TR had the Square Deal.  FDR had the New Deal.  Harry S has the Fair Deal. Barack Obama will have the Raw Deal.

So a debt-ceiling “deal” has been reached.  Going in to this, the President was willing to compromise but had a few lines in the sand:

1. Some deficit reduction would have to come from new revenues.
2. There would be an extension through the 2012 elections.
3. The big social safety net programs would be protected.

What did he get?  None of these.  None of them.  What he got was a temporary extension of the debt ceiling, but he must take ownership of it now and again in six months.  He got a “super congress” stacked against him with triggers that hurt only one side.  He got an agreement that the hostage-taker would not shoot the hostage at this time, though he let the hostage-taker keep the gun and even gave him more bullets.

He got rolled.  That’s what he got.

I am not a Tea Party default denialist.  I fully understand that the scope of a default would be unprecedented and uncharted and very likely catastrophic.  I just don’t see how surrendering the principle of democratic government is better.  The Republicans know that their policies would be unpopular — fatally so, in fact.  So they don’t try to enact them.  Instead they manipulate the far-too-easily-manipulated Democrats into making the hard choices, doing the hard things, and then getting savaged by an electorate that doesn’t understand what’s going on and can’t be bothered to learn.

There are many who say the President should have stared down the Republicans and bluffed harder about using the so-called constitutional option, invoking the 14th Amendment.  I’m not one of those; I don’t believe in bluffing.  He should have stared down the Republicans fully intending to invoke the 14th Amendment if need be,  He should have said, This far and no further.  He would have looked decisive because he would have been decisive.  He would have the public on his side.  More importantly, he would have been right.  And given the certainty of disaster implicit in the rise of the Crazy Caucus to power, a roll of the dice would have been preferable.

I’ve already called my congressman to find out where he’ll vote.  (It’s Yes for surrender.)  And I’ve implored him (or rather his intern) to reconsider.  The best option for the country right now is that this abomination goes down to defeat in the House.  (It seems assured passage in the Senate.)  Then, with the clock ticking, the President can demand a clean bill to save the nation’s credit rating, with these tough choices made not under pressure from a hostage-taker.  Sadly, on this, apparently the Democrats have found their message unity that they so often lack.

The best hope for the nation, then, is that the Crazy Caucus, having been handed literally everything it wanted, will find itself still congenitally unable to take “Yes” for an answer — that the Tea Party’s visceral hatred for that upstart in the White House will compel them to vote against a bill their own leadership has negotiated and is whipping hard.

Yes, our only hope lies in the rabid right.  May Heaven help us all.икониПравославни икониикони на светци

And if so, what cn be done about it?

A study referenced in Discover has the provocative conclusion that seeing a small American flag while completing a political questionnaire can induce the respondents into being more Republican, even up to 8 months later. Is our society doomed by our optic nerves to surrender to the rabid right?

First off, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If the description given is accurate, this study doesn’t meet the bar. The sample size is smallish (worse for the followup) and the controls seem ill-defined. Correlation doesn’t imply causation, of course. There is also a danger in defining some policies as solely Republican, or pretending that the conservative position is monolithic. Serious replication efforts are called for.

But for the moment assume the causitive effect is real. Why would seeing a flag make one more identify more with Republican views? I would argue it’s because, since the 1960s, the Republicans have highjacked the symbols and language of patriotism. They have been aided in this by the tacit complicity of the media (which like simplistic us-v-them soundbites), the Democratic Party (which has been timid in defense of its country and of itself), and the American people (who have lazily accepted the sports-team approach to politics pioneered by Fox News and embraced by the rabid right).

What path of action is there for progressives and liberals, who perhaps might be driven to despair over the apparent psychobiological advantage this gives the Republicans? The same one as always: Fight back by reclaiming those symbols. The advantage comes from two crossed circuits in people’s brains: “flags = patriotism = good” and “flags = Republican”. This leads them to erroneously conclude “Republican = good”. Progressives must break the chain at the second link. If we concede owenership of the trappings of patriotism to the rabid right, we _will_ lose the public.

Granted, this will be a challenge. Firstly, a lot of time has been wasted and a lot of ground lost. People would have to unlearn their unexamined habits of thought, and no one welcomes that. More importantly, patriotism is more complex for progressives. The message of the rabid right is starkly simplistic: My country, wrong or right. America – love it or leave it. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. The progressive position is more abstract, more nuanced: I love my country, but I don’t always love what it does. I recognize its greatness but I also recognize the uncomfortable ugly truths that are part of its history. America is not the pinnacle of history; it is a path to a better tomorrow. That’s harder to sell. It’s harder to enforce message discipline. It’s harder to tweet.

