Often biased, always thoughtful.

Final thought (I hope) on Lieberman

I do hope the Democrats leave themselves an out.

Each session of Congress operates under a set of rules known as the organizing resolution. The Democrats should make sure this session’s organizing resolution gives them the capacity to throw Lieberman out if things really don’t work out.

Does the Lieberman vote mean a new direction for US politics?

Wow. Not even close:

Senate Democrats have voted to allow Sen. Joe Lieberman to retain his chairmanship of the powerful Homeland Security Committee. The secret-ballot vote was 42-13. Lieberman is losing his chairmanship on an environmental subcommittee.

There are two possible explanations for the Democrats’ vote to allow Joe Lieberman to keep his Homeland Security Committee chairmanship:

1. The Democrats have been magnanimous in victory and opted to change the tone in Washington
2. The Democrats are playing politics as usual by acting on personal loyalty instead of the best interests of the country

Read more »

More on Lieberman: Here’s the point

Thanks to my great readers and commenters for keeping me honest regarding Joe Lieberman. They don’t like that I’ve suggested the Democrats should treat him nicely, and I can totally understand that, but I’d like to explain a bit further.

First, I think I can find the most common ground with commenter Karl:

Read more »

Amy Klobuchar on Joe Lieberman

I know a lot of liberals are not too pleased with my position that Lieberman should remain in the Democratic caucus. I’m happy, though, to stand with our Senator, Amy Klobuchar.

Take a look at what Sen. Klobuchar had to say:

(You can also see the video on YouTube)

Whither Lieberman?

A situation in which the Dems will need to be pragmatic is still out there. It’s looking increasingly likely — although still a long shot — that we could reach 60 seats in the Senate. It looks like Mark Begich is going to win in Alaska, Al Franken has a great chance here in Minnesota, and Jim Martin is close to Saxby Chambliss in the Georgia runoff polls. If Begich, Franken, and Martin are all elected, Lieberman should be allowed to keep his committee chairmanship on the condition that he votes with the Democrats to cut off Republican filibusters.

If any one of these three candidates falls short, then being pragmatic isn’t as important anymore. We’ll have to win Republican support for filibusters regardless of Lieberman’s party affiliation, so there’s no real reason to keep him.

Nonetheless, I wonder if kicking Lieberman out of the caucus is necessary. Quite frankly, I don’t really care about Lieberman’s fate, and getting rid of him would make the blogosphere happy. But do we really want the Democrats’ first act under their sizable majority to be taking vengeance on a Senator who hasn’t voted with the party line?

I think we there is something to be said for following Barack Obama’s lead, and being magnanimous in victory. That said, even if we do keep him, Lieberman will be on double-secret probation. He needs to work for the party, not against it.

Democrats: The Blue Dogs are your friends

It was inevitable that this would happen. Now that the Democrats have had their second “wave” victory, now that they have gained control of the presidency as well as sizable majorities in both houses in Congress, there are many in the grassroots who want the part to move sharply to the left. In fact, rather than gearing up to fight the Republicans in 2010, many are getting ready to challenge moderate and conservative Democrats instead.

That’s the discussion going on right now at Firedoglake, where Jane Hamsher disapprovingly cites a Yahoo News article on the Blue Dogs (i.e. conservative Democrats):

Read more »

The Democrats have a mandate: Time to build the brand

After this election, the Democrats have a big mandate. Ultimately, though, I think we owe our electoral victories less to our own successes than to Republican failures. That means there’s a lot of work to do. Now is the time for us to redefine ourselves and reintroduce ourselves to the American people. By acting on a clear, positive, center-left agenda, Democrats can reframe the party positively and take the upper hand for the next twenty years.

For thirty years now, we’ve let ourselves be tarred and feathered by conservatives who have been stronger communicators than us. But now, we have a chance to set the record straight:

• Democratic policies create jobs
• Democrats raise taxes only on the wealthiest Americans
• Democrats have sensible, yet strong foreign policies

I will have a lot to say about this in the future. I will be coming back to this theme time and time again over the next two years. Democrats are finally learning to fight back. Over the next two, four, hopefully even eight years, we’re going to show the American people that Democratic policies will bring prosperity for everyone.

If the Democrats win a supermajority, they should govern from the center

There’s an excellent chance that Democrats, both in Minnesota and nationally, could win this election with large enough margins to render the Republicans completely unnecessary. In the U.S. Senate, FiveThirtyEight.com puts the probability of the Democrats winning a filibuster-proof majority at about 31 percent, and the probability of having a 60-seat majority without Joe Lieberman at 20 percent. In the MN Senate, the DFL has a veto-proof majority, and they need just 5 more seats in the MN House to be able to override a Pawlenty veto without Republican help.

