Sanford and Son

If there's one Democrat who might see a silver lining in Mark Sanford's win this week in a special House election in South Carolina, it's Anthony Weiner.

Sanford's victory bodes well for Weiner for several reasons, as the former Twitter King mulls an uphill bid for the Democratic nomination for New York City mayor. First, Sanford's transgressions eclipse Weiner's by a longshot. While both were guilty of infidelity, Sanford went freaking AWOL for almost a week from his job as the political leader of an entire state. It was actual dereliction of duty.

As for the infidelity, Sanford had a physical affair while Weiner had less unethical virtual trysts. Sanford's infidelity had an emotional dimension, which were not apparent, at least on the surface, in Weiner's.

The parallels extend to the dynamics of their respective elections.  Sanford eventually prevailed because he ran in a heavily Republican district in a very red state--a place where Mitt Romney defeated President Obama by 18 points.  The inherent weakness of any Democrat left the door open for Sanford.

Likewise, in the Democratic primary field in New York, Christine Quinn has an early lead in polls but her numbers aren't taking off the way one might hope they would for a sitting City Council Speaker against lesser known (which isn't to say unknown) opponents. Nor are buzz or endorsements by top movers and shakers. Could it be Weiner who steps into the void as the non-Quinn?

Either way, there's no way we're posting this commentary without also including the following clip. May the tune stay in your head all day.

Eric Cantor, Chuck Hagel, and the pro-Israel lobby

Guest blogged today at The Political Carnival on Eric Cantor, Chuck Hagel, and the role of Israel in American politics.  To see that short post, which criticizes GOP hypocrisy on Hagel's "Jewish lobby" comment, see here.

Meanwhile, two short notes here.  First, we hope the world becomes safer for folks to suggest policies that don't necessarily mark a rubber stamp of what the Israel lobby and other Israel supporters desire (and that comment is not meant to suggest it's a monolithic group).  Second, good riddance to GOP efforts to paint itself as the more pro-Israel party.

A couple of good posts on the role of Israel in American politics include this recent piece from The American Conservative over what it sees as the failure of the GOP’s effort to promote itself as the more pro-Israel of the two parties. Also, the Christian Science Monitor had an interesting analysis just after the election on why Israel was 2-to-1 pro-Romney but almost 70 percent of American Jews voted Obama.

Finally, for an article in Foreign Policy by Aaron David Miller shortly before his nomination in January, see here.  Miller wrote the article in which Hagel made his comment about the Jewish lobby in 2006.

Big business versus the free market. Or, why Elizabeth Warren is a friend to capitalists.

Elizabeth Warren, as we discussed in our previous post, made headlines for her Senate Banking Committee debut, when she expressed concern that recent investigations into wrongdoing at large financial firms too often have resulted in settlements rather than lawsuits.

The dominant narrative was that her questioning of financial industry regulators was confirmation both of Warren’s progressive bona fides and, viewed from another angle, of her penchant for being a thorn in the side of capitalists.  There's no sign that narrative will change anytime soon.  Which is too bad, because defenders of the free market should be walking arm-in-arm with Warren, not fighting her at every step.

Warren’s actions don't threaten capitalism—if anything, the will help save it.  You could write a book to make the point, but it can be summarized with two questions.  1. Which of the following have business and financial industry groups spent the least amount of time combating—unions, regulations, or financial industry corruption?  2. Which of the three has come the closest to knee-capping the global economy?  If you answered corruption both times, then you’re right. 

Warren is crusading against the single biggest enemy of our free market economy that exists today.  Why are business and financial interests so lined up against efforts to stamp out corruption and to help provide folks some more certainty when the purchase a good or service?  Surely, they all know that trust is paramount to the proper functioning of a free market, as it helps economic actors to accurately calculate the utility of any given exchange of goods or services and thus, via the invisible hand, then maximize social utility?

The answer is quite simple--the banking industry and too many (which isn't to say all, business groups don't really hold free market principles all that dear.  These folks go on and on about the free market.  They link it to their overall world view and ascribe a religious element to it, and posit it as a core component of American freedom and our founding story.  But once those free market principles come into conflict with their raw self-interest, to hell with it.

