Tag: yep

We’re stupider now. We seem to care less. We embrace “austerity”—budget cuts for anything that suggests we owe a collective obligation to one another. In Park Slope, Brooklyn, that fire station we marched past so solemnly on Friday, September 14, is scheduled to close down due to budget cuts. The Bush-era tax cuts still survive. Military actions overseas, many of them secret, are like a squeezed balloon, expanding every time they contract somewhere else. September 11, it seems, delivered us unto permanent war. But solidarity is on strike for the duration.

Rick Perlstein (via azspot)
Source: prospect.org

On the bright side.

ilyagerner:

A world without functioning traffic signals is preparing me for Ron Paul’s America. So far, lots of accidents, not much in the way of the emergent order that I’ve been promised.

I feel like this is almost certainly a confidence issue. The emergent order knows, deep down, that an alphabet soup of government regulatory agencies will soon descend upon said nascent and entirely beneficent order and smother it with numerous laws, storm taxes, and a litany of entirely new regulations, each of which are longer than War and Peace and several other books people have likely heard of. Thus, unwilling to pay taxes on purchases of new windows and fresh carpet and power lines and so forth, people will simply sit there and pine for Our Galtian Overlords to get on with it already. Ergo: It’s just the rationality of markets you are witnessing.

This is true: It is not clear how George Pataki would win over Republican voters with his pro-choice views or record of tax and spending increases. Or his lack of a national political network. Or his lack of charisma. (He once pointed out to Maureen Dowd that he prefers his soda flat.)

Apart from that I don’t see how this can fail.

David Weigel ponders Patakimentum.
America is not ready for a President who prefers flat soda. Ten years, maybe; 2012, no way.
Source: Slate

What Perlstein Said

So good:

There are few or no historical instances in which saying clearly what you are for and what you are against makes Americans less divided. But there is plenty of evidence that attacking the wealthy has not made them more divided. After all, the man who said of his own day’s plutocrats, “I welcome their hatred,” also assembled the most enduring political coalition in U.S. history.

The Republicans will call it class warfare. Let them. Done right, economic populism cools the political climate. Just knowing that the people in power are willing to lie down on the tracks for them can make the middle much less frantic. Which makes America a better place. And which, incidentally, makes Democrats win.

What Perlstein Said

File Under: Cogent

Hendrik Hertzberg deftly summarizes why Obama is systematically losing the left (the only folks who supported his Presidency to begin with):

Obama’s seeming refusal to hold [invoking the 14th Amendment to the Constitution] in reserve (“like the fire axe on the wall,” in Garrett Epps’s words) is emblematic of his all too civilized, all too accommodating negotiating strategy—indeed, of his whole approach to the nation’s larger economic dilemma, the most disappointing aspect of his Presidency. His stimulus package asked for too little and got less. He has allowed deficits and debt to supersede mass unemployment as the emergency of the moment. He has too readily accepted Republican terms of debate, such as likening the country to a household that must “live within its means.” (For even the most prudent householders, living within one’s means can include going into debt, as in taking out a car loan so that one can get to one’s job.) He has done too little to educate the public to the wisdom of post-Herbert Hoover economics: fiscal balance is achieved over time, not in a single year; in flush times a government should run a surplus, but when the economy falters deficits are part of the remedy; when the immediate problem is what it is now—a lack of demand, not a shortage of capital—higher spending is generally more efficacious than lower taxes, especially lower taxes on the rich.

The whole piece is fantastic, but this paragraph could easily form the basis of a savage, intellectually driven attack on Obama from the right. Well, it could if such a concept as “appealing to the intellect” or “thoughtful” even existed over there anymore. They’re too busy arguing over who loves the country the very most or who would starve the most children to death in their first 100 days to worry one little bit about convincing even a single Democrat or independent to join their particular crusade. For once: this is why the GOP will fail.

File Under: Cogent

Who’s To Blame?

Jay Bookman wants to know a few things:

Who rejected “the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program,” with cuts to entitlements accompanied by higher revenues, producing a debt reduction of $4 trillion, proposed by President Obama? That would have produced twice the debt reduction promised in the deal that was finally accepted.

Who rejected the very notion of compromise, making “the differences between political parties … extraordinarily difficult to bridge,” with one side announcing that only total capitulation by the other side would be accepted?

Who embraced the policy of political brinksmanship that pushed the country so perilously close to default? Who publicly embraced the threat of default as “a hostage that’s worth ransoming,” announcing that the tactic would be used every time the debt-ceiling issue arises from now on?

To hear any of these questions, much less any of their answers, one would be well advised not to even bother with the MSM. They are in full on “pox on both houses” mode. This is an entirely self-inflicted, politically motivated wound. Why won’t anyone ask the GOP why they thought it best to bring ‘em on?

Who’s To Blame?

The first [thing Michael Jordan’s oddly vindictive Hall of Fame induction speech makes clear] is that this induction was a formality that Jordan couldn’t enjoy the way a normal man might, since he’d lived almost half his life certain this moment was inevitable (it was like finally receiving a plaque for something he’d done in 1994). The second is that this speech was the last time anyone would think about Jordan as a living basketball player, and he knew it. Obviously, we’ll never stop talking about Jordan’s career, but — from now on — it will almost always be in reference to someone else.

Chuck Klosterman, writing for Grantland. One of the more perceptive paragraphs about sports (in general) and people like Jordan (in particular) that I’ve read.