As you may have heard, Glenn Beck has gotten himself into some serious hot water by suggesting that people (or more specificially, Christians) leave their churches or even their denominations behind if they harbor any talk about "social justice" or "economic justice," terms he identifies as "code" for communist- and Nazi-sponsored totalitarian designs. As usually interpreted, Beck's line sounds like a fairly common kulturkampf tactic by conservatives who are engaging in civil war against alleged "modernism" within the Roman Catholic Church, or who have been urging Protestants for years to abandon "liberal" mainline churches for various fundamentalist gatherings.

But if you listen to what Beck actually said yesterday, in another rant on the subject, he's saying something about Christianity that's a lot more radical than the usual back-to-the-1950s stuff about religion focusing on personal morality rather than caring for the poor. Calling "social justice" a "perversion of the Gospel," Rev. Glenn explains it this way:

Nowhere does Jesus say, "Hey, if someone asks for your shirt, give the government a coat, and then have the government give him a pair of slacks." You want to help out, you help out.

Now you often hear religious conservatives argue that state social welfare programs undermine the charitable instinct or the private organizations that help the poor. But Beck seems to be suggesting that any government efforts--indeed, any collective efforts--to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and so forth, are "perversions of the Gospel." Beck's Jesus is a strict libertarian.

Beck's original remarks were treated by some as a thinly veiled attack on the Catholic Church, since, as the conservative religious journal First Things quickly pointed out, the very term "social justice" was invented by a nineteenth-century Jesuit theologian interpreting St. Thomas Aquinas. "Social justice" isn't just a trendy contemporary slogan, and it certainly wasn't pioneered by communists or Nazis: it was the central theme of the great Social Encyclicals of various Popes, most notably Leo XIII, whose 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum, is considered especially normative.

More basically, the idea that Christianity is opposed to state action in pursuit of the common welfare is highly alien to both Catholic and Protestant traditions. Most religious observers would contend that "social justice" as practiced by communists and Nazis is a "perversion" of Christianity, and hardly any would confuse government-sponsored health and welfare programs with totalitarianism. Even amongst the hard-core Christian Right, most spokesmen save their Nazi analogies for attacks on legalized abortion.

As it happens, Beck is a Mormon, which isn't exactly a libertarian creed, either. But he's really endangering his status on the American Right by claiming that Jesus would today be out there with the Tea Party folk fulminating about the "looting" of taxpayers to help the poor.

Link | Comments (0)

One of the fundamental reasons for the kind of strategic analysis that TDS encourages and sponsors is that it's sometimes easy to conflate strategy and tactics, and more basically, means and ends. Indeed, I'd contend that most of the major disagreements among Democrats are attributable to this problem of arguing past each other because one side or the other is thinking in different terms about where a particular political or policy decision lies on the continuum that extends from day-to-day tactics all the way over to grand strategy. And that has certainly been true in the health care reform debate.

But we should all be able to agree on one thing: the ultimate objective in politics--particularly progressive politics--is to make changes in public policy that have a real, beneficient impact on the real-life experiences of the American people. When that opportunity presents itself on one of the major challenges facing this country, taking advantage of it trumps a lot of otherwise valid considerations.

And so, in all the back-and-forth this week about polling on health reform, and the possible consequences to the Democratic Party this November of enacting or failing to enact legislation, it is important not to forget the big picture here: the responsibility that most Democrats would accept for meeting the challenge of changing the health care system in a positive direction.

Matt Yglesias offers a good analogy to keep in mind in weighing the political risks involved in enacting health care reform this year:

[T]he measure of a political coalition isn’t how long it lasted, but what it achieved. From the tone of a lot of present-day political commentary you’d think that the big mistake Lyndon Johnson made during his tenure in the White House was that by passing the Civil Rights Act he wound up damaging the Democratic Party politically by opening the South up to the GOP. Back on planet normal, that’s the crowning achievement of his presidency.

From that perspective, there are still important short-term political factors for Democrats to keep in mind: the impact of future Republican gains on other important policy goals, and even the possibility that those gains will be so large that the next Congress or the one after that will repeal health reform legislation. Short of that, though, it's probably a moment for Democrats to keep their eyes on the prize and let the political chips fall where they may. It's not as though we haven't faced and overcome political adversity before, when we didn't necessarily have the chance to make large progress on one of the enduring policy goals of the party going back more than a half-century.