But it is no less a stirring vision of America. Indeed, I believe it is more so. I think that the American people are sleeping, and in their slumber, the rabid right have been whispering illusions of a center-right nation. But at root, despite it all, the American people are a smart and a good people who will not dream forever. They believe not in an America that never was but in an America that should be. That is a message that finds far more resonance in the progressive ethos.

Do people associate the flag with Republicanism? Has the rabid right seized the symbols of patriotism? Maybe. But that’s not reason to surrender them. It’s a call to take them back.

The 14th Amendment is more-or-less the Swiss Army amendment of the US Constitution.  It defines citizenship, extends constitutional protections to state constitutions, and so on.  Lately, it’s become popular to posit that it also holds the key to avoiding a default of US credit.  Specifically, Section 4 reads

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

That last bit is not particularly relevant right now.  But the first part (in bold) — it is said — could be.  President Obama could cite that portion of the 14th Amendment and direct the agencies of the United States Government to issue debt pursuant to the existing budget, regardless of whether that debt exceeds the amount authorized under the debt ceiling.  Voila! Crisis averted!  (See, for example, this piece by Jonathan Zasloff in the Washington Monthly.)

This 14th Amendment option is decisive, elegant — and completely irrelevant.

As appealing as it is to dream that the President can resolve this issue with a stroke of the pen, it’s a fantasy or, better, a delusion.  The Constitutional argument may seem reasonable but it’s certainly no slam dunk: reasonable legal minds can differ on its validity.  Whether or not it ever gets litigated before the Supreme Court, it would be argued in the public square forever.  And that’s the clincher: The fact that it would be hotly contested — and not just by reflexive anti-Obamites — renders it pointless.

Why?  Because debate over the debt limit is a crisis for one reason only: It’s pointing up the increasing dysfunction of the American political process.  A default by any debtor is bad for creditors and, eventually, for the debtor as well, as he/she will have to pay a higher interest rate to compensate investors for their lack of confidence in his/her ability to repay.  But a default by the US is infinitely worse.  No one is seriously worried that the US can’t repay its debt.  The market is worried that the US won’t repay it — that our political process has become so broken that we would rather endure a deadlock that cripples our economy than compromise on any principle.  We face not economic bankruptcy but political bankruptcy — a sense that our historic form of government is unequal to the problems we face.

With that in mind, it clearly doesn’t matter if the President waves a magic wand, or a magic signing pen, and declares the debt ceiling obviated.  The mere fact that he would need to do so would indicate that the political process has collapsed — that partisan rancor and madness have overtaken deliberative government.  The market would be further dismayed by the all-too-certain immediate explosion of anger and acrimony — the calls for impeachment, the impassioned bewailing on FOX News, etc.  Many investors might well refuse to lend, not knowing the ultimate legal status of debt incurred under this executive action.

A failure to raise the debt ceiling — no matter how artfully the President and the Treasury dance around it — confirms our transformation into a banana republic.  The market will not look kindly on that.  History, I suspect, will be even harsher.

Well, by extension.  They’ve invited John Yoo to participate in a forum on “A Conversation on Civility and Democracy in America” — apparently without a blink of irony, too.  Yoo, you might recall, is the author of the infamous Torture Memos, that said the United Stated could and would abandon its obligations under the Geneva Conventions because, well, President Bush wanted to.  He also said that the President could order warrantless surveillance on, well, anybody, ’cause you know, the terror and all.

I knew that UC Berkeley had somehow decided to allow this lowlife to sit on its faculty, but somehow, the fact that the National Constitution Center is loaning him its gravitas really struck home for me.  And while I have no connection, even remote, to Berkeley, I do have one small lever with the NCC: I am a member.  Now, I have to decide if I’ll continue to be one.

My note of outrage to the NCC is posted below the fold.

I have been a proud member of the National Constitution Center for many years now.  Although I don’t often get down to Philadelphia to take in the Center’s exhibits, I feel the Center has a vital mission to educate the population and build its appreciation and respect for the US Constitution, one of the primary documents of human history and a cornerstone in humanity’s groping towards dignity and freedom.

You can imagine my surprise and dismay, then, to read that the Center will sully its good name and besmirch its grounds by inviting John Yoo to speak on “civility” in political discourse.  Although I have a high tolerance for political opinions of all stripes, I find myself disgusted that the Center would elevate the man responsible for the infamous “Torture Memos” and lend to him the gravitas of the Center’s work.  John Yoo, perhaps more than anyone else in the past decade, has undermined both the spirit and the letter of US law, has trampled upon the goodwill and good name of the United States, and done what he could to usher us toward a state of totalitarian oppression entirely at odds with the driving impulses of the US Constitution.  For anyone else, it would be the high mark of infamy to be author of memos advocating that the President willfully commit a felony (spying on Americans without warrants).  For John Yoo, this shredding of the 4th and 14th amendments is a mere footnote.