If there is one thing to come of Elizabeth Warren’s tenure in the Senate, I hope it’s that people realize that, when it comes down to a choice between their own well-being and the principles of the free market, many on Wall Street and K Street, and their supporters on either side of the congressional aisle  have about as much interest in the free market as they do in increasing workers’ or consumers’ rights.

The free market, while not perfect, is the best form of economic organization humans have conceived so far.  Tempered with some common sense adjustments, like social insurance and laws that help regulate interactions among strangers, the market is our best path to prosperity.

Applying the discipline of market forces to the charlatans who claim to love the market while trampling on it when it suits them is the only way the freedom and economic security that are being hoarded by the few can be properly allocated to many others whose hard work doesn't pay off the way it should in any sane system.  It’s one market correction that is long overdue.

Some notes on Elizabeth Warren's Banking Committee debut

A few notes on Elizabeth Warren, who made a big impression with her tough questioning (opponents called it grandstanding) Thursday of financial industry regulators.  In short, Warren took regulators to task for never, at least in recent memory, having taken a big Wall Street bank to trial--preferring to pursue settlements instead. The video:

People sat up and took notice, from Warren backers who praised her for showing the toughness and seriousness on financial industry malfeasance that has been missing over the past half decade since our near-financial collapse, to Wall Street executives who expressed consternation over the remarks.

First note: What a major fail by the banking industry. The effort to keep Warren from leading the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which she helped conceive and set up was successful, but she responded by running for the Senate and handily beating a popular incumbent (admittedly in a very blue state).  Now she has a spot on the powerful Senate Banking Committee, the ear of the national media, and a platform for joint appearances with key regulators and industry big wigs that she would not have as head of the CFPB.  One of the bigger political fails in recent memory. Well done, banking industry and friends.

Second note: Warren made a simple point: that she understands that settlements are sometimes necessary, but that she was concerned that they seemed to be the sole recourse of the federal regulators who are in charge of ensuring a fair, and thus properly functioning, free market.  Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Elisse Walter told reporters after the hearing that, "I think Senator Warren was suggesting that we should take big Wall Street banks to trial even when we are getting all the relief we can get at trial through a settlement." Thomas Curry, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, said that he didn't have to bring cases to trial "in order to meet our supervisory goals."

As Warren put it, starting around :55 of the video above, is that a bank that can commit gross illegality, make huge profits, and then give some of that profit back as a penalty doesn't have much of an incentive to stop its behavior. Also, trials offer something that settlements don't: putting the behavior of banks on full view.  This shame, and this damage to their credibility as service providers and parties to business deals, is probably more effective than even a large monetary fine ever could be. Settlements let banks escape without admitting any wrongdoing. I'm not advocating for a process-as-punishment regime.  I'm talking about prosecutors using their discretion to bring cases to trial when the evidence suggests guilt.  As Warren notes, she's not asking prosecutors to do anything they don't do when deciding how to treat various other criminal offenders who might not have the money or muscle of Wall Street.

More on Warren in our next post. For now, we conclude on a lighter note: what must Joe Manchin (D-WV), a Democrat but from a conservative state, have been thinking during this questioning?  Maybe something along the lines of "Keep a straight face, keep a straight face."

A couple resolutions in the name of political civility

We ring in the new year with a request for three simple resolutions for 2013, each of them in the name of civility.  Most of us are already abiding by these resolutions, but we should be batting a thousand.

First, no more making fun of John Boehner for crying in public.

The Democrats are the pro-woman party, both in perception and in reality. Making fun of a man for crying reinforces gender stereotypes, which are used for one thing: to further discrimination and inequality. If it's not OK for a man to cry, then it's a small step for it being not OK for a woman to be tough (without being called a bitch). Seriously, cut the jokes and the gratuitous pictures of a tearful Speaker. (Sidenote: Type in "Boehner" in google and "Boehner crying" is  on the list, behind "Boehner fiscal cliff" and "Boehner Obama." Is it really that fascinating?)