Link | Comments (0)

David Corn is on to something, in his Politics Daily column, "Could Financial Protection Bill Be a Secret Weapon for Democrats in 2010?" Corn sees Congressional Oversight Panel Chair Elizabeth Warren's proposal to establish a 'Consumer Financial Protection Agency' as a potential winner for Dems. He explains where her proposal is now:

...After the subprime crisis led to a global meltdown, her proposal picked up momentum, eventually becoming a centerpiece of President Obama's financial reform package. In the fall, the House passed a mostly strong version of the CFPA. Now, it's being considered by the Senate -- where Big Finance lobbyists and Republicans are trying to strangle this watchdog in the crib. On Monday, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is scheduled to release his financial reform package, and observers, including Warren, are waiting to see if it will contain a muscular and independent CFPA.

For weeks, Dodd has been negotiating with Republicans, who have objected to setting up the CFPA as a stand-alone agency (they favor shoving it into an existing department), and they do not fancy allowing this new outfit to enforce the safeguards it will establish. That is, they want it to be toothless. These Republicans are in league with an army of banking lobbyists working feverishly to destroy the CFPA. (Warren says that a trade association head recently told her that the financial industry has retained 54 lobbying firms to block the CFPA -- and a 55th to coordinate the maneuvers of the others.)...Whatever Dodd unveils next week, GOPers are likely to denounce it and plot to smother the CFPA. (Can you say filibuster?)

Given anger about high unemployment and the bailouts, Corn points out that "voters will be looking for targets...And there are more incumbents with D's after their names." He adds,

There may not be much the Democrats can do to escape an electoral tide of anger. But if they can show that the Republicans are protecting the Wall Street players who drove the economy into a ditch, that certainly can't hurt. To have any shot at this, though, the Dems have to cut through all the political clutter and make a clear case...If the GOPers stand in the way of creating a tough CFPA, the Democrats, led by Obama, ought to go crazy on this. Unlike, say, credit default swaps, this is not complicated. The president will merely have to say something like this: "It's a simple choice. Which side are you on? The banks or hard-working American families? Congressional Democrats and I are trying to create an agency that will protect you from the sleazy practices of banks and credit card companies. The Republicans are working behind closed doors with the lobbyists. Who do you want to win?"

Corn adds that, to make it work, the President must hang tough for a strong CFPA and embrace Warren's statement that she would rather see "no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor" than a limp CFPA. It's critically important for Dem candidates to be seen in November as advocates for strong consumer protection against continued abuse by financial corporations.

I think Corn is dead right, if only because many voters unfairly blame Obama and the Democrats for the banking bailouts. Giving Dems cred as champions of consumers against the financial industry's rapacious practices could help re-target the blame. Even if Dems don't win a strong bill, Corn points out that "losing a well-defined fight over the CFPA could be a winner for them, if it shows voters that the D's are battling for them and the R's are fronting for the banks."

After HCR is secured, Dem candidates must focus more intensely on job creation. But being seen as champions of a strong CFPA could also help Dems win swing voters, as well as re-energize our base.

Link | Comments (0)

Today's big whoop in the manic conservative drive to kill health care reform is a Washington Post op-ed by Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen urging Democrats to abandon reform and work with Republicans on "bipartisan" proposals like "purchasing insurance across state lines, malpractice reform, incrementally increasing coverage," and so on and so forth.

Now normally I don't like to get into the motives or personality of people making political arguments, but in this case it's inavoidable. The only reason anyone on earth is paying any attention to the views of Caddell and Schoen on this subject is that, as they note prominently in the WaPo piece, they used to work as pollsters for Democratic presidents (Schoen for Clinton, though it was really his business partner, Mark Penn, who had the White House account, and Cadell way back in the Carter administration). But the impression they give of being good Democrats who have finally spoken out in exasperation at the folly of health care reform is completely false. Schoen has never been much of a loyal Democrat; his latest enthusiasm has been encouraging a third party. And Caddell has a history of cranky eccentricity dating back at least a few decades. As Jon Chait points out, both of them have become fixtures on Fox News recently.

They are entitled to their opinion like anyone else, but Schoen and Caddell should check their worn-out Party Cards at the door before they write a piece repeating Republican talking points on health care reform.

Link | Comments (0)

As the hand-wringing and nail-biting about HCR shifts into overdrive, the latest polls bring some good news for Dems, explains WaPo's Chris Cillizza:

A new polling memo from Joel Benenson, the White House's pollster of choice, argues that support for President Barack Obama's health care plan has been building in the wake of his State of the Union speech in late January.

Since February 1, according to data compiled by Benenson, 44 percent of those tested in national surveys support the bill while 45 percent oppose it -- a sea change from the 38 percent favor/52 percent oppose average of polls conducted in the three months prior.

Not that anyone is going to get overly-optimistic about the new polling numbers, but Cillizza also warns:

While Benenson's numbers about the trend line of approval for the President's plan will be encouraging to nervous Democrats, even under his best case scenario the America public is deeply divided over whether the plan will work or not.