Inviting him to participate and then treating him as a respectable academic demonstrates wildly inept judgment on the part of the event’s organizers and of the Center itself.  I am forced to wonder if I can continue to support an institution that has decided to support John Yoo.  I hope the Center will reconsider and rescind its invitation, and stand with decent people everywhere in denouncing John Yoo, his dangerous theories of the “unitary executive”, and his embrace of torture under the aegis of legalized fictions.

Disappointed and disgusted,

-=-Bernard HP Gilroy

From a post by Steve Benen over at Political Animal:

In human history, it’s never been easier to get — and stay — well informed. Folks just have to take some responsibility. If they don’t, the result can be a dysfunctional democracy.

It’s impolitic to say this but not all pastimes and passions are equal. And the next time you bemoan the state of the economy or your due taxes or your summons to jury duty or the latest idiocy out of Washington — just pause for a moment and think about how much time you spend reading gossip columns, or devouring “reality” TV, or watching one overgrown overdosed tribe of jocks beat up on a different overgrown overdosed tribe of jocks. Is it really true that you don’t have the time to keep informed?  Or is it that you just don’t want to invest that time?

And if it’s the latter, do you really deserve the vote you’re accorded by virtue of your citizenship in an advanced democracy?

http://www.marktalk.com/blog/?p=10387

(Also hosted at Political Correction, in case the original gets “disappeared”, and reproduced below the fold here — although apparently it’s already been edited.)

I don’t really know really even to begin to comment on this “letter” from Tea Party Express chairman Mark Williams.  It takes something really, um, special to answer charges of racism by claiming that the N.A.A.C.P. is the one who’s racist. But the real kicker is the letter per se — a mock letter from N.A.A.C.P. president Benjamin Jealous, in which the mock-Jealous writes to Abraham Lincoln to request the repeal of the 13th and 14th amendments.  (Aside: What is it with these Tea Party fanatics and amendment repeal?)

Now, the truly Crowning Moment of Jerkitude comes in signing the letter with “Tom’s nephew”.  It takes a certain gumption — but not the good kind — to label a civil rights leader with “Uncle Tom”.

Quoted verbatim:

NAACP Resolution: Colored People change minds about emancipation

Thursday 7/15: Scroll down for update video

Astonishing.

In every one of the dozens of interviews that I have done regarding the anti-Tea Party resolution passed by the NAACP I have brought up the absurdity of a group that calls blacks “Colored People” hurling charges of racism. Whats more, each interviewer has defended that phrase and expressed surprise that I would consider that phrase to be racist!

Apparently Colored People are an entirely new race of people and one to which the title applies. Here NAACP President Precious Ben Jealous explains to President Abraham Lincoln the reasons for the resolution in this newly discovered letter :

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Colored People have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.

The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Colored People to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us Colored People! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of world would we have is I ever to control and be responsible for my life own? As Colored People we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions and if you do not agree than there is not enough Colored in your People, as we labeled Ken Gladney [source]

The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target Colored People. That means we Colored People would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! Totally racist! The tea party expects Colored People to be productive members of society, especially when our mission is to convince them that progress is impossible for them based on the color of their skin?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by someone else. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we say that belong.

Sincerely

Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Head Colored Person

Bravo, Paul Krugman!

“The Invisible Bond Vigilantes Continue Their Invisible Attack”

Could we call this the phantom menace? 

I hate to turn into just a site that reposts The Daily Show but sometimes they’re spot on.  The continued failure of President Obama to live up to his pre-election rhetoric on the rule of law is the most galling development of his administration.

This piece from the Atlantic captures my feeling pretty close to exactly, re: the recent Rand Paul flap on the Civil Rights Act and his alleged “courage”.  In particular, the conclusion:

Now, after the police dogs, night-sticks and fire-hoses have been beaten back, Rand Paul wants to reopen the question, while, to be sure, claiming that he would have had the “courage to march with Martin Luther King.” This is a common strain of courage. It chiefly shines through in men born 50 years too late. Presently among the crowd, they are distinguished at that decisive moment when queried about wars they won’t have to fight, in times they will never live. These men populate our history books. They are all on the wrong side.

Devastating.

An editorial cartoon responding to the Arizona immigration law

From the cartoonist Lee Judge ( http://media.kansascity.com/images/cartoons/judge/04-2010/judge_04272010_700.jpg)