the egos and turf battles of the powerful committee chairs, and the traditions and clubbiness of the Senate.
I have a lot of sympathy for people on both sides of the divide. Having served in the White House, and been in DC for 17 years now, I know how hard it is to get things done in this town. And having read my share of history books, I know how hard it is to get big things done in general - it just doesn't happen very often, and it is never ever easy or painless. But I also know this: if Democrats don't deliver now, there will be no excuses. They have to find a way to deliver the goods. History, the media, activists, and voters will offer them no mercy if they can't get health reform done this time around.
So if failure is not an option, and there are four holdout Democrats in the Senate blocking the way to getting a reform bill the rest of the Democratic Party can live with, what is to be done?
A lot of people, including me, have been saying for a while that those four Senators would probably eventually force Reid to use the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes, and in the end they still might because there might be no other option. But a lot of the more liberal Democrats in the Senate (including Harkin, Rockefeller, and Schumer) have started arguing against that option. Their reasons include that the bill would have to be dramatically scaled back to fit within the reconciliation rule, the process would likely be slowed down making pending legislation tougher to pass, and that the bill would have to be referred to Kent Conrad's rather conservative budget committee where all kinds of bad things might happen to it. There are also an undetermined number of otherwise more progressive Senators such as Robert Byrd and Russ Feingold who believe putting health care in reconciliation violates the spirit of reconciliation rules, and would vote against the bill on principle.
These are pretty compelling arguments, so my view is that progressives should not be demanding that Harry Reid put this bill through the reconciliation process. In the end, he may have no other choice, but to demand that before he has had the chance to pursue every other option makes no sense to me. To say Harry Reid - or the President or anyone else - can just force the bill through no matter what is simply not true. The American government, just doesn't work that way. Not even LBJ, the greatest leg-breaker the Senate and Presidency have ever seen, could government by fiat - even with huge Democratic majorities he had to compromise on a range of issues to get things done.
So it's not going to be done by fiat, and we shouldn't care which method is used to get there, but make no mistake: one way or another, the Democrats have to deliver. Failure is not an option, and no excuse will be valid. One way or another, through procedural magic, carrots, sticks, very big sticks, this has to get done. Through cajoling, persuasion, pork, compromise, leg-breaking, or nuclear options, this has to get done.
Once upon a time, bipartisanship was not an illusion. It wasn't a panacea. It wasn't the key to getting most things done. But it was a good bet that if something needed doing, there would be at least some bipartisan support. In most cases, it just wasn't that hard to get. And that very fact meant that it wasn't a constant fetish, the way it is in Versailles nowadays. One reason for that was that the two parties had a non-trivial amount of ideological overlap, which is most consistently mapped by first dimension of the DW-Nominate scale. In those days--the first eight years of the 1960s, for example, here's what overlap in ideology in the US looked like:
In sharp contrast, here's the disappearing ideological overlap in the Senate the first eight years of the 2000s:
BTW, that's no overlap at all in the last two congresses before Obama took office. So the idea of getting "bipartisan support" as a prerequisite and a priority for any piece of legislation in this sort of political environment is nothing short of crazy. It is, in effect, a unilateral surrender of the majority to the minority, so long as the minority holds its ideological ground. And that is precisely what we have been seeing since Obama took office last January.
On July 11, Nick Berning, from Friends of the Earth, wrote a diary here, "Progressive Block Needed on Clean Energy Legislation in Senate". In it, he argued for the need to create a progressive block of Senators who demand a set of bottom-line objectives be met by any energy/climate legislation:
Because of the dire threat climate destabilization poses to our economy and quality of life, as well as global security and stability, we simply must do better than the House bill that puts a hard-to-change, ill-advised system in place. At a minimum, any bill the Senate passes should:
1. Maintain the EPA's existing authority to use the Clean Air Act to regulate coal-fired power plants, which the House-passed bill undermines. (Coal is the #1 source of global warming pollution in the world.)
2. Bring about a true transition to clean energy. One current Senate proposal (the bill that passed the Senate Energy Committee) would produce no more clean energy than business-as-usual scenarios. That's a disaster that must be fixed.
3. Prevent gaming by Wall Street. There's a reason Wall Street has 130 lobbyists working full time on climate change. Within years, the carbon trading system created by the House bill could become the biggest derivatives market in the world, subject to "subprime carbon" and speculation. This needs to be remedied.
4. Lay the groundwork for an international solution to global warming. A key phase of international negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is slated to culminate in December in Copenhagen. The emissions reduction targets in the House-passed bill are so weak (and are further undermined by offset loopholes), and the bill's funding for international solutions is so meager, that the bill is incompatible with a fair, effective global agreement. Developing countries are rightly rejecting these proposals, which is why the G8 failed to agree on emissions reductions targets in Italy this week.
While I agree whole-heartedly with what Nick wrote, in writing an article for Random Lengths News, two other strategies emerged as compatible with and reinforcing this approach. The first is already well under way, the campaign for a global day of action on October 24 by 350.org. The second is only the germ of an idea, based on some comments, and some of the work done on working with local officials raising awareness and starting to shape policies below state level. I'll discuss both these strategies a little more fully on the flip.
Of all the hurdles facing healthcare reform in 2009, the U.S. Senate is arguably the most formidable. But the prospects for passing a healthcare bill this year have brightened noticeably over the past few days, thanks to a senate seat pickup in Minnesota, solidifying support for the budget reconciliation strategy, and tentative overtures towards bipartisanship from key Republicans.
With all of the (deserved) flak that the US congress in general, and the senate in particular, has been receiving around these parts, I just wanted to give the Senate kudos for extending the federal hate crime law to GLBT individuals, and for attaching it to the Iraq spending bill, where it will be less likely to be vetoed. Now let's see if it stays on the house version. Good job for today, dems.
STATE BLOGS