However, the GOP meme that "the public opposes the Democratic HCR legislation" was always a gross oversimplification, but unfortunately one which got a lot of media play. In addition, Benenson notes:

...Obama remains a more trusted figure than Congressional Republicans on the issue citing, as evidence, a Gallup poll released earlier this month that showed 49 percent of the sample confident in Obama's ability to reform health care and just 32 percent saying the same of congressional Republicans.

At least the trendline is in the right direction. In crafting their arguments during the next week (or longer if that's what it takes), Dems should take note of the latest Gallup poll, conducted 3/4-7, which indicates "the main reason" for opposing Dem HCR is the concern that it "will raise costs of insurance," cited by 20 percent of those opposing the legislation -- up from 9 percent in the Sept 11-13 poll.

Link | Comments (0)

When we last checked in on the Texas textbook wars, the craziest advocate on the state School Board for rewriting American history was a dentist named Don McLeroy, who had become so embarassing that he faced a Republican primary challenge from a more conventional conservative. The good news is that McLeroy lost, albeit very narrowly. The bad news is that he remains on the Board for ten more months, and as James McKinley explains in the New York Times today, McLemore and the conservative bloc he leads on the Board is going for the gold in imposing its revisionist views on the school children of the Lone Star State (and many other states, given Texas' outsized clout in the textbook market).

Check this out:

Dr. McLeroy still has 10 months to serve and he, along with rest of the religious conservatives on the board, have vowed to put their mark on the guidelines for social studies texts.

For instance, one guideline requires publishers to include a section on “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.”

There have also been efforts among conservatives on the board to tweak the history of the civil rights movement. One amendment states that the movement created “unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes” among minorities. Another proposed change removes any reference to race, sex or religion in talking about how different groups have contributed to the national identity.

Don't know if the instruction on the important role of the NRA will include in-class Eddie Eagle appearances, but it wouldn't surprise me. The revisionism does not, of course, only pertain to relatively current events:

References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed, while Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership, and the ideas in Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln’s speeches.

Early in the hearing on Wednesday, Mr. McLeroy and other conservatives on the board made it clear they would offer still more planks to highlight what they see as the Christian roots of the Constitution and other founding documents.

“To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie to our kids,” said Ken Mercer, a San Antonio Republican.

The new guidelines, when finally approved, will influence textbooks for elementary, middle school and high school. They will be written next year and will be in effect for 10 years.

It's long been a common ploy for Christian Right advocates to insist on the "Christian roots of the Constitution" as a way to marginalize the church-state-separatist legacy of Jefferson and Madison, and limit the protection of religious liberty to Christians (and we are talking about people with a rather rigid view of what constitutes a "Christian," with the President of the United States or pro-choice Catholics often not qualifying). The elevation of Confederate leaders into a position of moral equivalency with Lincoln also has an old and unsavory history, as anyone who grew up in the Jim Crow South (as I did) can tell you. But it's arguably not surprising to see such travesties gain ground in a state whose current governor has been known to flirt with antebellum theories of nullification and absolute state sovereignty.

Link | Comments (1)

Today's strange quasi-political news is that Tiger Woods has turned to former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer to help manage public relations for his comeback to the professional golf tour. Fleischer last made national news by becoming the spokesman for college football's Bowl Championship Series, and earlier represented Mark Maguire and (as they were getting rid of quarterback Brett Favre) the Green Bay Packers, powerfully unpopular clients all.

Ari's rise to become the hottest ticket in toxic waste management ranks right up there with AIG's bonuses as a talking point for those who argue that the world is ruled is operated by a malevolent demiurge rather than a just God. But perhaps, as he showed in the White House, he does have a unique talent for combining mediocrity with mendacity, and can protect his embattled clients by boring the news media into submission by repeating lies in a manner designed to induce a trance-like stupor.

Link | Comments (0)

The Republicans are flogging the ethics problems of Reps Massa and Rangel to smithereens in hopes of winning new support from independents and swing voters, a hefty percentage of whom see integrity in government as a pivotal issue. It would be a smart strategy -- if not for the fact that their own ethics problems dwarf those of the Dems.

To call attention to this comparison, the DCCC's Brandon English has just released a report entitled "Michael Steele: Republicans’ Glass House is Shattering," and it provides an excellent example of the fine art of political counterpunching. The text follows:

"That cracking noise you just heard was Republican National Committee Michael Steele’s glass house shattering. While Republicans hypocritically try to make ethics an issue, they would be well served to remember a few facts:

It is the Democrats who passed and enacted historic ethics reform that broke the link between lobbyists and legislators: no gifts, no private jets, and no meals from lobbyists.