Second, on a similar note, let's cut the references to Lindsay Graham as either a woman or a lesbian ("Lindsay Graham gay" first result on google).  As with ridiculing Boehner for crying, making fun of Graham for occasional instances of what is perceived as a less-than-masculine appearance fuels gender norms and, in this case, norms about sexuality. Let's cut the gender typing and heteronormative slurs, and stick to the many substantive criticisms that Graham is deserving of.  Not least of which is Mr. In Your Face's role in GOP obstructionism--and the incessant blathering in the media that is part of his tired act.

Finally, ix-nay on the Chris Christie fat jokes. This is kindergarten-level stuff--don't say things that are not nice. And just because he can be a bully sometimes doesn't mean it makes things any better to bully him. Some would argue that weight is a legitimate health issue, and all presidential candidates are subjected to scrutiny about their health. But the line between concerned citizens wondering about a candidate's health and haters making fat jokes is perilously easy to cross. How about we shut up about this and just await either the thumbs-up or thumbs-down from Christie's physician come 2016. (Still not convinced we can leave this topic alone--think about the relative quiet regarding cancer survivor John McCain's health in 2008.)  It'd be nice if the media was a shining example on this one, alas...

All these points are obvious--or should be. The GOP has plenty of individuals who name-call, disparage, and discriminate against large swaths of other Americans. They include this anti-gay bunch who will be getting some press now that some in the GOP suddenly care about gay people in the wake of Chuck Hagel's nomination to head the Department of Defense. They have the market cornered on this.  But let's make it a shutout, so to speak, and let the GOP's bigots and obstructionists have the floor to themselves.

History awaits: Boehner can send the GOP a Dear John letter and become a hero of American politics

It’s time for John Boehner to start working on a Dear John letter to some of his Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives.  If he can just find 17 fellow members of his caucus to follow his lead after January 1, he can make a deal with Nancy Pelosi to remain Speaker of the House and usher in what will qualify—relative to the recent past—as a golden era of productivity and compromise.

Crazy?  Not as crazy as the two main alternatives, which are for Boehner 1) to proceed, neutered, as the Speaker in a 113^th Congress that is shaping up to be as hugely pathetic and unpopular as the ones that immediately came before it, or 2) leave his post as Speaker—either voluntarily or via an internal coup—and possibly see his political career come to an end.  Both options would relegate him to either anonymity or ignominy historically, especially without any lasting consequential policy accomplishments to point to.

But if he made a deal with Pelosi, he could become an historical and transformative figure.  I defy anyone to deny that.  First, the sheer chutzpah would earn him accolades from everyone except the right wingers who have already openly embarrassed him.  It would be one of the greatest displays of guts in American political history, and he would become the stuff of legend.  Second, in a country that dreams of moderation and a break from the two-party stranglehold on the political process, he would be hailed as a savior, or at least a co-savior, with Pelosi (who woulda thunk it!) and President Obama. 

Third, he would usher in an era of potentially great legislative productivity, in which Democrats made some concessions that allowed for legislation that could be sold to the left, but also to serious Republicans and right-leaning independents. It could be an era in which compromise was seen as a virtue, in which getting things done was at least equally as important as totally getting your way.  The kind of compromise that our Founders envision.  Finally, this could be the last, best chance to break the extremists and bring the GOP back from the brink.  In that sense, he can also tell himself and others that he is doing it for his party, too.

There are risks.  Boehner and those who followed him would surely trigger massive primary challenges, which would be well-funded by the usual suspects.  But there are two years until the next election.  These folks would have a pretty good ride, even if they did lose.  And they’d have two years for some of the anger to die down, thus muting the deleterious electoral effects. If the move were successful, and we had a more functional Congress, that would be rewarded at the ballot box.  Because it’s easy to forget in all the acrimony, that we have some serious policy issues that need some kind of action.  With Boehner and his brave band of brothers and sisters occupying prominent roles (as they would) and exuding the kind of strength that comes with courage and with the competent legislating they’d be doing, a lot of voters would give credit where credit is due.