A Democratic (or DFL) supermajority would open the door to a lot of policy changes, but I worry that it would also open the door to overzealous lawmakers making policy changes that are a bit too sweeping in nature. Most of all, I’m concerned that the Democrats having ultimate power will ultimatley lead to a backlash in 2010. With that in mind, Democrats need to govern from the center, and use their large majorities to build long-term support for the party. It’s tempting to make as many policy changes as possible before getting thrown out, but that’s a short-sighted way to approach governing. Here’s how the Democrats can build long-term support for the party:

1. Govern from the center. There’s a reason Americans usually vote for divided government: neither party’s extremists have the right answers. The best course of action is usually somewhere in the middle. The Democrats can’t allow our extremists to rule the party. We should be proudly and unapologetically liberal, but we shouldn’t overestimate our mandate.

2. Make policy changes slowly and steadily. While many people are voting for “change” this year, that doesn’t mean they want a revolution within 3 months of the Democrats taking office. Without Republicans gumming up the works, Democrats have a chance to create a “do-something” Congress. However, that’s not the same as a “do-everything” Congress. Voters will see too much action as even worse than too little action. Democrats should clearly articulate a modest agenda, and move through it methodically and transparently.

3. Stay on message and communicate with the voters. Just because the election is over doesn’t mean communication should stop. The Democrats need to be in touch with the voters, explaining what they’re doing and why. It’s crucial to explain why we believe in the policy changes we are making, and how they will impact the voters. If we’re going to hold on to our majorities, voters need to understand and support Democratic policies.

4. Give the Republicans more power than they’ve earned. The Democrats have a chance to put a stop to the rancorous tone in the Capitol by not freezing out the Republicans. Giving the Republicans an important voice on policy issues will ultimately lead to better policies, and it can help thaw the bitter partisanship that has developed in recent years. Of course, the Democrats also need to make it clear that this will only last if the Republicans act in the spirit of cooperation; ultimately, we have the votes to do what we want.

5. Prove that government can be good. One of the biggest difficulties in competing with conservatives over the past 30 years has been their ability to run the government poorly, and then successfully claim that government is the problem. The Democrats need to restore trust in the government. First, we need to show that the government can be a force for good. Second, we need to show once and for all that liberal policies are not about government for the sake of government.

Ultimately, I don’t believe the recent Democratic electoral successes have come because our party has done a good job; they’ve come because the Republicans have done a bad job. After 2008, we can’t just blame the Republicans anymore. We need to show that our party can lead, and provide smart, moderate policy changes. The strategy I’ve outlined here is a start. Over the next year, I’ll have a lot more to say on building a long-term liberal majority.

In all fairness

Liberals, let’s not condemn rabid Republicans until we’ve first addressed those on our own side:

Is America a conservative nation?

One of the lines I’ve been a lot of lately from the hand-wringers on the conservative blogs is that America is fundamentally a conservative nation. Are we really? You might not be surprised to know that I disagree.

On social issues, we do have a fairly conservative history. We were originally, after all, a nation of Puritans. Nevertheless, we have followed a steady trend of expanding freedoms to one group or another, which will certainly continue slowly but surely. Yesterday’s passage of a new civil rights bill for people with disabilities is just one example of the continued march of human rights.

The trend will only accelerate in the future. My generation is widely considered to be far more open-minded than previous generations, and as the generation “in charge” begins to be replaced, we will see a drastic shift to the left on social issues. My generation believes that marriage is simply a commitment made by two people who love each other. We believe in racial and religious tolerance. And we have grown up with science and technology as integral parts of our lives.

On fiscal issues, we haven’t been a conservative nation for a long time. Oh, we’ve flirted with fiscal conservatism from time to time, because it sounds good on the surface. The soundbite — lower taxes, fewer rules — sounds great, I’ll admit. Unfortunately, the flip side of lower taxes is a lack of investment and a private market run amok. That’s not how we became the most successful nation in the world; we got to where we are today by investing in our people and our infrastructure.

Ironically, we could never even flirt with fiscal conservatism if our infrastructure and institutions had not been developed as well as they were. Being able to reduce taxes and investment is the privilege of a developed nation served well by its liberal past. So yes, from time to time, we have taken advantage of our nation’s solid foundation to ease tax rates. We always come back, though, to an understanding that we want our children to do better than us, and that we owe them the same solid foundation we’ve had.

I don’t buy that we are a fundamentally conservative nation at all. Yes, over the past eight years, our nation has shifted to the right. Indeed, it’s been our farthest shift to the right in a long time. Now, though, we’re seeing the results, and once again, we don’t like them. In the 2008 election, we will once again choose liberalism, and restore our country’s moral and fiscal foundations.

Bob Herbert: Hold Your Heads Up

I’ve been feeling shell-shocked over the last few days by the unbelievable double-standards in American politics lately. For some reason, conservatives can spew invective about liberals, but not the other way around. Mitt Romney, one of the wealthiest men in the country, is able to get away with calling Barack Obama “elitist.” John McCain and Sarah Palin figure if they say the same lie often enough, it’ll be okay; and it seems to be working.

So it was just the right time for this fantastic piece by Bob Herbert in the New York Times. I’m going to post as much of it as I feel ethical about. Read the rest here!

Ignorance must really be bliss. How else, over so many years, could the G.O.P. get away with ridiculing all things liberal?