It is the Democrats who passed and enacted unprecedented levels of transparency and disclosure, shining sunlight on the activities of Members of Congress and lobbyists.

It is the Democrats who established the Office of Congressional Ethics.

It is the Democrats who got the Ethics Committee – which didn’t function under Republicans – back to work.

When questions about ethics have been raised about any Member of Congress, Democrats have acted quickly to make sure it the question was addressed by the appropriate entity.

The Republican culture of corruption under Tom DeLay and Republican leadership had devastating consequences that the American people are still paying the price for: a complex and costly prescription drug bill written by drug companies, an energy policy written by the Big Oil companies, and record deficits to pay for tax breaks for their most wealthy friends. That’s why it’s not surprising to see disgraced former Republican Congressman Richard Pombo—who embodied the Republicans’ culture of corruption—win the endorsement of NRCC Recruitment Chair Kevin McCarthy.

Here are some of the residents of Republicans’ ethical glass House:

Continue reading "Ethics: The Dem Counterpunch" »

Link | Comments (0)

I was reading Spencer Ackerman's scathing summary of the foreign policy/national security sections of Mitt Romney's new book, No Apology, and had to laugh out loud at this brief aside:

Romney himself never served, and his unfamiliarity with military issues is evident in “No Apology.” He proposes adding “at least 100,000 soldiers to the army and the marines” (Marines are not soldiers)....

You don't have to have served, but need simply to have known a Marine (and they never, by the way, become "ex-Marines"), to be aware that Marines strongly object to being lumped in with Army folk as "soldiers." How that reference made it past the ghostwriter and various editors, in a book heavily focused on boosting Romney's national security street cred in anticipation of another presidential run, is beyond me.

Ackerman's broader indictment of the book is well worth a careful read. He covers Mitt's weird tyopology of America's enemies and "rivals;" his indifference to diplomacy, alliances and international institutions; and his shirking of any real analysis of what we should do in Afghanistan. His summation:

[A] glance through the remarkable conflation of conservative shibboleths, paranoid global fantasies and deterministic myopia in “No Apology” makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the perennial GOP candidate might have been better off saying nothing at all.

If, of course, you can't talk about, say, health care policy without getting into deep trouble, maybe even bad prose on national security is preferable. But Mitt does need to avoid insulting Marines.

Link | Comments (0)

One of the oldest and hoariest debates among pollsters and political scientists is the measurement of public opinion according to likelihood to vote in a particular election. Some polls show results for "all adults," some for "registered voters," and some for "likely voters." This last category is especially useful, if perilous, in projecting election results. It's useful for the obvious reason that the views of people who don't wind up voting are irrelevant to actual election results. It's perilous because determining likelihood to vote is not an exact science, and moreover, can produce some serious distortions. Pollsters typically use two different methods for measuring likelihood to vote: some are subjective, mainly involving poll respondents' own expressed interest in an election, and some are objective, including past voting behavior, and most controversial, post-survey "adjustments" of raw data to reflect the expected composition of the electorate. "Adjustments," in fact, are one of those factors (others include question language and question order) the biases of pollsters or their clients can become pretty important, but in general, "tight" likely-voter screens have recently produced results more favorable to Republicans.

Aside from measurement factors, there are two important reasons why going into the November elections, "likely voters" are more likely to lean Republican than "registered voters." The first is that historically, midterm elections attract an older and whiter electorate than presidential elections; given the weakness of Barack Obama among old white voters even in his 2008 victory, that's significant. The second is that likelihood to vote measures intensity of political engagement, and right now, there's little question Republicans are more "energized" than Democrats. So I'm certainly in full agreement that Democrats have what Jonathan Chait recently called (after examining the latest Democracy Corps/Third Way data on "drop-off" voters) a "turnout emergency" in 2010

But it's a very different matter altogether to use public opinion surveys sifted for likelihood to vote in the next election to measure the current "mood" of the American people on this or that issue--in other words, to treat polls as a sort of plebiscite on the wishes of the electorate as a whole. You see this every day when conservatives argue that "the people" or "America" has rejected health reform because likely 2010 voters in a poll tilt heavily against some formulation of health reform legislation. Such polls may well indicate a possibility that voters in November will react poorly to the enactment of health reform, but do not present a fair representation of public opinion on the subject. No one would seriously argue that only those voting-eligible adults who get through a pollster's LV screen are "people" or "Americans." So no one should use LV data to construct some sort of plebiscite. LV's will have their say in November. Let all Americans have their say when they are asked to express it.

Link | Comments (0)