Even if they did ultimately lose in a primary, it could be worth it.  Look at Pelosi—she lost her Speakership but she accomplished a lot.  I’m sure that’s something she’d rather tell her grandchildren than to say she occupied the top slot for its own sake, or to eke out minor victories that would soon be forgotten.

Corralling votes isn’t his strong suit lately—but Boehner’s search for 17 like-minded Republicans can bypass the nuts who he (and, let’s face it, anyone else) can’t control, and instead focus on the adults in the party.  There’s also no guarantee the Democrats would go for it, but they’d be insane not to.

The choice seems clear to me—two years of boring, unproductive politics, or an era of exhilarating, downright fun, and relatively productive federal governance.

The pragmatic Presidency: Free markets and false choices

It is well known that Mitt Romney came out in favor ofeither abolishing or greatly weakening the Federal Emergency Management Agency when asked about it earlier this year.  Devolve it to the states or, better yet, to the private sector, he suggested.  Romney is avoiding follow-up questions on this now, while his campaign is flip-flopping and trying to say he didn’t really mean what he meant. (Hell, I’d flip-flop on this one, too.)

Meanwhile, President Obama has received high marks for his administration’s hurricane response thus far including, to the head-exploding dismay of the Right, from Chris Christie.  Christie also gave FEMA multiple shout outs on national TV.

The bigger lesson here is that governing is quite often not about ideology, either because the question at hand doesn’t have a tie-in to ideology, or because pragmatism, not ideology, needs to win the day.

FEMA is a case in point.  We can argue all day about local control and what the relative role of the state and the private sector should be in 2012 America.  But, in the end, it simply makes more sense for there to be a strong federal emergency response system.   The system, as long as it’s not staffed by grossly incompetent political hacks, works pretty well.

And there’s reason to believe that it works more efficiently, too. Devolving FEMA to the states would either force redundant efforts, which would cost extra money, and they would require regional coordination bodies would be needed to handle the multi-state nature of most large disasters. That would add to the bureaucracy, something that could only appeal to local control/private sector fetishists like Mitt Romney who are so wedded to their ideology of near-total obliteration of the government that they ignore empirical reality.

The Republicans have tried their hardest to keep this election about ideology for two reasons.  First, the party—which should more accurately be called the GOP/Tea Party—is increasingly filled with uncompromising ideological zealots.   Second, it’s easier to win an election when it’s run on this fictional topic than on reality.  Their best hope is try to sell the lie that there’s a great difference between the parties in terms of the role of the private sector and the role of government. 

In reality, the difference isn’t all that stark.  There are more similarities than there are differences. It also helps to explain why the GOP tries to dredge up the ghost of Communist Russia when discussing Obama. They need to cite a dead bogeyman to sharpen the comparison because the reality isn’t so compelling. The GOP may hate Obamacare, but its standard bearer loved Romneycare. And, where were the cries of Bolshevism when George W. Bush advanced Medicare Part B?

Moreover, the GOP pretty much has the monopoly on statist social policy. Sure, today’s hardcore Republicans are trying to convince folks that the rich paying more taxes is more invasive and offensive to freedom than, say, a mandated transvaginal ultrasound or the ban on abortions that most likely would happen in a Romney administration. But that’s why they’re losing the election, and why women (and those males who can best empathize with them) still are solidly pro-Democrat in the big picture.

This also reminds us that some of the biggest failings of the Bush administration were practical matters, such as Katrina, and of a failed Cheney-Rumsfeld war strategy.  Putting aside whether one agreed with the false and strategically blundering, ideologically-tinted reasoning for going to war, part of the disaster was a failure on practical grounds.

It would be the death of the Romney campaign if the election were decided on issues of competency and reasonableness, on how Obama performed in gut-check scenarios.  That’s why Democrats keep mentioning two of the big ones (and ones where Romney said he would have acted differently): saving GM and ending bin Laden.  The first was a political risk that was more interventionist than Democrats want to be (and certainly more interventionist than some independents like). The second was a strategic decision that had little to do with ideology. But that’s what the presidency is about.  Not about some fairy tale that Ayn Rand wrote, a fairy tale that will end poorly if it is ever the guiding philosophy of the many pragmatic policy decisions we face today.