Troglodytes on the right are no respecters of reality. They say the most absurd things and hardly anyone calls them on it. Evolution? Don’t you believe it. Global warming? A figment of the liberal imagination.

Liberals have been so cowed by the pummeling they’ve taken from the right that they’ve tried to shed their own identity, calling themselves everything but liberal and hoping to pass conservative muster by presenting themselves as hyper-religious and lifelong lovers of rifles, handguns, whatever.

…

Liberals. Your food is safer because of them, and so are your children’s clothing and toys. Your workplace is safer. Your ability (or that of your children or grandchildren) to go to college is manifestly easier.

Go read the rest!

Democrat = sucker

Does this sound familiar?

We accepted him at his word that all he needed was the authority and that he wasn’t going to exercise it. Then he used his authority very aggressively…

No, it’s not a Democrat complaining about the Iraq War resolution. It was a Democrat complaining about Secretary Paulson’s bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (via NY Times).

When in the world will the Democrats learn? If you don’t want something to happen, then don’t vote for the bill. If somebody asked you for a blank check, but assured you that they wouldn’t actually ever cash it, would you give it to him? Because I have a feeling most Democratic Senators would.

My point here isn’t the bailout, and I don’t want to discuss whether the resolution was good or bad. It’s beyond my limited understanding of economics, and there seems to be a pretty wide consensus that it was necessary. I just wanted to take this moment to point out, yet again, how bad Democrats are at politics. We’d better start learning, or we’re gonna get wrecked in 2012.

Do liberals love government for the sake of government?

To hear conservatives like David Strom tell it, government intervention is an end in itself for liberals. They love to tell their readers that our goal is a large government, however illogical that may be. In fact, a while back Strom actually wrote that we dream of “government meddling.” Of course, I don’t think you’ll meet too many liberals who agree; we have more important goals in mind. Liberals seek justice, economic growth, safe neighborhoods, international respect for our country, etc. Sometimes the government is a vehicle through which these goals are achieved, and sometimes it isn’t.

While liberals often use the government to achieve certain goals, crippling the government is a fundamental objective of many conservatives. Grover Norquist, of the Americans for Tax Reform, famously said his goal was to “make government so small I can drown it in a bathtub.” So it makes sense that everything is about the government to them: they refuse to admit that it has its place, and they see everything through the lens of seeking its destruction.

Why are they so obsessed with obliterating the government? First of all, it’s because they don’t understand the amount of support they’ve had to achieve success in their lives, and they believe we’d be better off without government investment and regulation. They don’t understand that none of us would have achieved our level of well-being without the aid of the American government. Second, their stance comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government in our society. They see the government and the private sector as two competing entities, and they believe the private sector is always better.

The fact is, the government and the private sector have different roles in our society, and they ought to be kept separate. I’ll readily admit that the government will never be a more efficient substitute for the private market. In a recent comment on this blog, David Strom blamed Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) like Fannie Mae for the housing crisis. I don’t believe they were responsible, but I also don’t think GSEs are a good idea either. Let the private market handle the private market; our government has enough to do without trying to recreate the market through GSEs. However, the private market will never replace the public sector either. Lord knows the Bush administration has tried; they’ve even gone so far as to replace portions of our army with private mercenaries. How’s that working out for us?

The bottom line: Government intervention isn’t our goal, but neither are we afraid of it. The private market isn’t always the best solution to every problem. When the private market is the best means to achieve our goals, we use that; when the government is the best tool, we use that. So what are our goals? I’ll start discussing that next week.

Obama already taking steps to build Democratic party, shrink GOP

I wrote recently that, despite having an advantage in the 2006 and 2008 election, the Democrats ultimately have a lot of work to do to gain the upper-hand over the Republicans when it comes to political strategy. I also suggested that, with Barack Obama as president, he could help move the Democrats toward that goal. Well, he’s not even president yet, and he’s already started whipping the party into shape. From the American Prospect (via Political Wire):

For all the talk of post-partisan “unity,” Barack Obama has been proving himself the most party-focused presidential candidate in recent history–possibly ever. Paradoxically, although Obama’s success has been more dependent on personal charisma than any recent nominee’s has, he’s been leveraging that charisma to build a broader Democratic infrastructure less dependent on the presidential nominee.

…

Historically, the Democratic Party has operated less as a strong party than as an uncertain coalition. It has been regionally fractured, racially divided, ideologically torn, and economically disparate… Rather than acting as a single institution united around a common agenda, the party was all too often a nominal nation-state in which sets of warring fiefdoms protected their properties and sought expansion.

…

If Bill Clinton’s project for the Democratic Party was mostly ideological, Obama’s is mostly organizational. Clinton sought to change the party’s ideas; Obama is more interested in building its infrastructure.

That’s exactly what we need right now. When it comes down to it, Obama’s policies are good but nothing special. It’s unlikely that he will truly be able to change the entrenched culture in Washington, D.C. all by his lonesome. However, he’ll have one long-lasting impact: he will remake the Democratic party into one that is competitive for the coming decades.

Read more »